Good speech Mr Ed!

[Firemouth]

Finally got chance to sit down and reply!!!

So who made you the authority on validating news storys? Do you have a magic crystal ball that will confirm or debunk any news story you throw at it? pmsl. You have google like everyone else.

Are you saying Anatoly chernyaev never wrote this diary? or that it is the possession of the National Security Archive?

The Diary of Anatoly Chernyaev

tbh i cba searching through the entire document list thats what investigate journalists are for, pretty much like guy who wrote the article i posted!!!

You can say and convince yourself this has not happened but the facts are there. Even if you don't believe the article about liebour there is enough stuff out there about the unions being infiltrated and as we know the unions rule liebour. Liebour getting hijacked seems to be a recurring problem for them, today its radical Islam but that's another story!

BBC NEWS | UK | Jack Jones 'worked for KGB' claim

There is another article for you throw at your magic crystal ball.

If you still want to discredit them story's you can not discredit the fact that most of liebours ruling class have at one point in there life been involved some form communist, Marxist, Trotsky or some other far left party or group. Then you tell me the liebor party aren't commys pmsl

Like you say 'Read SHITE know SHITE.' and being a self admitted socialist you would know!!!!

do you know the difference between a accusation and an established fact?

the mail story is not corroborated, indeed it was so uncorroborated as to be ignored by all other papers. therefore is nothing more than a unsubstantiated accusation.

the bbc story even says "claim" in its headline. so stands as the above.

The Mail has no right to accuse others of supporting vile dictatorships, in past history. its own record is far for clean.
also the records of its, and its owners, "HEROS" and well substantiated. not idle claims as those you posted.

 

[eon]

do you know the difference between a accusation and an established fact?

the mail story is not corroborated, indeed it was so uncorroborated as to be ignored by all other papers. therefore is nothing more than a unsubstantiated accusation.

the bbc story even says "claim" in its headline. so stands as the above.

The Mail has no right to accuse others of supporting vile dictatorships, in past history. its own record is far for clean.
also the records of its, and its owners, "HEROS" and well substantiated. not idle claims as those you posted.

Ever heard the saying no smoke without fire?

indeed it was so uncorroborated as to be ignored by all other papers

Do all papers run the same storys? i doubt it. What happens when one paper breaks a story, is it not true because no one else has reported it? i doubt that either. I doubt all reporters from different papers get together and discuss their breaking news storys with each other, so why would anyone else report it? and i highly doubt the guardian would print anything that would expose what liebour are all about? That's why you don't get any storys about immigration or the stupid shit the EU is up to in them papers. Instead they are happy to leak storys that would damage our national security. I take it that the whistle blower snowden is full of shit as well because only one paper broke the story?

so whats up with the mail? i was on about liebour being a bunch of Communist weasels, not the validity of the mail story. altho i would take the word of the mail over your magical crystal ball any day of the week.

 

[nara]

Ever heard the saying no smoke without fire?

Yes indeed. Probably the most despicably snide and mealy mouthed phrase in the English language.

EDIT: lol, now why does that bring the Daily Mail to mind? :eater:

 

[eon]

Yes indeed. Probably the most despicably snide and mealy mouthed phrase in the English language.

blah blah blah, whatever nara. thought you would have commented on post 20 if anything but because its true you will have a go and dribble some shite about a phrase i use!!! whats next checking my spelling and correcting me?

 

[nara]

...whats next checking my spelling and correcting me?

I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[Him Her]

I've just realised I left a comma out between 'southern' and 'Mediterranean' in my OP - is that the problem?

 

[Firemouth]

Ever heard the saying no smoke without fire?



Do all papers run the same storys? i doubt it. What happens when one paper breaks a story, is it not true because no one else has reported it? i doubt that either. I doubt all reporters from different papers get together and discuss their breaking news storys with each other, so why would anyone else report it? and i highly doubt the guardian would print anything that would expose what liebour are all about? That's why you don't get any storys about immigration or the stupid shit the EU is up to in them papers. Instead they are happy to leak storys that would damage our national security. I take it that the whistle blower snowden is full of shit as well because only one paper broke the story?

so whats up with the mail? i was on about liebour being a bunch of Communist weasels, not the validity of the mail story. altho i would take the word of the mail over your magical crystal ball any day of the week.

the Snowden story may have been broken by the Grundian, but was covered by all the others, in some way.
not so with the Mail drivel. simply because the story has no substantiation, it remains no more than a claim or accusation.
you may see it as fact, but that does not make it so.

Seriously, do you think the rest of the British press would have refused to cover a story that proves the Soviet government had infiltrated the UK's?
All reference's to this story, from whatever place, state the Mail their source.

 

[eon]

Seriously, do you think the rest of the British press would have refused to cover a story that proves the Soviet government had infiltrated the UK's?
All reference's to this story, from whatever place, state the Mail their source.

You are wrong again, it is fact, and all reports come from the Anatoly Chernyaev diary's and kremlin files. Look at page 41 on the link below for starters.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB430/Chernyaev%201973%20final%20PDF%20version.pdf

Lets face it the liebour party and commys went hand in hand.

1959 - Liebour party leaders greeted at the kremlin

BRITISH LABOUR PARTY LEADERS RECEIVED AT THE KREMLIN - British Pathé

1973 - Liebour party delegation received at the kremlin

Reaching through the Iron Curtain » The Spectator

p.180-1. The Autobiography of William Simpson, R. I: Crimean Simpson

1982 - 1988 Kinnock sends Stuart Holland to meet with various KGB and kremlin officals.

A Hidden History of Evil by Claire Berlinski, City Journal Spring 2010

Kinnock and the Kremlin

Vladimir Bukovsky, Soviet Archive

You have all the info above and the fact most of the socialist weasels of the liebour party have at some point been involved with some form of marxist/communist organisation all adds up to a bunch of twats.

So either Anatoly Chernyaev and the kremlin files are full of shite or you are? Considering Anatoly Chernyaev was a senior figure within the communist party i tend to believe him. I have put various links and sources to my argument that did not take me that long to find, even sources from outside the UK, so where is your evidence or sources saying that everyone above are lying twats?

You opinion does NOT count, cold hard facts is the order of the day and you only have your opinion!!!!! You don't believe it cause you cant find sources, well i have found them for you. Or maybe i does not fit with your world view? either way its there for you now.

That only thing you have done is lead me to expose even more facts that even i myself did not know, so i thank you for that and allowing me to highlight my argument for others.

 

[nara]

...is that the problem?

Sadly, no.

Political naivety and an inability to spell "labour" correctly are more likely causes.

 

[eon]

Sadly, no.

Political naivety and an inability to spell "labour" correctly are more likely causes.

I call the labour party 'liebour' on purpose, cause they are deceiving lying twats. If you look there is not one spelling mistake in my posts apart from 'liebour'. If you cant win an argument pick up on their grammar, pmsl.

And for political naivety, well look who's burying their head in the sand when the ugly facts pop up!!!!

 

[Him Her]

Sadly, no.

Political naivety and an inability to spell "labour" correctly are more likely causes.

I had assumed the spelling was an allusion? In any case I was commenting on the confidence of delivery rather than content - we may get to content at some point?

 

[Spectre]

I had assumed the spelling was an allusion?

No it was real, I saw it myself.

 

[Him Her]

No it was real, I saw it myself.

Apologies, I hadn't noticed I'd left my 'plonker' out

 

[nara]

I call the labour party 'liebour' on purpose.

Fancy me not spotting that!

If you look there is not one spelling mistake in my posts apart from 'liebour'

You tried that tactic in post #24 and I let it go. Apart from my "liebour" dig, which seems to have flown straight over your head, I have never criticised your spelling or grammar. It's irrelevant to the debate.

However, since you've brought the subject up again, I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you.

 

[eon]

Fancy me not spotting that!




You tried that tactic in post #24 and I let it go. Apart from my "liebour" dig, which seems to have flown straight over your head, I have never criticised your spelling or grammar. It's irrelevant to the debate.

However, since you've brought the subject up again, I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you.

What exactly do you disagree with this time nara? clarify please..........

You implied that i can not spell and that some how is a reflection of my political views, please add something constructive instead of just butting for the sake of it. You have to much to say with not alot of content.

 

[wiz569]

What exactly do you disagree with this time nara? clarify please..........

You implied that i can not spell and that some how is a reflection of my political views, please add something constructive instead of just butting for the sake of it. You have to much to say with not alot of content.

No he implied your choosing to spell it like that reflected your political views,

Personally I think all politicians are the same but then i am extremely naive when it comes to politics, I understand right and wrong not somewhere in between

 

[nara]

No he implied your choosing to spell it like that reflected your political views,

Thankfully someone's paying attention. :Clap:

Anyhow, this is getting irrelevant and pointless, so I'm outa here unless someone has something constructive to add. : mr ed :

 

[wesser99]

It does make me think to myself that people that still back Labour after them spending all of the countries reserves and ready to spend twice as much as the country brought in to put us in even more debt does make me wonder. This country is in the state that it is in because of there willingness to throw money away that the country did not have, I dont agree with everything this current government is doing but at least there trying to do something about it something i do not believe dopey Ed has the balls to do. Could you see Ed getting tough on jobseekers not at all they allowed people to take the mick out of the system they made it so it was better not to work but what do I know. I make my vote on who i think has the balls to do what is needed and thats def not him

 

[baron]

My parents were dyed in the wool conservatives and loved Thatch3r and all she stood for.
I've been a socialist (as a Labour supporter) all my adult life. and hated (hate) Thatch3r along with most of what she stood for.
so your point was?

Marxism-Leninism, Communism are all forms of socialism, not the other way around.
and democratic socialism (labour) is a subset too.

Marxism-Leninism, Communism are all autocratic dictatorships.
ok so all governments can be autocratic, at some time. but Britain hasn't had a dictator since Cromwell. yet has had 6 Labour governments.
not very Communist of them is it?

saying Labour is Communist is like saying Conservatives are National Socialists, better know as Nazis.

All political ideologies have extream's. neither left or right is particularly palatable.
we have not yet (possibly excluding Cromwell) had a a government of either extream.

I'll deal with the paper artificial after i have found the veracity of the story.

@Firemouth for pm :Jester:

 

[Firemouth]

You are wrong again, it is fact, and all reports come from the Anatoly Chernyaev diary's and kremlin files. Look at page 41 on the link below for starters.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB430/Chernyaev%201973%20final%20PDF%20version.pdf

Lets face it the liebour party and commys went hand in hand.

1959 - Liebour party leaders greeted at the kremlin

BRITISH LABOUR PARTY LEADERS RECEIVED AT THE KREMLIN - British Pathé

1973 - Liebour party delegation received at the kremlin

Reaching through the Iron Curtain » The Spectator

p.180-1. The Autobiography of William Simpson, R. I: Crimean Simpson

1982 - 1988 Kinnock sends Stuart Holland to meet with various KGB and kremlin officals.

A Hidden History of Evil by Claire Berlinski, City Journal Spring 2010

Kinnock and the Kremlin

Vladimir Bukovsky, Soviet Archive

You have all the info above and the fact most of the socialist weasels of the liebour party have at some point been involved with some form of marxist/communist organisation all adds up to a bunch of twats.

So either Anatoly Chernyaev and the kremlin files are full of shite or you are? Considering Anatoly Chernyaev was a senior figure within the communist party i tend to believe him. I have put various links and sources to my argument that did not take me that long to find, even sources from outside the UK, so where is your evidence or sources saying that everyone above are lying twats?

You opinion does NOT count, cold hard facts is the order of the day and you only have your opinion!!!!! You don't believe it cause you cant find sources, well i have found them for you. Or maybe i does not fit with your world view? either way its there for you now.

That only thing you have done is lead me to expose even more facts that even i myself did not know, so i thank you for that and allowing me to highlight my argument for others.

you've still not posted a single provable fact. not even one is corroborated, nor corroborate-able!

Ok so the link to the 1959 trip did happen. so one provable fact.

you have highlighted your argument, true. how successfully is up to those who have read the tread.