Norpig wrote:And don't forget that Sluffy vets them all before they are delivered
Why would I, I'm sure they are all singing my praises anyway!
Norpig wrote:And don't forget that Sluffy vets them all before they are delivered
T.R.O.Y. wrote:I am yet to receive any PMs including pics of Karly's, or any other member's, penis.
Natasha Whittam wrote:
It's not a PM list you want to be on, trust me.
T.R.O.Y. wrote:Because this dragged on after I'd been banned and couldn't speak for myself just wanted to point out -
I thought it was an interesting topic, and we reached a good outcome: that mistakes need to be scrutinised.
It was the later claim that this was all a social media conspiracy which dragged me back in, that's just an outright lie.
I am yet to receive any PMs including pics of Karly's, or any other member's, penis.
Jolyon Maugham, the arch-Remainer QC who repeatedly took the government to court over Brexit, is now taking it to court over facemasks. The Remainers are determined to get Boris one way or another. Their hatred hasn’t dimmed.
— Alan Sked (@profsked) August 6, 2020
T.R.O.Y. wrote:Clearly this isn’t solely a twitter issue or there wouldn’t be an open court case on it would there?
T.R.O.Y. wrote:You only began to mention ‘social media conspiracy’s’ on here recently to undermine and mock opinions different to your own. Yet here you are posting an opposing view point from social media - you think deserves attention and clearly you not a ‘conspiracy theory’. Point being there are plenty of worthwhile and intelligent views posted on Twitter.
T.R.O.Y. wrote:The government bungled this purchase - if they hadn’t then the stock would be in use by the NHS. That fact disproves your entire argument that it’s all just a ‘conspiracy theory’ I’m afraid.
T.R.O.Y. wrote:So just give it up.
T.R.O.Y. wrote:I see the point your making on the manufacturer making the error - but if that was true do you not think we’d have heard about it immediately? Would it not be in the court documents or the government rebuttal? Just feels like a massive stretch to me.
T.R.O.Y. wrote:Why do you keep saying it’s not in the national press - I keep ignoring this point, but it seems to be one you genuinely think is true. I’ve read it in Guardian, Times and even the Mail - so let’s drop that one hey.
T.R.O.Y. wrote:Please stop with the patronising attitude by the way, it won’t get a rise out of me. I heard about this story and the court case days ago, this isn’t a niche story Lust posted up. I’ve quoted nothing but facts to you, and my opinion of them. We can have opposing opinions on those facts and just discuss it amicably without all the digs - and that’s how I’d prefer to operate. No need for all this shit Sluffy.
T.R.O.Y. wrote:As always your obsessions with disagreeing and never admitting fault tie you up in knots you can’t untangle.
T.R.O.Y. wrote:Do you have a view on this why it would not be in the court documents or the government rebuttal if it was a manufacturer error?
T.R.O.Y. wrote:See FWIW I’m all over Twitter and have followed Maughom for a few years - mainly for his Brexit tweets along with secret barrister, Steve Analyst, Phil Sypris and many more there are loads of very knowledgeable tweeters who have made names for themselves with their analysis of events over the last few years, well worth a look for anyone interested - Twitter’s a great source of news and opinion.
wanderlust wrote:So putting aside the legal aspects, do you think that giving them the contract was a) wise, b) not nepotistic and c) the safest option in an emergency Sluffy?
Last edited by T.R.O.Y. on Thu Aug 13 2020, 07:05; edited 1 time in total
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum