The ArgusFemale police officers surrounded and assaulted after March for England (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Female police officers surrounded and assaulted after March for England

The Argus: Female police officers surrounded and assaulted after March for England Female police officers surrounded and assaulted after March for England

Two female police officers were assaulted after the March for England in Brighton on Sunday, April 27.

At around 2.30pm counter protesters who had been blocking Queens Road, the road to the station, were being moved by police.

Around 150 people, mostly dressed in black, were at the top of Queens Road and Surrey Street outside the Railway Bell pub.

Also at the pub were two women police officers, working as protest liaison officers, who were surrounded and knocked to the ground by around 60 protesters. They also had beer thrown at them.

Detective Chief Inspector Carwyn Hughes said: "These two uniformed police officers were working in a role of engaging with the protest groups and they were wearing distinctive blue tabards.

"They were surrounded by around 60 protesters, people who were part of the counter protest, deliberately knocked the officers to the ground and threw beer at them. These people acted in an extremely intimidating manner and although the officers weren't physically hurt, they were both very shaken.

"We have witnesses who say there was a woman in the crowd, who was very upset about the way the officers were treated, and I would appeal directly to her to speak to us to help us with our investigation.

"She was wearing a colourful dress and scarf. We know there were a lot of people in the area who would have seen what was going on, but not directly involved, and we urge them to get in touch. This was totally unacceptable behaviour and we are determined to trace those responsible. If anyone filmed any part of this incident, we are also urging you to get in touch with us.

"Please get in touch on 101 or email 101@sussex.pnn.police.uk quoting reference 1103 of 27/4."

Comments (82)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:13pm Wed 30 Apr 14

bikerjimbo says...

Totally deplorable. Hope they are OK. Even though they are police officers and no doubt used to aggressive behaviour the fact they are women make this far worse and when the offenders are caught my wish is that the judiciary meet out severe sentences.
Totally deplorable. Hope they are OK. Even though they are police officers and no doubt used to aggressive behaviour the fact they are women make this far worse and when the offenders are caught my wish is that the judiciary meet out severe sentences. bikerjimbo
  • Score: 30

6:32pm Wed 30 Apr 14

FC says...

Male officers were assaulted too, you know...
Male officers were assaulted too, you know... FC
  • Score: 35

6:35pm Wed 30 Apr 14

fredaj says...

FC wrote:
Male officers were assaulted too, you know...
And your point is?
[quote][p][bold]FC[/bold] wrote: Male officers were assaulted too, you know...[/p][/quote]And your point is? fredaj
  • Score: -26

6:38pm Wed 30 Apr 14

NathanAdler says...

I am probably going to be vilified for saying this but I swear on my children's lives that the majority of male police officers will agree, WPCs should not be in such situations.

The make as good a police officer for many aspects but when it comes to raw situations, only a man will do.

The thug of today does not mind assaulting man, woman or child. And although she may have an extendable baton, pepper spray and hand cuffs, it is no compensation for the muscles and fighting ability of a man.
I am probably going to be vilified for saying this but I swear on my children's lives that the majority of male police officers will agree, WPCs should not be in such situations. The make as good a police officer for many aspects but when it comes to raw situations, only a man will do. The thug of today does not mind assaulting man, woman or child. And although she may have an extendable baton, pepper spray and hand cuffs, it is no compensation for the muscles and fighting ability of a man. NathanAdler
  • Score: -10

7:27pm Wed 30 Apr 14

FC says...

fredaj wrote:
FC wrote:
Male officers were assaulted too, you know...
And your point is?
Just saying. I thought we were moving towards "equality"?
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FC[/bold] wrote: Male officers were assaulted too, you know...[/p][/quote]And your point is?[/p][/quote]Just saying. I thought we were moving towards "equality"? FC
  • Score: 21

7:47pm Wed 30 Apr 14

south1919 says...

Caroline Lucas where are you now,was this the people of Brighton or your anti fracking mates.em over to you
Caroline Lucas where are you now,was this the people of Brighton or your anti fracking mates.em over to you south1919
  • Score: 52

8:10pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Fight_Back says...

And let rather than condemn the violent lefties Lucus, Warren Morgan and Andy R SUPPORTED them !!!!
And let rather than condemn the violent lefties Lucus, Warren Morgan and Andy R SUPPORTED them !!!! Fight_Back
  • Score: 38

9:05pm Wed 30 Apr 14

cynic_the says...

And how many of the group have been charged with the very serious offence of Assaulting a Police Officer (male OR female)?

If it's none, then whoever was in charge of policing this debacle should resign immediately.
And how many of the group have been charged with the very serious offence of Assaulting a Police Officer (male OR female)? If it's none, then whoever was in charge of policing this debacle should resign immediately. cynic_the
  • Score: 14

9:31pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

This is absolutely disgraceful. Sixty big men beating two women. What a disgraceful situation. It's time this disgraceful march with its stragglers and opposition factions is banned. How proud they must be to be British men.
These people must be perverts. Can you imagine what goes on at their homes with their partners and kids.
Come on Sussex Police list those charged with offences relating to to incident.
This is absolutely disgraceful. Sixty big men beating two women. What a disgraceful situation. It's time this disgraceful march with its stragglers and opposition factions is banned. How proud they must be to be British men. These people must be perverts. Can you imagine what goes on at their homes with their partners and kids. Come on Sussex Police list those charged with offences relating to to incident. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 2

9:45pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Vigilia says...

What brings even more disgrace on Brighton and Hove is the fact that the only Green politician in the land and the leader of the Labour and Cooperative Group were amongst those supporting the modern day Sturm Abteilung. Does either even know what the word 'bigot' means?
What brings even more disgrace on Brighton and Hove is the fact that the only Green politician in the land and the leader of the Labour and Cooperative Group were amongst those supporting the modern day Sturm Abteilung. Does either even know what the word 'bigot' means? Vigilia
  • Score: 28

9:57pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. If anything it was reported in a manner that suggested the officers didn't think it was a big deal. How in such a situation the action can be determined to be deliberate is unclear and will be difficult to prove in court.
Unfortunate and if deliberate contemptible but what would the charge be?
As to the reference to modern day Sturm Abteilung- it was MfE who booed when a flag showing a swastika being thrown into a bin was unfurled during the march.
On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. If anything it was reported in a manner that suggested the officers didn't think it was a big deal. How in such a situation the action can be determined to be deliberate is unclear and will be difficult to prove in court. Unfortunate and if deliberate contemptible but what would the charge be? As to the reference to modern day Sturm Abteilung- it was MfE who booed when a flag showing a swastika being thrown into a bin was unfurled during the march. Arrggh
  • Score: -19

11:22pm Wed 30 Apr 14

NickBrt says...

When you have your local mp showing gross disrespect for the police after her court case how can you expect public to respect police?
When you have your local mp showing gross disrespect for the police after her court case how can you expect public to respect police? NickBrt
  • Score: 19

11:23pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

NickBrt wrote:
When you have your local mp showing gross disrespect for the police after her court case how can you expect public to respect police?
How much of the public look to mps to set an example about anything?
[quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: When you have your local mp showing gross disrespect for the police after her court case how can you expect public to respect police?[/p][/quote]How much of the public look to mps to set an example about anything? Arrggh
  • Score: 13

11:28pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Martha Gunn says...

Surely it is time for the local MP to condemn this shocking attack.

But what is the response ?

Complete and predictable silence from Lucas.
Surely it is time for the local MP to condemn this shocking attack. But what is the response ? Complete and predictable silence from Lucas. Martha Gunn
  • Score: 48

12:21am Thu 1 May 14

Dave At Home says...

I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different.

Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?
I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different. Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City? Dave At Home
  • Score: -7

12:26am Thu 1 May 14

whatevernext2013 says...

Arrggh wrote:
NickBrt wrote:
When you have your local mp showing gross disrespect for the police after her court case how can you expect public to respect police?
How much of the public look to mps to set an example about anything?
lots do ,if it ok for an MP to fiddle its ok for everybody to fiddle ,they do set some very low standards
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: When you have your local mp showing gross disrespect for the police after her court case how can you expect public to respect police?[/p][/quote]How much of the public look to mps to set an example about anything?[/p][/quote]lots do ,if it ok for an MP to fiddle its ok for everybody to fiddle ,they do set some very low standards whatevernext2013
  • Score: 11

12:37am Thu 1 May 14

Golfer69 says...

Dave At Home wrote:
I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different.

Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?
You have to remember the Marchers caused no trouble, if we like it or not! The main trouble came from the left wing as it did last year with the marchers retaliating, if the left wing had let the marchers into the station to catch their trains none of this would have happened.
[quote][p][bold]Dave At Home[/bold] wrote: I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different. Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?[/p][/quote]You have to remember the Marchers caused no trouble, if we like it or not! The main trouble came from the left wing as it did last year with the marchers retaliating, if the left wing had let the marchers into the station to catch their trains none of this would have happened. Golfer69
  • Score: 24

12:40am Thu 1 May 14

roystony says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
This is absolutely disgraceful. Sixty big men beating two women. What a disgraceful situation. It's time this disgraceful march with its stragglers and opposition factions is banned. How proud they must be to be British men.
These people must be perverts. Can you imagine what goes on at their homes with their partners and kids.
Come on Sussex Police list those charged with offences relating to to incident.
I think you didn't read the story, it was the leftys who did this
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: This is absolutely disgraceful. Sixty big men beating two women. What a disgraceful situation. It's time this disgraceful march with its stragglers and opposition factions is banned. How proud they must be to be British men. These people must be perverts. Can you imagine what goes on at their homes with their partners and kids. Come on Sussex Police list those charged with offences relating to to incident.[/p][/quote]I think you didn't read the story, it was the leftys who did this roystony
  • Score: 32

2:33am Thu 1 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
This is absolutely disgraceful. Sixty big men beating two women. What a disgraceful situation. It's time this disgraceful march with its stragglers and opposition factions is banned. How proud they must be to be British men.
These people must be perverts. Can you imagine what goes on at their homes with their partners and kids.
Come on Sussex Police list those charged with offences relating to to incident.
It was YOUR lot attacking these two officers. Such big hard 'men' in the UAF.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: This is absolutely disgraceful. Sixty big men beating two women. What a disgraceful situation. It's time this disgraceful march with its stragglers and opposition factions is banned. How proud they must be to be British men. These people must be perverts. Can you imagine what goes on at their homes with their partners and kids. Come on Sussex Police list those charged with offences relating to to incident.[/p][/quote]It was YOUR lot attacking these two officers. Such big hard 'men' in the UAF. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 20

2:35am Thu 1 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. If anything it was reported in a manner that suggested the officers didn't think it was a big deal. How in such a situation the action can be determined to be deliberate is unclear and will be difficult to prove in court.
Unfortunate and if deliberate contemptible but what would the charge be?
As to the reference to modern day Sturm Abteilung- it was MfE who booed when a flag showing a swastika being thrown into a bin was unfurled during the march.
Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. If anything it was reported in a manner that suggested the officers didn't think it was a big deal. How in such a situation the action can be determined to be deliberate is unclear and will be difficult to prove in court. Unfortunate and if deliberate contemptible but what would the charge be? As to the reference to modern day Sturm Abteilung- it was MfE who booed when a flag showing a swastika being thrown into a bin was unfurled during the march.[/p][/quote]Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 14

6:58am Thu 1 May 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

I don't give a toss if it was the lefties, the hippies, the chavs or the Jeremy Kyle marchers.
A group of 60 men attacked two women and you lot are posting on here whose fault it is and whining like babies and even make excuses. Listen to yourselves. You are not British, you are not decent people. It is disgraceful and just goes to show how low our country has sunk.
Men beating women and then people coming onto this forum defending or making excuses for it really is the lowest and this will now help ordinary, decent Brighton people to seek a ban on both sides from our city and I hope local families take action to get this banned.
I don't give a toss if it was the lefties, the hippies, the chavs or the Jeremy Kyle marchers. A group of 60 men attacked two women and you lot are posting on here whose fault it is and whining like babies and even make excuses. Listen to yourselves. You are not British, you are not decent people. It is disgraceful and just goes to show how low our country has sunk. Men beating women and then people coming onto this forum defending or making excuses for it really is the lowest and this will now help ordinary, decent Brighton people to seek a ban on both sides from our city and I hope local families take action to get this banned. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

7:37am Thu 1 May 14

brighton bluenose says...

Martha Gunn wrote:
Surely it is time for the local MP to condemn this shocking attack.

But what is the response ?

Complete and predictable silence from Lucas.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!
[quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: Surely it is time for the local MP to condemn this shocking attack. But what is the response ? Complete and predictable silence from Lucas.[/p][/quote]Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -10

7:40am Thu 1 May 14

brighton bluenose says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
This is absolutely disgraceful. Sixty big men beating two women. What a disgraceful situation. It's time this disgraceful march with its stragglers and opposition factions is banned. How proud they must be to be British men.
These people must be perverts. Can you imagine what goes on at their homes with their partners and kids.
Come on Sussex Police list those charged with offences relating to to incident.
If you actually read the report PROPERLY you would understand that it was the leftist rent-a-mob and not the MfE who attacked these officers!!
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: This is absolutely disgraceful. Sixty big men beating two women. What a disgraceful situation. It's time this disgraceful march with its stragglers and opposition factions is banned. How proud they must be to be British men. These people must be perverts. Can you imagine what goes on at their homes with their partners and kids. Come on Sussex Police list those charged with offences relating to to incident.[/p][/quote]If you actually read the report PROPERLY you would understand that it was the leftist rent-a-mob and not the MfE who attacked these officers!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 18

9:54am Thu 1 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. If anything it was reported in a manner that suggested the officers didn't think it was a big deal. How in such a situation the action can be determined to be deliberate is unclear and will be difficult to prove in court.
Unfortunate and if deliberate contemptible but what would the charge be?
As to the reference to modern day Sturm Abteilung- it was MfE who booed when a flag showing a swastika being thrown into a bin was unfurled during the march.
Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum.
As it was reported on the day the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack.
Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been.
The footage from the Dorset clearly shows there was trouble from both sides but apparently not enough to warrant doing anything different next year.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. If anything it was reported in a manner that suggested the officers didn't think it was a big deal. How in such a situation the action can be determined to be deliberate is unclear and will be difficult to prove in court. Unfortunate and if deliberate contemptible but what would the charge be? As to the reference to modern day Sturm Abteilung- it was MfE who booed when a flag showing a swastika being thrown into a bin was unfurled during the march.[/p][/quote]Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum.[/p][/quote]As it was reported on the day the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack. Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. The footage from the Dorset clearly shows there was trouble from both sides but apparently not enough to warrant doing anything different next year. Arrggh
  • Score: 1

9:56am Thu 1 May 14

Arrggh says...

Free money wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. If anything it was reported in a manner that suggested the officers didn't think it was a big deal. How in such a situation the action can be determined to be deliberate is unclear and will be difficult to prove in court.
Unfortunate and if deliberate contemptible but what would the charge be?
As to the reference to modern day Sturm Abteilung- it was MfE who booed when a flag showing a swastika being thrown into a bin was unfurled during the march.
Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum.
Thank you pure if only i knew people like you.They did a British officer that makes them scum. I love my Queen and country does that make me bad??? Most of these left wing dogs like children and got away with it for years.
In English please?
[quote][p][bold]Free money[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. If anything it was reported in a manner that suggested the officers didn't think it was a big deal. How in such a situation the action can be determined to be deliberate is unclear and will be difficult to prove in court. Unfortunate and if deliberate contemptible but what would the charge be? As to the reference to modern day Sturm Abteilung- it was MfE who booed when a flag showing a swastika being thrown into a bin was unfurled during the march.[/p][/quote]Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum.[/p][/quote]Thank you pure if only i knew people like you.They did a British officer that makes them scum. I love my Queen and country does that make me bad??? Most of these left wing dogs like children and got away with it for years.[/p][/quote]In English please? Arrggh
  • Score: 4

10:35am Thu 1 May 14

roystony says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
I don't give a toss if it was the lefties, the hippies, the chavs or the Jeremy Kyle marchers.
A group of 60 men attacked two women and you lot are posting on here whose fault it is and whining like babies and even make excuses. Listen to yourselves. You are not British, you are not decent people. It is disgraceful and just goes to show how low our country has sunk.
Men beating women and then people coming onto this forum defending or making excuses for it really is the lowest and this will now help ordinary, decent Brighton people to seek a ban on both sides from our city and I hope local families take action to get this banned.
You're just a wind up merchant
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: I don't give a toss if it was the lefties, the hippies, the chavs or the Jeremy Kyle marchers. A group of 60 men attacked two women and you lot are posting on here whose fault it is and whining like babies and even make excuses. Listen to yourselves. You are not British, you are not decent people. It is disgraceful and just goes to show how low our country has sunk. Men beating women and then people coming onto this forum defending or making excuses for it really is the lowest and this will now help ordinary, decent Brighton people to seek a ban on both sides from our city and I hope local families take action to get this banned.[/p][/quote]You're just a wind up merchant roystony
  • Score: 1

10:38am Thu 1 May 14

Wide Bertha says...

nothing like a bit of unelected, corrupt head of state love
nothing like a bit of unelected, corrupt head of state love Wide Bertha
  • Score: 1

11:34am Thu 1 May 14

Telscombe Cliffy says...

Golfer69 wrote:
Dave At Home wrote:
I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different.

Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?
You have to remember the Marchers caused no trouble, if we like it or not! The main trouble came from the left wing as it did last year with the marchers retaliating, if the left wing had let the marchers into the station to catch their trains none of this would have happened.
Good point, if the left wanted them out of town then why did they try to block them just a few yards from the station?
[quote][p][bold]Golfer69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave At Home[/bold] wrote: I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different. Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?[/p][/quote]You have to remember the Marchers caused no trouble, if we like it or not! The main trouble came from the left wing as it did last year with the marchers retaliating, if the left wing had let the marchers into the station to catch their trains none of this would have happened.[/p][/quote]Good point, if the left wanted them out of town then why did they try to block them just a few yards from the station? Telscombe Cliffy
  • Score: 12

12:35pm Thu 1 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

" two women police officers, working as protest liaison officers, who were surrounded and knocked to the ground by around 60 protesters. They also had beer thrown at them. "

To those of us who understand English, that described an attack.

One lefty tried to absolve the UAF scum from any blame:

"On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. "

by claiming it was just one of those things. The life blog reported the incident and commented upon what was known at the time. It was only later that the police decided the incident was serious enough to warrant investigation.

At 6.31pm, the blog actually stated:

"Reports suggest she had become separated from a colleague when she was set upon. It is thought anti-fascist protesters were involved. "

which shows that there HAD been an attack, not just an unfortunate collision.
" two women police officers, working as protest liaison officers, who were surrounded and knocked to the ground by around 60 protesters. They also had beer thrown at them. " To those of us who understand English, that described an attack. One lefty tried to absolve the UAF scum from any blame: "On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. " by claiming it was just one of those things. The life blog reported the incident and commented upon what was known at the time. It was only later that the police decided the incident was serious enough to warrant investigation. At 6.31pm, the blog actually stated: "Reports suggest she had become separated from a colleague when she was set upon. It is thought anti-fascist protesters were involved. " which shows that there HAD been an attack, not just an unfortunate collision. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 6

1:25pm Thu 1 May 14

PorkyChopper says...

Free money wrote:
Dave At Home wrote:
I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different.

Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?
What but muslims can march in Luton saying burn the British police??? I bet the first thing you do when one of your family gets hurt is phone the British police.The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country scum do.Try living in a world without them you won't like it believe me.
."The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country..." Trying to get my head round this garbled nonsense, what you are trying to say is basically. 1. Mark Duggan wasn't killed by the police. Well, yes, he was. It's a fact. 2. The police don't kill people in this country. Erm, again, yes they do. Another fact. Mark Duggan being a recent case, Blair Peach and Liddle Towers being two historic cases I remember from my childhood, Jean-Charles Menezes, Harry Stanley, Raoul Moat, to name a few off the top of my head.
[quote][p][bold]Free money[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave At Home[/bold] wrote: I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different. Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?[/p][/quote]What but muslims can march in Luton saying burn the British police??? I bet the first thing you do when one of your family gets hurt is phone the British police.The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country scum do.Try living in a world without them you won't like it believe me.[/p][/quote]."The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country..." Trying to get my head round this garbled nonsense, what you are trying to say is basically. 1. Mark Duggan wasn't killed by the police. Well, yes, he was. It's a fact. 2. The police don't kill people in this country. Erm, again, yes they do. Another fact. Mark Duggan being a recent case, Blair Peach and Liddle Towers being two historic cases I remember from my childhood, Jean-Charles Menezes, Harry Stanley, Raoul Moat, to name a few off the top of my head. PorkyChopper
  • Score: -5

1:37pm Thu 1 May 14

PorkyChopper says...

Free money wrote:
Dave At Home wrote:
I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different.

Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?
What but muslims can march in Luton saying burn the British police??? I bet the first thing you do when one of your family gets hurt is phone the British police.The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country scum do.Try living in a world without them you won't like it believe me.
Why would someone phone the police if a member of their family got hurt? So if your daughter has an accident, you call the police? You'd be better off having a look at the injury, and depending on how serious it was, either clean it and put a plaster on it, go and see a doctor, go to hospital or call an ambulance.
[quote][p][bold]Free money[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave At Home[/bold] wrote: I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different. Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?[/p][/quote]What but muslims can march in Luton saying burn the British police??? I bet the first thing you do when one of your family gets hurt is phone the British police.The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country scum do.Try living in a world without them you won't like it believe me.[/p][/quote]Why would someone phone the police if a member of their family got hurt? So if your daughter has an accident, you call the police? You'd be better off having a look at the injury, and depending on how serious it was, either clean it and put a plaster on it, go and see a doctor, go to hospital or call an ambulance. PorkyChopper
  • Score: -4

1:46pm Thu 1 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

PorkyChopper wrote:
Free money wrote:
Dave At Home wrote:
I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different.

Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?
What but muslims can march in Luton saying burn the British police??? I bet the first thing you do when one of your family gets hurt is phone the British police.The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country scum do.Try living in a world without them you won't like it believe me.
."The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country..." Trying to get my head round this garbled nonsense, what you are trying to say is basically. 1. Mark Duggan wasn't killed by the police. Well, yes, he was. It's a fact. 2. The police don't kill people in this country. Erm, again, yes they do. Another fact. Mark Duggan being a recent case, Blair Peach and Liddle Towers being two historic cases I remember from my childhood, Jean-Charles Menezes, Harry Stanley, Raoul Moat, to name a few off the top of my head.
The point being (and it was a simple point, though not simple enough for some) is that the Duggan chants on Sunday were meant to be abusive towards the police. After all, Duggan wasn't involved in MFE or patriotism - quote the opposite, in fact.

There are always going to be instances where police kill people, and sometimes intentionally when required. They have a job to do.

The fact remains that some of the UAF were intent of having a ruck on Sunday, and it shows that they weren't bothered who with.

Oh, and Moat killed himself......HTH
[quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Free money[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave At Home[/bold] wrote: I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different. Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?[/p][/quote]What but muslims can march in Luton saying burn the British police??? I bet the first thing you do when one of your family gets hurt is phone the British police.The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country scum do.Try living in a world without them you won't like it believe me.[/p][/quote]."The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country..." Trying to get my head round this garbled nonsense, what you are trying to say is basically. 1. Mark Duggan wasn't killed by the police. Well, yes, he was. It's a fact. 2. The police don't kill people in this country. Erm, again, yes they do. Another fact. Mark Duggan being a recent case, Blair Peach and Liddle Towers being two historic cases I remember from my childhood, Jean-Charles Menezes, Harry Stanley, Raoul Moat, to name a few off the top of my head.[/p][/quote]The point being (and it was a simple point, though not simple enough for some) is that the Duggan chants on Sunday were meant to be abusive towards the police. After all, Duggan wasn't involved in MFE or patriotism - quote the opposite, in fact. There are always going to be instances where police kill people, and sometimes intentionally when required. They have a job to do. The fact remains that some of the UAF were intent of having a ruck on Sunday, and it shows that they weren't bothered who with. Oh, and Moat killed himself......HTH ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 8

3:41pm Thu 1 May 14

Levent says...

NOTHING NEW...JUST LEFTIES SHOWING US ALL HOW TOLERANT AND PEACEFUL THEY ARE AGAIN!! HOW "LIBERAL" OF THEM EH?. PURE SCUM!!
NOTHING NEW...JUST LEFTIES SHOWING US ALL HOW TOLERANT AND PEACEFUL THEY ARE AGAIN!! HOW "LIBERAL" OF THEM EH?. PURE SCUM!! Levent
  • Score: 12

4:22pm Thu 1 May 14

PorkyChopper says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
PorkyChopper wrote:
Free money wrote:
Dave At Home wrote:
I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different.

Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?
What but muslims can march in Luton saying burn the British police??? I bet the first thing you do when one of your family gets hurt is phone the British police.The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country scum do.Try living in a world without them you won't like it believe me.
."The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country..." Trying to get my head round this garbled nonsense, what you are trying to say is basically. 1. Mark Duggan wasn't killed by the police. Well, yes, he was. It's a fact. 2. The police don't kill people in this country. Erm, again, yes they do. Another fact. Mark Duggan being a recent case, Blair Peach and Liddle Towers being two historic cases I remember from my childhood, Jean-Charles Menezes, Harry Stanley, Raoul Moat, to name a few off the top of my head.
The point being (and it was a simple point, though not simple enough for some) is that the Duggan chants on Sunday were meant to be abusive towards the police. After all, Duggan wasn't involved in MFE or patriotism - quote the opposite, in fact.

There are always going to be instances where police kill people, and sometimes intentionally when required. They have a job to do.

The fact remains that some of the UAF were intent of having a ruck on Sunday, and it shows that they weren't bothered who with.

Oh, and Moat killed himself......HTH
I wasn't there so didn't know the crowd was shouting this in Brighton. I assumed it had something to do with a recent demo in Tottenham. The poster stated that "The police don't kill people in this country...". They do. Those listed are just a few. Take Raoul Moat off and replace him with Dale Burns, tasered to death around the same time as Duggan was shot (although the reactions from the local community were predictably different). I agree, the UAF don't know the meaning of the phrase "peaceful protest" and would start a ruck in an empty field, or with anyone they arbitrarily decided was a "fascist". Yes, the police have a job to do. They sometimes do it as well, when they aren't protecting big businesses, covering up corruption in their own ranks, beating people senseless in the cells and drinking in the local Freemasons lodge. I could live without the police, as I am quite capable of dealing with any threat to myself, my family or my property without getting them involved.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Free money[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave At Home[/bold] wrote: I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different. Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?[/p][/quote]What but muslims can march in Luton saying burn the British police??? I bet the first thing you do when one of your family gets hurt is phone the British police.The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country scum do.Try living in a world without them you won't like it believe me.[/p][/quote]."The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country..." Trying to get my head round this garbled nonsense, what you are trying to say is basically. 1. Mark Duggan wasn't killed by the police. Well, yes, he was. It's a fact. 2. The police don't kill people in this country. Erm, again, yes they do. Another fact. Mark Duggan being a recent case, Blair Peach and Liddle Towers being two historic cases I remember from my childhood, Jean-Charles Menezes, Harry Stanley, Raoul Moat, to name a few off the top of my head.[/p][/quote]The point being (and it was a simple point, though not simple enough for some) is that the Duggan chants on Sunday were meant to be abusive towards the police. After all, Duggan wasn't involved in MFE or patriotism - quote the opposite, in fact. There are always going to be instances where police kill people, and sometimes intentionally when required. They have a job to do. The fact remains that some of the UAF were intent of having a ruck on Sunday, and it shows that they weren't bothered who with. Oh, and Moat killed himself......HTH[/p][/quote]I wasn't there so didn't know the crowd was shouting this in Brighton. I assumed it had something to do with a recent demo in Tottenham. The poster stated that "The police don't kill people in this country...". They do. Those listed are just a few. Take Raoul Moat off and replace him with Dale Burns, tasered to death around the same time as Duggan was shot (although the reactions from the local community were predictably different). I agree, the UAF don't know the meaning of the phrase "peaceful protest" and would start a ruck in an empty field, or with anyone they arbitrarily decided was a "fascist". Yes, the police have a job to do. They sometimes do it as well, when they aren't protecting big businesses, covering up corruption in their own ranks, beating people senseless in the cells and drinking in the local Freemasons lodge. I could live without the police, as I am quite capable of dealing with any threat to myself, my family or my property without getting them involved. PorkyChopper
  • Score: -2

4:47pm Thu 1 May 14

hubby says...

MFE would have more respect for women than to assault them and throw beer at them.
They are people who despair at the direction their country is moving in and the undesirables taking their homes and jobs.
Mostly middle aged men who have been in the forces and fought for the freedoms that are being eroded and replaced by hatred against the white person, and immigrants with no respect for British Law.
MFE would have more respect for women than to assault them and throw beer at them. They are people who despair at the direction their country is moving in and the undesirables taking their homes and jobs. Mostly middle aged men who have been in the forces and fought for the freedoms that are being eroded and replaced by hatred against the white person, and immigrants with no respect for British Law. hubby
  • Score: 8

6:41pm Thu 1 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

PorkyChopper wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
PorkyChopper wrote:
Free money wrote:
Dave At Home wrote:
I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different.

Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?
What but muslims can march in Luton saying burn the British police??? I bet the first thing you do when one of your family gets hurt is phone the British police.The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country scum do.Try living in a world without them you won't like it believe me.
."The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country..." Trying to get my head round this garbled nonsense, what you are trying to say is basically. 1. Mark Duggan wasn't killed by the police. Well, yes, he was. It's a fact. 2. The police don't kill people in this country. Erm, again, yes they do. Another fact. Mark Duggan being a recent case, Blair Peach and Liddle Towers being two historic cases I remember from my childhood, Jean-Charles Menezes, Harry Stanley, Raoul Moat, to name a few off the top of my head.
The point being (and it was a simple point, though not simple enough for some) is that the Duggan chants on Sunday were meant to be abusive towards the police. After all, Duggan wasn't involved in MFE or patriotism - quote the opposite, in fact.

There are always going to be instances where police kill people, and sometimes intentionally when required. They have a job to do.

The fact remains that some of the UAF were intent of having a ruck on Sunday, and it shows that they weren't bothered who with.

Oh, and Moat killed himself......HTH
I wasn't there so didn't know the crowd was shouting this in Brighton. I assumed it had something to do with a recent demo in Tottenham. The poster stated that "The police don't kill people in this country...". They do. Those listed are just a few. Take Raoul Moat off and replace him with Dale Burns, tasered to death around the same time as Duggan was shot (although the reactions from the local community were predictably different). I agree, the UAF don't know the meaning of the phrase "peaceful protest" and would start a ruck in an empty field, or with anyone they arbitrarily decided was a "fascist". Yes, the police have a job to do. They sometimes do it as well, when they aren't protecting big businesses, covering up corruption in their own ranks, beating people senseless in the cells and drinking in the local Freemasons lodge. I could live without the police, as I am quite capable of dealing with any threat to myself, my family or my property without getting them involved.
You make it sound as if your neighbours are very pleased that we have a police force.
[quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Free money[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave At Home[/bold] wrote: I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different. Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?[/p][/quote]What but muslims can march in Luton saying burn the British police??? I bet the first thing you do when one of your family gets hurt is phone the British police.The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country scum do.Try living in a world without them you won't like it believe me.[/p][/quote]."The police had to put up with on Sunday you killed Mark Duggan lol.The police don't kill people in this country..." Trying to get my head round this garbled nonsense, what you are trying to say is basically. 1. Mark Duggan wasn't killed by the police. Well, yes, he was. It's a fact. 2. The police don't kill people in this country. Erm, again, yes they do. Another fact. Mark Duggan being a recent case, Blair Peach and Liddle Towers being two historic cases I remember from my childhood, Jean-Charles Menezes, Harry Stanley, Raoul Moat, to name a few off the top of my head.[/p][/quote]The point being (and it was a simple point, though not simple enough for some) is that the Duggan chants on Sunday were meant to be abusive towards the police. After all, Duggan wasn't involved in MFE or patriotism - quote the opposite, in fact. There are always going to be instances where police kill people, and sometimes intentionally when required. They have a job to do. The fact remains that some of the UAF were intent of having a ruck on Sunday, and it shows that they weren't bothered who with. Oh, and Moat killed himself......HTH[/p][/quote]I wasn't there so didn't know the crowd was shouting this in Brighton. I assumed it had something to do with a recent demo in Tottenham. The poster stated that "The police don't kill people in this country...". They do. Those listed are just a few. Take Raoul Moat off and replace him with Dale Burns, tasered to death around the same time as Duggan was shot (although the reactions from the local community were predictably different). I agree, the UAF don't know the meaning of the phrase "peaceful protest" and would start a ruck in an empty field, or with anyone they arbitrarily decided was a "fascist". Yes, the police have a job to do. They sometimes do it as well, when they aren't protecting big businesses, covering up corruption in their own ranks, beating people senseless in the cells and drinking in the local Freemasons lodge. I could live without the police, as I am quite capable of dealing with any threat to myself, my family or my property without getting them involved.[/p][/quote]You make it sound as if your neighbours are very pleased that we have a police force. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 2

6:42pm Thu 1 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

roystony wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
I don't give a toss if it was the lefties, the hippies, the chavs or the Jeremy Kyle marchers.
A group of 60 men attacked two women and you lot are posting on here whose fault it is and whining like babies and even make excuses. Listen to yourselves. You are not British, you are not decent people. It is disgraceful and just goes to show how low our country has sunk.
Men beating women and then people coming onto this forum defending or making excuses for it really is the lowest and this will now help ordinary, decent Brighton people to seek a ban on both sides from our city and I hope local families take action to get this banned.
You're just a wind up merchant
He's also racist towards Romanians.
[quote][p][bold]roystony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: I don't give a toss if it was the lefties, the hippies, the chavs or the Jeremy Kyle marchers. A group of 60 men attacked two women and you lot are posting on here whose fault it is and whining like babies and even make excuses. Listen to yourselves. You are not British, you are not decent people. It is disgraceful and just goes to show how low our country has sunk. Men beating women and then people coming onto this forum defending or making excuses for it really is the lowest and this will now help ordinary, decent Brighton people to seek a ban on both sides from our city and I hope local families take action to get this banned.[/p][/quote]You're just a wind up merchant[/p][/quote]He's also racist towards Romanians. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -1

8:40pm Thu 1 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

"Reports suggest she had become separated from a colleague when she was set upon. It is thought anti-fascist protesters were involved. "

So the UAF 'hard-men' waited til she was on her own before attacking her. It just shows how two women were too much for them to take on.

UAF/Antifa are utter cowards.
"Reports suggest she had become separated from a colleague when she was set upon. It is thought anti-fascist protesters were involved. " So the UAF 'hard-men' waited til she was on her own before attacking her. It just shows how two women were too much for them to take on. UAF/Antifa are utter cowards. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 9

10:13pm Thu 1 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
" two women police officers, working as protest liaison officers, who were surrounded and knocked to the ground by around 60 protesters. They also had beer thrown at them. "

To those of us who understand English, that described an attack.

One lefty tried to absolve the UAF scum from any blame:

"On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. "

by claiming it was just one of those things. The life blog reported the incident and commented upon what was known at the time. It was only later that the police decided the incident was serious enough to warrant investigation.

At 6.31pm, the blog actually stated:

"Reports suggest she had become separated from a colleague when she was set upon. It is thought anti-fascist protesters were involved. "

which shows that there HAD been an attack, not just an unfortunate collision.
Not trying to absolve anyone of anything- how was it an attack if no one was injured? My point was that the report on the day was incredibly vague and the description of events since don't describe an attack if two officers were surrounded by sixty protesters and didn't get hurt.
I wandered around with my girlfriend on the day and in the rush to clear a street was almost knocked over by the police. It wasn't intentional and I knew they were very busy and can't see everywhere so just shrugged it off as no big deal. Not suggesting the officers should have just shrugged it off but what kind of attack at such odds results in no injuries?
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: " two women police officers, working as protest liaison officers, who were surrounded and knocked to the ground by around 60 protesters. They also had beer thrown at them. " To those of us who understand English, that described an attack. One lefty tried to absolve the UAF scum from any blame: "On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. " by claiming it was just one of those things. The life blog reported the incident and commented upon what was known at the time. It was only later that the police decided the incident was serious enough to warrant investigation. At 6.31pm, the blog actually stated: "Reports suggest she had become separated from a colleague when she was set upon. It is thought anti-fascist protesters were involved. " which shows that there HAD been an attack, not just an unfortunate collision.[/p][/quote]Not trying to absolve anyone of anything- how was it an attack if no one was injured? My point was that the report on the day was incredibly vague and the description of events since don't describe an attack if two officers were surrounded by sixty protesters and didn't get hurt. I wandered around with my girlfriend on the day and in the rush to clear a street was almost knocked over by the police. It wasn't intentional and I knew they were very busy and can't see everywhere so just shrugged it off as no big deal. Not suggesting the officers should have just shrugged it off but what kind of attack at such odds results in no injuries? Arrggh
  • Score: -1

2:39am Fri 2 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
" two women police officers, working as protest liaison officers, who were surrounded and knocked to the ground by around 60 protesters. They also had beer thrown at them. "

To those of us who understand English, that described an attack.

One lefty tried to absolve the UAF scum from any blame:

"On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. "

by claiming it was just one of those things. The life blog reported the incident and commented upon what was known at the time. It was only later that the police decided the incident was serious enough to warrant investigation.

At 6.31pm, the blog actually stated:

"Reports suggest she had become separated from a colleague when she was set upon. It is thought anti-fascist protesters were involved. "

which shows that there HAD been an attack, not just an unfortunate collision.
Not trying to absolve anyone of anything- how was it an attack if no one was injured? My point was that the report on the day was incredibly vague and the description of events since don't describe an attack if two officers were surrounded by sixty protesters and didn't get hurt.
I wandered around with my girlfriend on the day and in the rush to clear a street was almost knocked over by the police. It wasn't intentional and I knew they were very busy and can't see everywhere so just shrugged it off as no big deal. Not suggesting the officers should have just shrugged it off but what kind of attack at such odds results in no injuries?
"how was it an attack if no one was injured?"

For the reasons given by the police, The Argus, and the OED. They were knocked to the ground.

If it wasn't an attack, why are the police asking for witnesses and wanting to find those who did it?

"This was totally unacceptable behaviour and we are determined to trace those responsible."

Go and have a shower instead of defending your fellow scum.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: " two women police officers, working as protest liaison officers, who were surrounded and knocked to the ground by around 60 protesters. They also had beer thrown at them. " To those of us who understand English, that described an attack. One lefty tried to absolve the UAF scum from any blame: "On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. " by claiming it was just one of those things. The life blog reported the incident and commented upon what was known at the time. It was only later that the police decided the incident was serious enough to warrant investigation. At 6.31pm, the blog actually stated: "Reports suggest she had become separated from a colleague when she was set upon. It is thought anti-fascist protesters were involved. " which shows that there HAD been an attack, not just an unfortunate collision.[/p][/quote]Not trying to absolve anyone of anything- how was it an attack if no one was injured? My point was that the report on the day was incredibly vague and the description of events since don't describe an attack if two officers were surrounded by sixty protesters and didn't get hurt. I wandered around with my girlfriend on the day and in the rush to clear a street was almost knocked over by the police. It wasn't intentional and I knew they were very busy and can't see everywhere so just shrugged it off as no big deal. Not suggesting the officers should have just shrugged it off but what kind of attack at such odds results in no injuries?[/p][/quote]"how was it an attack if no one was injured?" For the reasons given by the police, The Argus, and the OED. They were knocked to the ground. If it wasn't an attack, why are the police asking for witnesses and wanting to find those who did it? "This was totally unacceptable behaviour and we are determined to trace those responsible." Go and have a shower instead of defending your fellow scum. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

10:19am Fri 2 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
" two women police officers, working as protest liaison officers, who were surrounded and knocked to the ground by around 60 protesters. They also had beer thrown at them. "

To those of us who understand English, that described an attack.

One lefty tried to absolve the UAF scum from any blame:

"On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. "

by claiming it was just one of those things. The life blog reported the incident and commented upon what was known at the time. It was only later that the police decided the incident was serious enough to warrant investigation.

At 6.31pm, the blog actually stated:

"Reports suggest she had become separated from a colleague when she was set upon. It is thought anti-fascist protesters were involved. "

which shows that there HAD been an attack, not just an unfortunate collision.
Not trying to absolve anyone of anything- how was it an attack if no one was injured? My point was that the report on the day was incredibly vague and the description of events since don't describe an attack if two officers were surrounded by sixty protesters and didn't get hurt.
I wandered around with my girlfriend on the day and in the rush to clear a street was almost knocked over by the police. It wasn't intentional and I knew they were very busy and can't see everywhere so just shrugged it off as no big deal. Not suggesting the officers should have just shrugged it off but what kind of attack at such odds results in no injuries?
"how was it an attack if no one was injured?"

For the reasons given by the police, The Argus, and the OED. They were knocked to the ground.

If it wasn't an attack, why are the police asking for witnesses and wanting to find those who did it?

"This was totally unacceptable behaviour and we are determined to trace those responsible."

Go and have a shower instead of defending your fellow scum.
Oh you're using the dictionary now- that should help.
I simply questioned the language used, the choice of wording was emotive but didn't add any new information.
Do you think if I went to the police station to report an attack but then told them I was uninjured and had only been knocked over that they would take me seriously.
Some of the behaviour of the anti-protesters was unacceptable- I don't dispute that. Their actions in front of the Dorset made no sense- returning furniture that had been used as a weapon isn't sensible.
Is this really the worst the Argus could find? If I'd said this had happened at the hands of marchers would you be saying the same?
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: " two women police officers, working as protest liaison officers, who were surrounded and knocked to the ground by around 60 protesters. They also had beer thrown at them. " To those of us who understand English, that described an attack. One lefty tried to absolve the UAF scum from any blame: "On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. " by claiming it was just one of those things. The life blog reported the incident and commented upon what was known at the time. It was only later that the police decided the incident was serious enough to warrant investigation. At 6.31pm, the blog actually stated: "Reports suggest she had become separated from a colleague when she was set upon. It is thought anti-fascist protesters were involved. " which shows that there HAD been an attack, not just an unfortunate collision.[/p][/quote]Not trying to absolve anyone of anything- how was it an attack if no one was injured? My point was that the report on the day was incredibly vague and the description of events since don't describe an attack if two officers were surrounded by sixty protesters and didn't get hurt. I wandered around with my girlfriend on the day and in the rush to clear a street was almost knocked over by the police. It wasn't intentional and I knew they were very busy and can't see everywhere so just shrugged it off as no big deal. Not suggesting the officers should have just shrugged it off but what kind of attack at such odds results in no injuries?[/p][/quote]"how was it an attack if no one was injured?" For the reasons given by the police, The Argus, and the OED. They were knocked to the ground. If it wasn't an attack, why are the police asking for witnesses and wanting to find those who did it? "This was totally unacceptable behaviour and we are determined to trace those responsible." Go and have a shower instead of defending your fellow scum.[/p][/quote]Oh you're using the dictionary now- that should help. I simply questioned the language used, the choice of wording was emotive but didn't add any new information. Do you think if I went to the police station to report an attack but then told them I was uninjured and had only been knocked over that they would take me seriously. Some of the behaviour of the anti-protesters was unacceptable- I don't dispute that. Their actions in front of the Dorset made no sense- returning furniture that had been used as a weapon isn't sensible. Is this really the worst the Argus could find? If I'd said this had happened at the hands of marchers would you be saying the same? Arrggh
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Fri 2 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
" two women police officers, working as protest liaison officers, who were surrounded and knocked to the ground by around 60 protesters. They also had beer thrown at them. "

To those of us who understand English, that described an attack.

One lefty tried to absolve the UAF scum from any blame:

"On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. "

by claiming it was just one of those things. The life blog reported the incident and commented upon what was known at the time. It was only later that the police decided the incident was serious enough to warrant investigation.

At 6.31pm, the blog actually stated:

"Reports suggest she had become separated from a colleague when she was set upon. It is thought anti-fascist protesters were involved. "

which shows that there HAD been an attack, not just an unfortunate collision.
Not trying to absolve anyone of anything- how was it an attack if no one was injured? My point was that the report on the day was incredibly vague and the description of events since don't describe an attack if two officers were surrounded by sixty protesters and didn't get hurt.
I wandered around with my girlfriend on the day and in the rush to clear a street was almost knocked over by the police. It wasn't intentional and I knew they were very busy and can't see everywhere so just shrugged it off as no big deal. Not suggesting the officers should have just shrugged it off but what kind of attack at such odds results in no injuries?
"how was it an attack if no one was injured?"

For the reasons given by the police, The Argus, and the OED. They were knocked to the ground.

If it wasn't an attack, why are the police asking for witnesses and wanting to find those who did it?

"This was totally unacceptable behaviour and we are determined to trace those responsible."

Go and have a shower instead of defending your fellow scum.
Oh you're using the dictionary now- that should help.
I simply questioned the language used, the choice of wording was emotive but didn't add any new information.
Do you think if I went to the police station to report an attack but then told them I was uninjured and had only been knocked over that they would take me seriously.
Some of the behaviour of the anti-protesters was unacceptable- I don't dispute that. Their actions in front of the Dorset made no sense- returning furniture that had been used as a weapon isn't sensible.
Is this really the worst the Argus could find? If I'd said this had happened at the hands of marchers would you be saying the same?
Using a dictionary should help you, but I suspect that it won't.

You' re plainly upset at The Argus had told you about the attack on these women and that the police want ti find out who did it. You don't seem at all upset about the fact that they were attacked.

" Some of the behaviour of the anti-protesters was unacceptable...."

But you don't think they were involved in this incident. Hmmmm.....
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: " two women police officers, working as protest liaison officers, who were surrounded and knocked to the ground by around 60 protesters. They also had beer thrown at them. " To those of us who understand English, that described an attack. One lefty tried to absolve the UAF scum from any blame: "On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. " by claiming it was just one of those things. The life blog reported the incident and commented upon what was known at the time. It was only later that the police decided the incident was serious enough to warrant investigation. At 6.31pm, the blog actually stated: "Reports suggest she had become separated from a colleague when she was set upon. It is thought anti-fascist protesters were involved. " which shows that there HAD been an attack, not just an unfortunate collision.[/p][/quote]Not trying to absolve anyone of anything- how was it an attack if no one was injured? My point was that the report on the day was incredibly vague and the description of events since don't describe an attack if two officers were surrounded by sixty protesters and didn't get hurt. I wandered around with my girlfriend on the day and in the rush to clear a street was almost knocked over by the police. It wasn't intentional and I knew they were very busy and can't see everywhere so just shrugged it off as no big deal. Not suggesting the officers should have just shrugged it off but what kind of attack at such odds results in no injuries?[/p][/quote]"how was it an attack if no one was injured?" For the reasons given by the police, The Argus, and the OED. They were knocked to the ground. If it wasn't an attack, why are the police asking for witnesses and wanting to find those who did it? "This was totally unacceptable behaviour and we are determined to trace those responsible." Go and have a shower instead of defending your fellow scum.[/p][/quote]Oh you're using the dictionary now- that should help. I simply questioned the language used, the choice of wording was emotive but didn't add any new information. Do you think if I went to the police station to report an attack but then told them I was uninjured and had only been knocked over that they would take me seriously. Some of the behaviour of the anti-protesters was unacceptable- I don't dispute that. Their actions in front of the Dorset made no sense- returning furniture that had been used as a weapon isn't sensible. Is this really the worst the Argus could find? If I'd said this had happened at the hands of marchers would you be saying the same?[/p][/quote]Using a dictionary should help you, but I suspect that it won't. You' re plainly upset at The Argus had told you about the attack on these women and that the police want ti find out who did it. You don't seem at all upset about the fact that they were attacked. " Some of the behaviour of the anti-protesters was unacceptable...." But you don't think they were involved in this incident. Hmmmm..... ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 1

6:18pm Fri 2 May 14

Arrggh says...

Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appear inaccurate to put it mildly.
Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appear inaccurate to put it mildly. Arrggh
  • Score: -2

7:16pm Fri 2 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appear inaccurate to put it mildly.
An attack is not defined by its results.

It is defined by its intent and circumstances, hence my reference to the OED which you plainly required.

HTH
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appear inaccurate to put it mildly.[/p][/quote]An attack is not defined by its results. It is defined by its intent and circumstances, hence my reference to the OED which you plainly required. HTH ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

7:30pm Fri 2 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appear inaccurate to put it mildly.
The OED defines an attack as: "An aggressive and violent act against a person or place"

The Argus article quotes the police saying:

"They were surrounded by around 60 protesters, people who were part of the counter protest, deliberately knocked the officers to the ground and threw beer at them. These people acted in an extremely intimidating manner and although the officers weren't physically hurt, they were both very shaken. "

'Knocked to the ground' describes an attack.

HTH
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appear inaccurate to put it mildly.[/p][/quote]The OED defines an attack as: "An aggressive and violent act against a person or place" The Argus article quotes the police saying: "They were surrounded by around 60 protesters, people who were part of the counter protest, deliberately knocked the officers to the ground and threw beer at them. These people acted in an extremely intimidating manner and although the officers weren't physically hurt, they were both very shaken. " 'Knocked to the ground' describes an attack. HTH ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Fri 2 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appear inaccurate to put it mildly.
The OED defines an attack as: "An aggressive and violent act against a person or place"

The Argus article quotes the police saying:

"They were surrounded by around 60 protesters, people who were part of the counter protest, deliberately knocked the officers to the ground and threw beer at them. These people acted in an extremely intimidating manner and although the officers weren't physically hurt, they were both very shaken. "

'Knocked to the ground' describes an attack.

HTH
My distinction was not etymological but legal- do the police think they will charge sixty people with assault, affray or anything?
I would have described the article as much ado about nothing even if it had been MfE involved- it's vague and sensationalist but it's the Argus.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appear inaccurate to put it mildly.[/p][/quote]The OED defines an attack as: "An aggressive and violent act against a person or place" The Argus article quotes the police saying: "They were surrounded by around 60 protesters, people who were part of the counter protest, deliberately knocked the officers to the ground and threw beer at them. These people acted in an extremely intimidating manner and although the officers weren't physically hurt, they were both very shaken. " 'Knocked to the ground' describes an attack. HTH[/p][/quote]My distinction was not etymological but legal- do the police think they will charge sixty people with assault, affray or anything? I would have described the article as much ado about nothing even if it had been MfE involved- it's vague and sensationalist but it's the Argus. Arrggh
  • Score: 1

1:26am Sat 3 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appear inaccurate to put it mildly.
The OED defines an attack as: "An aggressive and violent act against a person or place"

The Argus article quotes the police saying:

"They were surrounded by around 60 protesters, people who were part of the counter protest, deliberately knocked the officers to the ground and threw beer at them. These people acted in an extremely intimidating manner and although the officers weren't physically hurt, they were both very shaken. "

'Knocked to the ground' describes an attack.

HTH
My distinction was not etymological but legal- do the police think they will charge sixty people with assault, affray or anything?
I would have described the article as much ado about nothing even if it had been MfE involved- it's vague and sensationalist but it's the Argus.
So two women being attacked on the streets of Brighton is a non-story as far as you're concerned.

Thankfully, decent people are concerned at what happened and want to punish those involved. I suggest you walk away from the discussion.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appear inaccurate to put it mildly.[/p][/quote]The OED defines an attack as: "An aggressive and violent act against a person or place" The Argus article quotes the police saying: "They were surrounded by around 60 protesters, people who were part of the counter protest, deliberately knocked the officers to the ground and threw beer at them. These people acted in an extremely intimidating manner and although the officers weren't physically hurt, they were both very shaken. " 'Knocked to the ground' describes an attack. HTH[/p][/quote]My distinction was not etymological but legal- do the police think they will charge sixty people with assault, affray or anything? I would have described the article as much ado about nothing even if it had been MfE involved- it's vague and sensationalist but it's the Argus.[/p][/quote]So two women being attacked on the streets of Brighton is a non-story as far as you're concerned. Thankfully, decent people are concerned at what happened and want to punish those involved. I suggest you walk away from the discussion. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Sat 3 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appear inaccurate to put it mildly.
The OED defines an attack as: "An aggressive and violent act against a person or place"

The Argus article quotes the police saying:

"They were surrounded by around 60 protesters, people who were part of the counter protest, deliberately knocked the officers to the ground and threw beer at them. These people acted in an extremely intimidating manner and although the officers weren't physically hurt, they were both very shaken. "

'Knocked to the ground' describes an attack.

HTH
My distinction was not etymological but legal- do the police think they will charge sixty people with assault, affray or anything?
I would have described the article as much ado about nothing even if it had been MfE involved- it's vague and sensationalist but it's the Argus.
So two women being attacked on the streets of Brighton is a non-story as far as you're concerned.

Thankfully, decent people are concerned at what happened and want to punish those involved. I suggest you walk away from the discussion.
If the 'attack' was so severe that they were left a little flustered and nothing more then yes a non story. You should listen to your own advice.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appear inaccurate to put it mildly.[/p][/quote]The OED defines an attack as: "An aggressive and violent act against a person or place" The Argus article quotes the police saying: "They were surrounded by around 60 protesters, people who were part of the counter protest, deliberately knocked the officers to the ground and threw beer at them. These people acted in an extremely intimidating manner and although the officers weren't physically hurt, they were both very shaken. " 'Knocked to the ground' describes an attack. HTH[/p][/quote]My distinction was not etymological but legal- do the police think they will charge sixty people with assault, affray or anything? I would have described the article as much ado about nothing even if it had been MfE involved- it's vague and sensationalist but it's the Argus.[/p][/quote]So two women being attacked on the streets of Brighton is a non-story as far as you're concerned. Thankfully, decent people are concerned at what happened and want to punish those involved. I suggest you walk away from the discussion.[/p][/quote]If the 'attack' was so severe that they were left a little flustered and nothing more then yes a non story. You should listen to your own advice. Arrggh
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Sat 3 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appear inaccurate to put it mildly.
The OED defines an attack as: "An aggressive and violent act against a person or place"

The Argus article quotes the police saying:

"They were surrounded by around 60 protesters, people who were part of the counter protest, deliberately knocked the officers to the ground and threw beer at them. These people acted in an extremely intimidating manner and although the officers weren't physically hurt, they were both very shaken. "

'Knocked to the ground' describes an attack.

HTH
My distinction was not etymological but legal- do the police think they will charge sixty people with assault, affray or anything?
I would have described the article as much ado about nothing even if it had been MfE involved- it's vague and sensationalist but it's the Argus.
So two women being attacked on the streets of Brighton is a non-story as far as you're concerned.

Thankfully, decent people are concerned at what happened and want to punish those involved. I suggest you walk away from the discussion.
If the 'attack' was so severe that they were left a little flustered and nothing more then yes a non story. You should listen to your own advice.
If it were a non-story, why did the police appeal for witnesses? You're welcome.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appear inaccurate to put it mildly.[/p][/quote]The OED defines an attack as: "An aggressive and violent act against a person or place" The Argus article quotes the police saying: "They were surrounded by around 60 protesters, people who were part of the counter protest, deliberately knocked the officers to the ground and threw beer at them. These people acted in an extremely intimidating manner and although the officers weren't physically hurt, they were both very shaken. " 'Knocked to the ground' describes an attack. HTH[/p][/quote]My distinction was not etymological but legal- do the police think they will charge sixty people with assault, affray or anything? I would have described the article as much ado about nothing even if it had been MfE involved- it's vague and sensationalist but it's the Argus.[/p][/quote]So two women being attacked on the streets of Brighton is a non-story as far as you're concerned. Thankfully, decent people are concerned at what happened and want to punish those involved. I suggest you walk away from the discussion.[/p][/quote]If the 'attack' was so severe that they were left a little flustered and nothing more then yes a non story. You should listen to your own advice.[/p][/quote]If it were a non-story, why did the police appeal for witnesses? You're welcome. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

6:53pm Sat 3 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL. Arrggh
  • Score: 0

7:39pm Sat 3 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.You questioned my use of the word 'attack', and I explained why I used it.

It's not up to me to get you to understand English. You're welcome.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.[/p][/quote]You questioned my use of the word 'attack', and I explained why I used it. It's not up to me to get you to understand English. You're welcome. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

11:48am Sun 4 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.You questioned my use of the word 'attack', and I explained why I used it.

It's not up to me to get you to understand English. You're welcome.Says the man who refused to answer when asked if he had passed it at GCSE.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.[/p][/quote]You questioned my use of the word 'attack', and I explained why I used it. It's not up to me to get you to understand English. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]Says the man who refused to answer when asked if he had passed it at GCSE. Arrggh
  • Score: 0

11:57pm Sun 4 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.You questioned my use of the word 'attack', and I explained why I used it.

It's not up to me to get you to understand English. You're welcome.Says the man who refused to answer when asked if he had passed it at GCSE.So you've realised what a thick c*nt you are, not knowing what 'assault' and 'attack' mean.

You'll be telling me next that you don't know what soap is, you smelly, thick lefty t w*t.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.[/p][/quote]You questioned my use of the word 'attack', and I explained why I used it. It's not up to me to get you to understand English. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]Says the man who refused to answer when asked if he had passed it at GCSE.[/p][/quote]So you've realised what a thick c*nt you are, not knowing what 'assault' and 'attack' mean. You'll be telling me next that you don't know what soap is, you smelly, thick lefty t w*t. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 1

11:06am Wed 7 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.You questioned my use of the word 'attack', and I explained why I used it.

It's not up to me to get you to understand English. You're welcome.Says the man who refused to answer when asked if he had passed it at GCSE.So you've realised what a thick c*nt you are, not knowing what 'assault' and 'attack' mean.

You'll be telling me next that you don't know what soap is, you smelly, thick lefty t w*t.Touched a nerve there did I? No shame in having trouble at school but if you think you can debate then catching up a little would help. It was the Argus use of words I questioned not yours by the way. The number of times you have needed to clarify what you meant to other posters should give you a clue.
Do try to calm down.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.[/p][/quote]You questioned my use of the word 'attack', and I explained why I used it. It's not up to me to get you to understand English. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]Says the man who refused to answer when asked if he had passed it at GCSE.[/p][/quote]So you've realised what a thick c*nt you are, not knowing what 'assault' and 'attack' mean. You'll be telling me next that you don't know what soap is, you smelly, thick lefty t w*t.[/p][/quote]Touched a nerve there did I? No shame in having trouble at school but if you think you can debate then catching up a little would help. It was the Argus use of words I questioned not yours by the way. The number of times you have needed to clarify what you meant to other posters should give you a clue. Do try to calm down. Arrggh
  • Score: 1

12:14pm Wed 7 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.You questioned my use of the word 'attack', and I explained why I used it.

It's not up to me to get you to understand English. You're welcome.Says the man who refused to answer when asked if he had passed it at GCSE.So you've realised what a thick c*nt you are, not knowing what 'assault' and 'attack' mean.

You'll be telling me next that you don't know what soap is, you smelly, thick lefty t w*t.Touched a nerve there did I? No shame in having trouble at school but if you think you can debate then catching up a little would help. It was the Argus use of words I questioned not yours by the way. The number of times you have needed to clarify what you meant to other posters should give you a clue.
Do try to calm down.I have debated the topic at length, and it's a real shame I had to point that out to you, but it does confirm my opinion that you're an ignorant thug.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.[/p][/quote]You questioned my use of the word 'attack', and I explained why I used it. It's not up to me to get you to understand English. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]Says the man who refused to answer when asked if he had passed it at GCSE.[/p][/quote]So you've realised what a thick c*nt you are, not knowing what 'assault' and 'attack' mean. You'll be telling me next that you don't know what soap is, you smelly, thick lefty t w*t.[/p][/quote]Touched a nerve there did I? No shame in having trouble at school but if you think you can debate then catching up a little would help. It was the Argus use of words I questioned not yours by the way. The number of times you have needed to clarify what you meant to other posters should give you a clue. Do try to calm down.[/p][/quote]I have debated the topic at length, and it's a real shame I had to point that out to you, but it does confirm my opinion that you're an ignorant thug. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Wed 7 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.You questioned my use of the word 'attack', and I explained why I used it.

It's not up to me to get you to understand English. You're welcome.Says the man who refused to answer when asked if he had passed it at GCSE.So you've realised what a thick c*nt you are, not knowing what 'assault' and 'attack' mean.

You'll be telling me next that you don't know what soap is, you smelly, thick lefty t w*t.Touched a nerve there did I? No shame in having trouble at school but if you think you can debate then catching up a little would help. It was the Argus use of words I questioned not yours by the way. The number of times you have needed to clarify what you meant to other posters should give you a clue.
Do try to calm down.I have debated the topic at length, and it's a real shame I had to point that out to you, but it does confirm my opinion that you're an ignorant thug.Zeegee ffs- your version of a debate shows just how much catching up you need- repeating yourself doesn't amount to a rebuttal.
There are a few different ways you can improve your language skills later in life but that would mean admitting you don't already know everything.
Thug? Well it's slightly more imaginative than unwashed but wide of the mark again.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.[/p][/quote]You questioned my use of the word 'attack', and I explained why I used it. It's not up to me to get you to understand English. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]Says the man who refused to answer when asked if he had passed it at GCSE.[/p][/quote]So you've realised what a thick c*nt you are, not knowing what 'assault' and 'attack' mean. You'll be telling me next that you don't know what soap is, you smelly, thick lefty t w*t.[/p][/quote]Touched a nerve there did I? No shame in having trouble at school but if you think you can debate then catching up a little would help. It was the Argus use of words I questioned not yours by the way. The number of times you have needed to clarify what you meant to other posters should give you a clue. Do try to calm down.[/p][/quote]I have debated the topic at length, and it's a real shame I had to point that out to you, but it does confirm my opinion that you're an ignorant thug.[/p][/quote]Zeegee ffs- your version of a debate shows just how much catching up you need- repeating yourself doesn't amount to a rebuttal. There are a few different ways you can improve your language skills later in life but that would mean admitting you don't already know everything. Thug? Well it's slightly more imaginative than unwashed but wide of the mark again. Arrggh
  • Score: 0

12:37pm Wed 7 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.You questioned my use of the word 'attack', and I explained why I used it.

It's not up to me to get you to understand English. You're welcome.Says the man who refused to answer when asked if he had passed it at GCSE.So you've realised what a thick c*nt you are, not knowing what 'assault' and 'attack' mean.

You'll be telling me next that you don't know what soap is, you smelly, thick lefty t w*t.Touched a nerve there did I? No shame in having trouble at school but if you think you can debate then catching up a little would help. It was the Argus use of words I questioned not yours by the way. The number of times you have needed to clarify what you meant to other posters should give you a clue.
Do try to calm down.I have debated the topic at length, and it's a real shame I had to point that out to you, but it does confirm my opinion that you're an ignorant thug.Zeegee ffs- your version of a debate shows just how much catching up you need- repeating yourself doesn't amount to a rebuttal.
There are a few different ways you can improve your language skills later in life but that would mean admitting you don't already know everything.
Thug? Well it's slightly more imaginative than unwashed but wide of the mark again.The reason why I needed to repeat points is that *someone* didn't find them easy enough to understand.

Having to have the word 'attack' explained to you didn't tell you anything about your lack of intelligence?
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.[/p][/quote]You questioned my use of the word 'attack', and I explained why I used it. It's not up to me to get you to understand English. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]Says the man who refused to answer when asked if he had passed it at GCSE.[/p][/quote]So you've realised what a thick c*nt you are, not knowing what 'assault' and 'attack' mean. You'll be telling me next that you don't know what soap is, you smelly, thick lefty t w*t.[/p][/quote]Touched a nerve there did I? No shame in having trouble at school but if you think you can debate then catching up a little would help. It was the Argus use of words I questioned not yours by the way. The number of times you have needed to clarify what you meant to other posters should give you a clue. Do try to calm down.[/p][/quote]I have debated the topic at length, and it's a real shame I had to point that out to you, but it does confirm my opinion that you're an ignorant thug.[/p][/quote]Zeegee ffs- your version of a debate shows just how much catching up you need- repeating yourself doesn't amount to a rebuttal. There are a few different ways you can improve your language skills later in life but that would mean admitting you don't already know everything. Thug? Well it's slightly more imaginative than unwashed but wide of the mark again.[/p][/quote]The reason why I needed to repeat points is that *someone* didn't find them easy enough to understand. Having to have the word 'attack' explained to you didn't tell you anything about your lack of intelligence? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Wed 7 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.You questioned my use of the word 'attack', and I explained why I used it.

It's not up to me to get you to understand English. You're welcome.Says the man who refused to answer when asked if he had passed it at GCSE.So you've realised what a thick c*nt you are, not knowing what 'assault' and 'attack' mean.

You'll be telling me next that you don't know what soap is, you smelly, thick lefty t w*t.Touched a nerve there did I? No shame in having trouble at school but if you think you can debate then catching up a little would help. It was the Argus use of words I questioned not yours by the way. The number of times you have needed to clarify what you meant to other posters should give you a clue.
Do try to calm down.I have debated the topic at length, and it's a real shame I had to point that out to you, but it does confirm my opinion that you're an ignorant thug.Zeegee ffs- your version of a debate shows just how much catching up you need- repeating yourself doesn't amount to a rebuttal.
There are a few different ways you can improve your language skills later in life but that would mean admitting you don't already know everything.
Thug? Well it's slightly more imaginative than unwashed but wide of the mark again.The reason why I needed to repeat points is that *someone* didn't find them easy enough to understand.

Having to have the word 'attack' explained to you didn't tell you anything about your lack of intelligence?Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned but I guess your comprehension skills weren't up to it. Repeating yourself again.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- the fact that you're not the brightest is already obvious- I was questioning the use of the word 'attack.' If an incident occurred and no injuries resulted then the word does appearWell if you want to take the polices word for everything all those that I spoke to last Sunday said the march was EDL.[/p][/quote]You questioned my use of the word 'attack', and I explained why I used it. It's not up to me to get you to understand English. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]Says the man who refused to answer when asked if he had passed it at GCSE.[/p][/quote]So you've realised what a thick c*nt you are, not knowing what 'assault' and 'attack' mean. You'll be telling me next that you don't know what soap is, you smelly, thick lefty t w*t.[/p][/quote]Touched a nerve there did I? No shame in having trouble at school but if you think you can debate then catching up a little would help. It was the Argus use of words I questioned not yours by the way. The number of times you have needed to clarify what you meant to other posters should give you a clue. Do try to calm down.[/p][/quote]I have debated the topic at length, and it's a real shame I had to point that out to you, but it does confirm my opinion that you're an ignorant thug.[/p][/quote]Zeegee ffs- your version of a debate shows just how much catching up you need- repeating yourself doesn't amount to a rebuttal. There are a few different ways you can improve your language skills later in life but that would mean admitting you don't already know everything. Thug? Well it's slightly more imaginative than unwashed but wide of the mark again.[/p][/quote]The reason why I needed to repeat points is that *someone* didn't find them easy enough to understand. Having to have the word 'attack' explained to you didn't tell you anything about your lack of intelligence?[/p][/quote]Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned but I guess your comprehension skills weren't up to it. Repeating yourself again. Arrggh
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Wed 7 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

A noted liar gets caught lying again.

His latest claim:

"Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned "

Oh really? Here's my comment in which I used the word 'attacked':

"Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum."

He quoted this, and replied:

" the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack.
Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. "

Note how the liar questioned my use of the word 'attacked'.

OED - question: "Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to"
A noted liar gets caught lying again. His latest claim: "Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned " Oh really? Here's my comment in which I used the word 'attacked': "Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum." He quoted this, and replied: " the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack. Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. " Note how the liar questioned my use of the word 'attacked'. OED - question: "Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to" ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Wed 7 May 14

Mr chock says...

Golfer69 wrote:
Dave At Home wrote:
I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different.

Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?
You have to remember the Marchers caused no trouble, if we like it or not! The main trouble came from the left wing as it did last year with the marchers retaliating, if the left wing had let the marchers into the station to catch their trains none of this would have happened.
what might have happened is the march for Britian group might have just got a few angry men in the gathering and sadly the "flash point " situation got a bit nasty i was in the city and noticed a massive amount of Vote ukip vandalism
[quote][p][bold]Golfer69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave At Home[/bold] wrote: I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different. Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?[/p][/quote]You have to remember the Marchers caused no trouble, if we like it or not! The main trouble came from the left wing as it did last year with the marchers retaliating, if the left wing had let the marchers into the station to catch their trains none of this would have happened.[/p][/quote]what might have happened is the march for Britian group might have just got a few angry men in the gathering and sadly the "flash point " situation got a bit nasty i was in the city and noticed a massive amount of Vote ukip vandalism Mr chock
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Wed 7 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Mr chock wrote:
Golfer69 wrote:
Dave At Home wrote:
I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different.

Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?
You have to remember the Marchers caused no trouble, if we like it or not! The main trouble came from the left wing as it did last year with the marchers retaliating, if the left wing had let the marchers into the station to catch their trains none of this would have happened.
what might have happened is the march for Britian group might have just got a few angry men in the gathering and sadly the "flash point " situation got a bit nasty i was in the city and noticed a massive amount of Vote ukip vandalism
You mean 'vote UKIP ' was written on a wall.?

How was that anything to do with the March?
[quote][p][bold]Mr chock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Golfer69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave At Home[/bold] wrote: I can't believe this news.... we were told it was a peaceful event and they could not be barred from Brighton because there was no thuggery, no violence, no trouble yet looking at the videos of the day and the news I seem to have been watching something totally different. Yet again, a flash point was allowed in Brighton and decent locals were frightened to go about their business because of being caught in the troubles, when will Sussex (& Surrey now) Police refuse these people the right to march in our City?[/p][/quote]You have to remember the Marchers caused no trouble, if we like it or not! The main trouble came from the left wing as it did last year with the marchers retaliating, if the left wing had let the marchers into the station to catch their trains none of this would have happened.[/p][/quote]what might have happened is the march for Britian group might have just got a few angry men in the gathering and sadly the "flash point " situation got a bit nasty i was in the city and noticed a massive amount of Vote ukip vandalism[/p][/quote]You mean 'vote UKIP ' was written on a wall.? How was that anything to do with the March? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Wed 7 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
A noted liar gets caught lying again.

His latest claim:

"Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned "

Oh really? Here's my comment in which I used the word 'attacked':

"Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum."

He quoted this, and replied:

" the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack.
Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. "

Note how the liar questioned my use of the word 'attacked'.

OED - question: "Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to"
You are funny- but repeating yourself tediously. You can't even manage to take the p*ss. Have you ever passed any kind of test that involved a working knowledge of English?
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: A noted liar gets caught lying again. His latest claim: "Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned " Oh really? Here's my comment in which I used the word 'attacked': "Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum." He quoted this, and replied: " the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack. Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. " Note how the liar questioned my use of the word 'attacked'. OED - question: "Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to"[/p][/quote]You are funny- but repeating yourself tediously. You can't even manage to take the p*ss. Have you ever passed any kind of test that involved a working knowledge of English? Arrggh
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Wed 7 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
A noted liar gets caught lying again.

His latest claim:

"Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned "

Oh really? Here's my comment in which I used the word 'attacked':

"Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum."

He quoted this, and replied:

" the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack.
Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. "

Note how the liar questioned my use of the word 'attacked'.

OED - question: "Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to"
You are funny- but repeating yourself tediously. You can't even manage to take the p*ss. Have you ever passed any kind of test that involved a working knowledge of English?
I exposed you as a liar again. You seem quite proud of it.



Don't be.......
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: A noted liar gets caught lying again. His latest claim: "Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned " Oh really? Here's my comment in which I used the word 'attacked': "Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum." He quoted this, and replied: " the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack. Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. " Note how the liar questioned my use of the word 'attacked'. OED - question: "Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to"[/p][/quote]You are funny- but repeating yourself tediously. You can't even manage to take the p*ss. Have you ever passed any kind of test that involved a working knowledge of English?[/p][/quote]I exposed you as a liar again. You seem quite proud of it. Don't be....... ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Wed 7 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
A noted liar gets caught lying again.

His latest claim:

"Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned "

Oh really? Here's my comment in which I used the word 'attacked':

"Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum."

He quoted this, and replied:

" the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack.
Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. "

Note how the liar questioned my use of the word 'attacked'.

OED - question: "Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to"
You are funny- but repeating yourself tediously. You can't even manage to take the p*ss. Have you ever passed any kind of test that involved a working knowledge of English?
I exposed you as a liar again. You seem quite proud of it.



Don't be.......
You read a lot into words that aren't there. Look back at the questions you never answered- by your logic you agree with all of them.
You exposed nothing but your own stupidity- yet you still manage to feel superior?
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: A noted liar gets caught lying again. His latest claim: "Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned " Oh really? Here's my comment in which I used the word 'attacked': "Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum." He quoted this, and replied: " the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack. Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. " Note how the liar questioned my use of the word 'attacked'. OED - question: "Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to"[/p][/quote]You are funny- but repeating yourself tediously. You can't even manage to take the p*ss. Have you ever passed any kind of test that involved a working knowledge of English?[/p][/quote]I exposed you as a liar again. You seem quite proud of it. Don't be.......[/p][/quote]You read a lot into words that aren't there. Look back at the questions you never answered- by your logic you agree with all of them. You exposed nothing but your own stupidity- yet you still manage to feel superior? Arrggh
  • Score: 0

2:41pm Wed 7 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
A noted liar gets caught lying again.

His latest claim:

"Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned "

Oh really? Here's my comment in which I used the word 'attacked':

"Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum."

He quoted this, and replied:

" the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack.
Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. "

Note how the liar questioned my use of the word 'attacked'.

OED - question: "Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to"
You are funny- but repeating yourself tediously. You can't even manage to take the p*ss. Have you ever passed any kind of test that involved a working knowledge of English?
I exposed you as a liar again. You seem quite proud of it.



Don't be.......
You read a lot into words that aren't there. Look back at the questions you never answered- by your logic you agree with all of them.
You exposed nothing but your own stupidity- yet you still manage to feel superior?
Your comments are showing, so the words in question are 'there'. You were caught claiming that you hadn't questioned my use of 'attack' yet earlier were shown doing so.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: A noted liar gets caught lying again. His latest claim: "Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned " Oh really? Here's my comment in which I used the word 'attacked': "Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum." He quoted this, and replied: " the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack. Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. " Note how the liar questioned my use of the word 'attacked'. OED - question: "Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to"[/p][/quote]You are funny- but repeating yourself tediously. You can't even manage to take the p*ss. Have you ever passed any kind of test that involved a working knowledge of English?[/p][/quote]I exposed you as a liar again. You seem quite proud of it. Don't be.......[/p][/quote]You read a lot into words that aren't there. Look back at the questions you never answered- by your logic you agree with all of them. You exposed nothing but your own stupidity- yet you still manage to feel superior?[/p][/quote]Your comments are showing, so the words in question are 'there'. You were caught claiming that you hadn't questioned my use of 'attack' yet earlier were shown doing so. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Wed 7 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
A noted liar gets caught lying again.

His latest claim:

"Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned "

Oh really? Here's my comment in which I used the word 'attacked':

"Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum."

He quoted this, and replied:

" the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack.
Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. "

Note how the liar questioned my use of the word 'attacked'.

OED - question: "Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to"
You are funny- but repeating yourself tediously. You can't even manage to take the p*ss. Have you ever passed any kind of test that involved a working knowledge of English?
I exposed you as a liar again. You seem quite proud of it.



Don't be.......
You read a lot into words that aren't there. Look back at the questions you never answered- by your logic you agree with all of them.
You exposed nothing but your own stupidity- yet you still manage to feel superior?
Your comments are showing, so the words in question are 'there'. You were caught claiming that you hadn't questioned my use of 'attack' yet earlier were shown doing so.
'You seem quite proud of it.'
That's what i was referring to and by your own logic you have never passed a test that involved a working knowledge of English. Failed again.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: A noted liar gets caught lying again. His latest claim: "Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned " Oh really? Here's my comment in which I used the word 'attacked': "Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum." He quoted this, and replied: " the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack. Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. " Note how the liar questioned my use of the word 'attacked'. OED - question: "Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to"[/p][/quote]You are funny- but repeating yourself tediously. You can't even manage to take the p*ss. Have you ever passed any kind of test that involved a working knowledge of English?[/p][/quote]I exposed you as a liar again. You seem quite proud of it. Don't be.......[/p][/quote]You read a lot into words that aren't there. Look back at the questions you never answered- by your logic you agree with all of them. You exposed nothing but your own stupidity- yet you still manage to feel superior?[/p][/quote]Your comments are showing, so the words in question are 'there'. You were caught claiming that you hadn't questioned my use of 'attack' yet earlier were shown doing so.[/p][/quote]'You seem quite proud of it.' That's what i was referring to and by your own logic you have never passed a test that involved a working knowledge of English. Failed again. Arrggh
  • Score: 0

5:16pm Wed 7 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
A noted liar gets caught lying again.

His latest claim:

"Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned "

Oh really? Here's my comment in which I used the word 'attacked':

"Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum."

He quoted this, and replied:

" the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack.
Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. "

Note how the liar questioned my use of the word 'attacked'.

OED - question: "Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to"
You are funny- but repeating yourself tediously. You can't even manage to take the p*ss. Have you ever passed any kind of test that involved a working knowledge of English?
I exposed you as a liar again. You seem quite proud of it.



Don't be.......
You read a lot into words that aren't there. Look back at the questions you never answered- by your logic you agree with all of them.
You exposed nothing but your own stupidity- yet you still manage to feel superior?
Your comments are showing, so the words in question are 'there'. You were caught claiming that you hadn't questioned my use of 'attack' yet earlier were shown doing so.
'You seem quite proud of it.'
That's what i was referring to and by your own logic you have never passed a test that involved a working knowledge of English. Failed again.
So you're not proud of lying or you're not proud of being caught lying.

It seems you cannot make your mind up. Either way, you've been caught lying and required various words defining for you in public. You're welcome.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: A noted liar gets caught lying again. His latest claim: "Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned " Oh really? Here's my comment in which I used the word 'attacked': "Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum." He quoted this, and replied: " the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack. Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. " Note how the liar questioned my use of the word 'attacked'. OED - question: "Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to"[/p][/quote]You are funny- but repeating yourself tediously. You can't even manage to take the p*ss. Have you ever passed any kind of test that involved a working knowledge of English?[/p][/quote]I exposed you as a liar again. You seem quite proud of it. Don't be.......[/p][/quote]You read a lot into words that aren't there. Look back at the questions you never answered- by your logic you agree with all of them. You exposed nothing but your own stupidity- yet you still manage to feel superior?[/p][/quote]Your comments are showing, so the words in question are 'there'. You were caught claiming that you hadn't questioned my use of 'attack' yet earlier were shown doing so.[/p][/quote]'You seem quite proud of it.' That's what i was referring to and by your own logic you have never passed a test that involved a working knowledge of English. Failed again.[/p][/quote]So you're not proud of lying or you're not proud of being caught lying. It seems you cannot make your mind up. Either way, you've been caught lying and required various words defining for you in public. You're welcome. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Wed 7 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
A noted liar gets caught lying again.

His latest claim:

"Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned "

Oh really? Here's my comment in which I used the word 'attacked':

"Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum."

He quoted this, and replied:

" the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack.
Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. "

Note how the liar questioned my use of the word 'attacked'.

OED - question: "Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to"
You are funny- but repeating yourself tediously. You can't even manage to take the p*ss. Have you ever passed any kind of test that involved a working knowledge of English?
I exposed you as a liar again. You seem quite proud of it.



Don't be.......
You read a lot into words that aren't there. Look back at the questions you never answered- by your logic you agree with all of them.
You exposed nothing but your own stupidity- yet you still manage to feel superior?
Your comments are showing, so the words in question are 'there'. You were caught claiming that you hadn't questioned my use of 'attack' yet earlier were shown doing so.
'You seem quite proud of it.'
That's what i was referring to and by your own logic you have never passed a test that involved a working knowledge of English. Failed again.
So you're not proud of lying or you're not proud of being caught lying.

It seems you cannot make your mind up. Either way, you've been caught lying and required various words defining for you in public. You're welcome.
Zeegee ffs- So you do admit to having never passed any kind of test in English?
That's your logic- either it should be applied consistently or abandoned as nonsensical. I've admitted nothing and been entirely consistent. I could walk you through it with tiny baby steps but by your own admission you wouldn't be able to keep up. There are a few courses out there but that would require humility and you're superior. You can use a dictionary but are clueless about syntax. HTH
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: A noted liar gets caught lying again. His latest claim: "Zeegee ffs- I've already said it wasn't your use of the word I questioned " Oh really? Here's my comment in which I used the word 'attacked': "Who cares what the charges would be? Two officers were attacked by your scum." He quoted this, and replied: " the live report said knocked to the ground and apart from the headline and intro the article hardly describes an attack. Thankfully the officers were not hurt- if they had been 'attacked' by so many then they would have been. " Note how the liar questioned my use of the word 'attacked'. OED - question: "Feel or express doubt about; raise objections to"[/p][/quote]You are funny- but repeating yourself tediously. You can't even manage to take the p*ss. Have you ever passed any kind of test that involved a working knowledge of English?[/p][/quote]I exposed you as a liar again. You seem quite proud of it. Don't be.......[/p][/quote]You read a lot into words that aren't there. Look back at the questions you never answered- by your logic you agree with all of them. You exposed nothing but your own stupidity- yet you still manage to feel superior?[/p][/quote]Your comments are showing, so the words in question are 'there'. You were caught claiming that you hadn't questioned my use of 'attack' yet earlier were shown doing so.[/p][/quote]'You seem quite proud of it.' That's what i was referring to and by your own logic you have never passed a test that involved a working knowledge of English. Failed again.[/p][/quote]So you're not proud of lying or you're not proud of being caught lying. It seems you cannot make your mind up. Either way, you've been caught lying and required various words defining for you in public. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]Zeegee ffs- So you do admit to having never passed any kind of test in English? That's your logic- either it should be applied consistently or abandoned as nonsensical. I've admitted nothing and been entirely consistent. I could walk you through it with tiny baby steps but by your own admission you wouldn't be able to keep up. There are a few courses out there but that would require humility and you're superior. You can use a dictionary but are clueless about syntax. HTH Arrggh
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Wed 7 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Here is Aarggh trivialising an attack on two female police officers:

"On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. If anything it was reported in a manner that suggested the officers didn't think it was a big deal. How in such a situation the action can be determined to be deliberate is unclear and will be difficult to prove in court. "

He claims that using the word 'attack' to describe what happened was incorrect, despite the fact that the police have stated:

"They were surrounded by around 60 protesters, people who were part of the counter protest, deliberately knocked the officers to the ground and threw beer at them. These people acted in an extremely intimidating manner and although the officers weren't physically hurt, they were both very shaken. "

It fits in entirely with his status as unwashed,ignorant lefty who doesn't know what some English words mean.
Here is Aarggh trivialising an attack on two female police officers: "On the live blog this was reported as an officer being knocked to the ground which can happen when large groups suddenly rush together. If anything it was reported in a manner that suggested the officers didn't think it was a big deal. How in such a situation the action can be determined to be deliberate is unclear and will be difficult to prove in court. " He claims that using the word 'attack' to describe what happened was incorrect, despite the fact that the police have stated: "They were surrounded by around 60 protesters, people who were part of the counter protest, deliberately knocked the officers to the ground and threw beer at them. These people acted in an extremely intimidating manner and although the officers weren't physically hurt, they were both very shaken. " It fits in entirely with his status as unwashed,ignorant lefty who doesn't know what some English words mean. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

7:28pm Wed 7 May 14

Arrggh says...

Zeegee ffs- There are lots of adult literacy classes out there- you might be able to understand why I thought the words were hyperbolic or how the phrase 'which opponents say is racist' is disingenuous.
Zeegee ffs- There are lots of adult literacy classes out there- you might be able to understand why I thought the words were hyperbolic or how the phrase 'which opponents say is racist' is disingenuous. Arrggh
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Wed 7 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- There are lots of adult literacy classes out there- you might be able to understand why I thought the words were hyperbolic or how the phrase 'which opponents say is racist' is disingenuous.
So you're reduced to recommending literacy classes for others even though you've needed various words defining?


Hahaha!

I wasn't aware that 'racism was being discussed on this thread. Is it yet a further example of you not having a clue as to what is going on?
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- There are lots of adult literacy classes out there- you might be able to understand why I thought the words were hyperbolic or how the phrase 'which opponents say is racist' is disingenuous.[/p][/quote]So you're reduced to recommending literacy classes for others even though you've needed various words defining? Hahaha! I wasn't aware that 'racism was being discussed on this thread. Is it yet a further example of you not having a clue as to what is going on? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

12:12am Thu 8 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- There are lots of adult literacy classes out there- you might be able to understand why I thought the words were hyperbolic or how the phrase 'which opponents say is racist' is disingenuous.
So you're reduced to recommending literacy classes for others even though you've needed various words defining?


Hahaha!

I wasn't aware that 'racism was being discussed on this thread. Is it yet a further example of you not having a clue as to what is going on?
You poor thing- you don't even know how little you understand. You really should try to calm down- ever tried meditation?
HTH
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- There are lots of adult literacy classes out there- you might be able to understand why I thought the words were hyperbolic or how the phrase 'which opponents say is racist' is disingenuous.[/p][/quote]So you're reduced to recommending literacy classes for others even though you've needed various words defining? Hahaha! I wasn't aware that 'racism was being discussed on this thread. Is it yet a further example of you not having a clue as to what is going on?[/p][/quote]You poor thing- you don't even know how little you understand. You really should try to calm down- ever tried meditation? HTH Arrggh
  • Score: 0

12:15am Thu 8 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- There are lots of adult literacy classes out there- you might be able to understand why I thought the words were hyperbolic or how the phrase 'which opponents say is racist' is disingenuous.
So you're reduced to recommending literacy classes for others even though you've needed various words defining?


Hahaha!

I wasn't aware that 'racism was being discussed on this thread. Is it yet a further example of you not having a clue as to what is going on?
You poor thing- you don't even know how little you understand. You really should try to calm down- ever tried meditation?
HTH
What do you hope to help? You've had your arse handed to you yet again.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- There are lots of adult literacy classes out there- you might be able to understand why I thought the words were hyperbolic or how the phrase 'which opponents say is racist' is disingenuous.[/p][/quote]So you're reduced to recommending literacy classes for others even though you've needed various words defining? Hahaha! I wasn't aware that 'racism was being discussed on this thread. Is it yet a further example of you not having a clue as to what is going on?[/p][/quote]You poor thing- you don't even know how little you understand. You really should try to calm down- ever tried meditation? HTH[/p][/quote]What do you hope to help? You've had your arse handed to you yet again. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

12:23am Thu 8 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- There are lots of adult literacy classes out there- you might be able to understand why I thought the words were hyperbolic or how the phrase 'which opponents say is racist' is disingenuous.
So you're reduced to recommending literacy classes for others even though you've needed various words defining?


Hahaha!

I wasn't aware that 'racism was being discussed on this thread. Is it yet a further example of you not having a clue as to what is going on?
You poor thing- you don't even know how little you understand. You really should try to calm down- ever tried meditation?
HTH
What do you hope to help? You've had your arse handed to you yet again.
Says the man who has never passed a comprehension test in his life.
'Whom do you hope to help?' unless you think of yourself as an object.
Do you ever get asked to check spelling or proofread? How have you come to have such confidence in your literary skills?
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- There are lots of adult literacy classes out there- you might be able to understand why I thought the words were hyperbolic or how the phrase 'which opponents say is racist' is disingenuous.[/p][/quote]So you're reduced to recommending literacy classes for others even though you've needed various words defining? Hahaha! I wasn't aware that 'racism was being discussed on this thread. Is it yet a further example of you not having a clue as to what is going on?[/p][/quote]You poor thing- you don't even know how little you understand. You really should try to calm down- ever tried meditation? HTH[/p][/quote]What do you hope to help? You've had your arse handed to you yet again.[/p][/quote]Says the man who has never passed a comprehension test in his life. 'Whom do you hope to help?' unless you think of yourself as an object. Do you ever get asked to check spelling or proofread? How have you come to have such confidence in your literary skills? Arrggh
  • Score: 0

3:19am Thu 8 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- There are lots of adult literacy classes out there- you might be able to understand why I thought the words were hyperbolic or how the phrase 'which opponents say is racist' is disingenuous.
So you're reduced to recommending literacy classes for others even though you've needed various words defining?


Hahaha!

I wasn't aware that 'racism was being discussed on this thread. Is it yet a further example of you not having a clue as to what is going on?
You poor thing- you don't even know how little you understand. You really should try to calm down- ever tried meditation?
HTH
What do you hope to help? You've had your arse handed to you yet again.
Says the man who has never passed a comprehension test in his life.
'Whom do you hope to help?' unless you think of yourself as an object.
Do you ever get asked to check spelling or proofread? How have you come to have such confidence in your literary skills?
So you accept you have no idea why you added 'HTH' to your post.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- There are lots of adult literacy classes out there- you might be able to understand why I thought the words were hyperbolic or how the phrase 'which opponents say is racist' is disingenuous.[/p][/quote]So you're reduced to recommending literacy classes for others even though you've needed various words defining? Hahaha! I wasn't aware that 'racism was being discussed on this thread. Is it yet a further example of you not having a clue as to what is going on?[/p][/quote]You poor thing- you don't even know how little you understand. You really should try to calm down- ever tried meditation? HTH[/p][/quote]What do you hope to help? You've had your arse handed to you yet again.[/p][/quote]Says the man who has never passed a comprehension test in his life. 'Whom do you hope to help?' unless you think of yourself as an object. Do you ever get asked to check spelling or proofread? How have you come to have such confidence in your literary skills?[/p][/quote]So you accept you have no idea why you added 'HTH' to your post. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

10:13am Thu 8 May 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- There are lots of adult literacy classes out there- you might be able to understand why I thought the words were hyperbolic or how the phrase 'which opponents say is racist' is disingenuous.
So you're reduced to recommending literacy classes for others even though you've needed various words defining?


Hahaha!

I wasn't aware that 'racism was being discussed on this thread. Is it yet a further example of you not having a clue as to what is going on?
You poor thing- you don't even know how little you understand. You really should try to calm down- ever tried meditation?
HTH
What do you hope to help? You've had your arse handed to you yet again.
Says the man who has never passed a comprehension test in his life.
'Whom do you hope to help?' unless you think of yourself as an object.
Do you ever get asked to check spelling or proofread? How have you come to have such confidence in your literary skills?
So you accept you have no idea why you added 'HTH' to your post.
Same reason I wrote the rest of it- thought that was obvious, but not to you.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- There are lots of adult literacy classes out there- you might be able to understand why I thought the words were hyperbolic or how the phrase 'which opponents say is racist' is disingenuous.[/p][/quote]So you're reduced to recommending literacy classes for others even though you've needed various words defining? Hahaha! I wasn't aware that 'racism was being discussed on this thread. Is it yet a further example of you not having a clue as to what is going on?[/p][/quote]You poor thing- you don't even know how little you understand. You really should try to calm down- ever tried meditation? HTH[/p][/quote]What do you hope to help? You've had your arse handed to you yet again.[/p][/quote]Says the man who has never passed a comprehension test in his life. 'Whom do you hope to help?' unless you think of yourself as an object. Do you ever get asked to check spelling or proofread? How have you come to have such confidence in your literary skills?[/p][/quote]So you accept you have no idea why you added 'HTH' to your post.[/p][/quote]Same reason I wrote the rest of it- thought that was obvious, but not to you. Arrggh
  • Score: 0

10:57am Thu 8 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- There are lots of adult literacy classes out there- you might be able to understand why I thought the words were hyperbolic or how the phrase 'which opponents say is racist' is disingenuous.
So you're reduced to recommending literacy classes for others even though you've needed various words defining?


Hahaha!

I wasn't aware that 'racism was being discussed on this thread. Is it yet a further example of you not having a clue as to what is going on?
You poor thing- you don't even know how little you understand. You really should try to calm down- ever tried meditation?
HTH
What do you hope to help? You've had your arse handed to you yet again.
Says the man who has never passed a comprehension test in his life.
'Whom do you hope to help?' unless you think of yourself as an object.
Do you ever get asked to check spelling or proofread? How have you come to have such confidence in your literary skills?
So you accept you have no idea why you added 'HTH' to your post.
Same reason I wrote the rest of it- thought that was obvious, but not to you.
It wasn't obvious to you, given that you couldn't explain why you used the term.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- There are lots of adult literacy classes out there- you might be able to understand why I thought the words were hyperbolic or how the phrase 'which opponents say is racist' is disingenuous.[/p][/quote]So you're reduced to recommending literacy classes for others even though you've needed various words defining? Hahaha! I wasn't aware that 'racism was being discussed on this thread. Is it yet a further example of you not having a clue as to what is going on?[/p][/quote]You poor thing- you don't even know how little you understand. You really should try to calm down- ever tried meditation? HTH[/p][/quote]What do you hope to help? You've had your arse handed to you yet again.[/p][/quote]Says the man who has never passed a comprehension test in his life. 'Whom do you hope to help?' unless you think of yourself as an object. Do you ever get asked to check spelling or proofread? How have you come to have such confidence in your literary skills?[/p][/quote]So you accept you have no idea why you added 'HTH' to your post.[/p][/quote]Same reason I wrote the rest of it- thought that was obvious, but not to you.[/p][/quote]It wasn't obvious to you, given that you couldn't explain why you used the term. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

11:09am Thu 8 May 14

brighton bluenose says...

What a boring pair of juvenile tw@ts you are - please give it a rest and grow up!!
What a boring pair of juvenile tw@ts you are - please give it a rest and grow up!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Thu 8 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
What a boring pair of juvenile tw@ts you are - please give it a rest and grow up!!
Who is forcing you to read posts?
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: What a boring pair of juvenile tw@ts you are - please give it a rest and grow up!![/p][/quote]Who is forcing you to read posts? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

2:49am Sun 11 May 14

Mr chock says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Martha Gunn wrote:
Surely it is time for the local MP to condemn this shocking attack.

But what is the response ?

Complete and predictable silence from Lucas.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!
i also saw her in TV other night " question time.." i am not sure if she was in ore of that guy Nigel Farage but wow she did seem to look at him with such respect ...and say very little PLUS she had some little red bow on her wrist " not very environmentally kind " just looked stupid to me
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: Surely it is time for the local MP to condemn this shocking attack. But what is the response ? Complete and predictable silence from Lucas.[/p][/quote]Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!![/p][/quote]i also saw her in TV other night " question time.." i am not sure if she was in ore of that guy Nigel Farage but wow she did seem to look at him with such respect ...and say very little PLUS she had some little red bow on her wrist " not very environmentally kind " just looked stupid to me Mr chock
  • Score: 0

6:45am Sun 11 May 14

brighton bluenose says...

Mr chock wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Martha Gunn wrote:
Surely it is time for the local MP to condemn this shocking attack.

But what is the response ?

Complete and predictable silence from Lucas.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!
i also saw her in TV other night " question time.." i am not sure if she was in ore of that guy Nigel Farage but wow she did seem to look at him with such respect ...and say very little PLUS she had some little red bow on her wrist " not very environmentally kind " just looked stupid to me
Someone who spells the word 'awe' as 'ore' is hardly in a position to call anyone stupid!!
[quote][p][bold]Mr chock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: Surely it is time for the local MP to condemn this shocking attack. But what is the response ? Complete and predictable silence from Lucas.[/p][/quote]Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!![/p][/quote]i also saw her in TV other night " question time.." i am not sure if she was in ore of that guy Nigel Farage but wow she did seem to look at him with such respect ...and say very little PLUS she had some little red bow on her wrist " not very environmentally kind " just looked stupid to me[/p][/quote]Someone who spells the word 'awe' as 'ore' is hardly in a position to call anyone stupid!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Mon 12 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Mr chock wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Martha Gunn wrote:
Surely it is time for the local MP to condemn this shocking attack.

But what is the response ?

Complete and predictable silence from Lucas.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!
i also saw her in TV other night " question time.." i am not sure if she was in ore of that guy Nigel Farage but wow she did seem to look at him with such respect ...and say very little PLUS she had some little red bow on her wrist " not very environmentally kind " just looked stupid to me
Someone who spells the word 'awe' as 'ore' is hardly in a position to call anyone stupid!!
He didn't call anyone 'stupid'.

He said that Lucas looked stupid wearing that ribbon.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr chock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: Surely it is time for the local MP to condemn this shocking attack. But what is the response ? Complete and predictable silence from Lucas.[/p][/quote]Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!![/p][/quote]i also saw her in TV other night " question time.." i am not sure if she was in ore of that guy Nigel Farage but wow she did seem to look at him with such respect ...and say very little PLUS she had some little red bow on her wrist " not very environmentally kind " just looked stupid to me[/p][/quote]Someone who spells the word 'awe' as 'ore' is hardly in a position to call anyone stupid!![/p][/quote]He didn't call anyone 'stupid'. He said that Lucas looked stupid wearing that ribbon. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree