The BBC’s Alan Yentob obviously didn’t get the memo…no one is supposed to know that the Mirror also hacked phones……the proper line to take is that it was Rupert Murdoch who personally hacked all the phones and more than likely did away with young Milly Dowler.
Alan Yentob takes Sunday Mirror to court over alleged phone hacking
Senior BBC executive Alan Yentob is taking the Sunday Mirror to court over alleged phone hacking.
The veteran BBC creative director, who also presents BBC1’s Imagine arts documentary strand, has lodged his compensation suit in the high court and will have a first hearing before Mr Justice Mann at 2pm on Wednesday, it has been confirmed.
It is understood that his case relates to alleged hacking between 2002 and 2004.
Yentob decided to take the action against Sunday Mirror owner Trinity Mirror after being contacted by detectives working on Operation Golding, an investigation spun off from Operation Weeting, the Metropolitan police investigation into hacking at the News of the World.
Yentob’s action is not the first civil case mounted against the Sunday Mirror.
The BBC said it was a private law suit taken by Yentob and had no further comment to make. “The BBC is not involved in this,” said a spokeswoman.
For once well done Yentob!
Heaven forfend that it is Yentob chasing money ? After all, he is grievously underpaid and under-pensioned at the BBC.
He only gets two salaries from the BBC doesn’t he? Poor thing.
He doesn’t want to stay in a Travelodge for Glastonbury this year so he’s taking precautions.
Piers Morgan in the frame for this?…hope so.
He would have been before if the authorities had done their job properly. For some reason they thought it not a good idea to go after the Mirror…..
did the BBC use any information from phone hacking,if so they must have known how it was obtained.
They certainly had no issue using the content of the private emails from the head of the FA.
Remember that when the Guardian indulged in phone hacking it was done “in the public interest”. Not an adverse peep from the BBC for that.
no one is supposed to know that the Mirror also hacked phones
Ah yes, another Biased BBC falsehood – that somehow they’ve somehow brushed non-News International hacking allegations under the carpet.
This despite a Google search showing over 1,000 results on the BBC website, albeit with many of those surely being duplicates or capturing linking headlines beside other unrelated pages.
The BBC’s own search engine shows many fewer results – 57 is small compared to Google’s number, but still hardly keeping quiet on the issue.
And here’s a clip from Radio 4’s Media Show that shows up from even the quickest Google search. Annoyingly, it’s not timestamped so it’s not immediately clear when it was first broadcast.
Oh, and the civil claims today are covered, too.
But nobody’s supposed to know, apparently. Because the Big Bad BBC are being Big and Bad.
Or maybe, just maybe, Alan’s making things up to fit his own narrative. Again.
And the lie that the News of the World had hacked Millie Dowlers phone Scott?
Both the Guardian and the BBC have long published this as fact…and no apology or retraction eh?
Why not Scott?…looking forward to those links to prove me wrong!
the lie that the News of the World had hacked Millie Dowlers
They did, and have admitted as such.
The inaccuracy in the Guardian’s initial report was that it was the hacking which caused the partial emptying of the mailbox, prompting her parents to have what was described as “false hope”.
As for “no apology or retraction”, the facts say otherwise.
And for the sake of completeness, here’s a story from the Telegraph to illustrate how the NotW admitted hacking Milly Dowler’s phone – the very thing which ChrisH described as “a lie”:
Don’t feed the troll.
I find it hard not to snigger when I see our pet troll’s avatar.
Years ago Mad magazine published a picture of their cover boy Alfred E Newman wearing glasses , a dead ringer for him.
Thanks, TPO, I wondered where I had seen it.
I would have thought you would have worked out by now that I don’t give a shit what a bunch of pseudonymous posters think about my appearance.
But keep telling yourselves that berating someone for their looks from the comfort of your made-up profile, or profiles, is big and clever, if you like. One more fiction can’t hurt, can it?
Don’t feed the troll
What has that got to do with Trolling??
He’s responded to the point of the OP, and provided evidence that its simoply false.
The word ‘troll’ is just used here to label all dissent. Address the point.
A
Persistent trolls should never be fed
Don’t feed the underemployed troll
I’m trying to contribute to a debate. You’re just flinging out glib comments.
And yet I’m the troll. Yeah, right.
Mr. Anderson, well done.
You have managed to inspire what is probably the funniest Flokker un-self aware irony failure in the history of the site.
And there have been some doozies before.
I’ve provided reasoned arguments, backed up by links which add weight to them without the need to resort to half-truths and downright lies. You have done nothing but sneer from the sidelines (and hardly for the first time).
If that’s what makes me whatever your made-up word is supposed to be, I’ll take that. I’d rather be a Flokker* than an anonymous, self-aggrandising pseudonym who constantly and persistently concentrates on his own misperception of his own status.
* possibly the first, and probably the last, time anyone other than Guest Who has used his ridiculous fictional word
John, if you will permit :
‘Gusset Who’s monomania is at the core of his anti-BBC feelings. He wants to write email after email, and feel validated when they write back, bowing and scraping, telling him that yes, despite all appearances to the contrary, he’s right about everything.
There are of course multiple reasons why they don’t. Not least because no organisation should be held to ransom by nutters like guest who.
You never know when someone may write one thing whilst clearly doing a whole bunch else, and projecting things on behalf of BBC staff that surely would be confidential even if accurate reflections of institutional censorship policy.
But to obliterate several delusional claims in just a few paras takes real skill.
Fancy. Someone tries to act all superior by quoting a passage where he’s described as acting all superior.
Now, are you going to address the topic, or just continue to ignore it?
Don’t feed the under-employed troll – it has made 6 posts in about 10 minutes
It’s Ok – he will get the call shortly – there are only 26 BBC employees covering the shanty towns in Brazil and the 5 main reporters can’t get a soy milk decaf latte anywhere!
Scott is right here, and the word ‘troll’ is used here to label all dissenters.
He’s addressed the point here and provided evidence that the OP is simply false. The ‘trolls’ here are the only ones who ever have a word of sense here.
Ignore this troll as well
It’s probably just Scott.
Well, you can ask “John” about multiple personas. But take care, if you ask him anything too taxing he’ll just squawk something about you being a troll and continue preening himself as if he’s said something truly profound…
Stuff the BBC news website, Scoot, where was the coverage on the influential Today programme, not to mention ‘PM’ and assorted morning and evening news programmes – you know, the ones where millions of listeners and viewers get brainwashed on global warming, the EU, immigration and yes, Leveson.
Oh, and whilst you’re feeling in the mood ‘trying to contribute to a debate’ maybe you could let us know your answer to this from several threads back:
‘Time to show your cards, Scott: what is it about gender segregation, homophobia, ballot rigging, voter intimidation, dressing women in black shrouds and making them walk ten paces behind you, not to mention the butchery and mayhem going on all around the world in the name of Islam, that you are so very, very keen to defend?
The floor is yours (previous refusals to answer will be excused for one day only)……’
Go on, put your balls on the line for once….
‘Scoot’. Hmmm, no – leave as is, it has a certain ring to it.
He’s a troll; he’s not interested in answering substantive questions, just having a go at low hanging fruit. Just ignore him and he will go away.
“Troll” does seem to have a different meaning on this site. If you’re one of Biased BBC’s usual herd, you can be abusive, off-topic, you can make as many false assertions as you like.
But if, as I have done here, you make an alternative point backed up with facts, there’s a substantive crowd who will make no contribution to a debate other than to take it upon themselves to decide who should be allowed to contribute or not.
Now – why is it that you ignore Alan’s frequent and repeated inaccuracies and lies? Are you so scared of him for some reason that you daren’t challenge him?
Or are you happy for him to lie to you? Do you like being preached to by a man whose posts are founded on dishonesty?
Don’t feed the disruptive troll who endlessly tries to disrupt this site
Remember, just don’t feed the troll. He’s already getting annoyes by this policy and should shortly self-combust or go and pollute another site.
Why should I answer the questions of someone who’s only trying to deflect attention away from Biased BBC behaviour?
Why are you so afraid of people challenging the indisputable fact that Alan habitually lies? What are you so afraid of?
Don’t feed the troll
‘Why should I answer the questions of someone who’s only trying to deflect attention away from Biased BBC behaviour?’
It’s not all that difficult to get your brain around.
You see, we accuse the BBC of bias because they persistently fail to hold Islam to account on all the stuff I’ve mentioned and at times go out of their way to give it a positive spin (‘religion of peace’ on children’s history website and all that).
Then you come on and defend the BBC line.
Soooooo, it follows that you should give us your views to help us understand the BBC’s stance.
QED.
Now please give us an answer.
You can’t have it both ways. The site using the BBC webiste to prove a point and when its used in rebuttal then its dismissed as not being a flagship programme.
Providing a link to website coverage is simply easier than a link to a particular episode of Today etc where it’s been mentioned.
The point though, is that contrary to the OP, the BBC has covered it.
I would reiterate the BBC response: ‘The BBC is not involved in this’. So what is Alan’s point? Does he actually have one? At least it makes a change from regurgitated Trojan horse posts.
I never use the BBC news website, so I’m talking from a personal point of view of seeing and hearing the bias that is broadcast to millions, rather than read by a few.
Alan links to BBC News content, though. And, as I’ve point out over the last few days, is prone to lying when he does so.
And yet you remain quiet about that.
Don’t feed the undersized troll
I had thought having an internet stalker would offer a bit more variety than “John Anderson” just posting variations on a very dull theme… who knows, one day he may snap and actually explain why he turns a blind eye to all the bad behaviour by his fellow Biased BBC commenters.
Until then, we’ll just have to assume that he’s as much of a hypocrite as they are. Although that does seem to be something of a badge of honour…
Don’t feed the pint-sized underemployed troll that has spent years trying to disrupt this website and insulting all who use it
Poor “John Anderson”. Maybe in this or one of his other personas, he’ll behave with maturity and get back to the topic – namely that Alan’s foundation for this whole post, that the BBC didn’t cover hacking allegations against the Sunday Mirror, was false.
Or maybe he’ll just chicken out and post another variation on “don’t feed the troll”. It’d be the lazy, coward’s way out, but I suppose that’s his choice…
The topic is – don’t feed the absurd pint-sized underemployed troll
The coward’s way out it is, then. Poor man.
Still waiting for an answer, Scott.
I repeat:
‘Time to show your cards, Scott: what is it about gender segregation, homophobia, ballot rigging, voter intimidation, dressing women in black shrouds and making them walk ten paces behind you, not to mention the butchery and mayhem going on all around the world in the name of Islam, that you are so very, very keen to defend?
The floor is yours (previous refusals to answer will be excused for one day only)……’</em.
Oh dear, another “oh gosh, we’ve been caught being vile, nasty liars – oh look, nasty Muslims!”
What is it about Alan’s lies that you’re too afraid to confront? Why constantly change the subject?
Why are you so afraid of any suggestion that Biased BBC’s most frequent poster should behave like a decent person, and not a juvenile liar?
Don’t feed the evasive wriggling troll
Because you’ve failed to answer on several occasions now, Scott and, as your appearances on here are quite random, I thought I’d tackle you whilst you were in the building.
So, away you go….
And, as I’ve point out over the last few days, is prone to lying when he does so.
And yet you remain quiet about that.’
Because the accusation does not merit a reply, simple as that.
You see, Scott, you butt in here very occasionally, sometimes with a point that has a smidgen of merit, but inevitably make yourself look stupid by bigging it up into some overwhelming proof that Alan habitually lies about everything he posts on here.
The you wonder why so many take the piss.
Calm down and get yourself a sense of perspective, man.
“Because the accusation does not merit a reply, simple as that.”
And yet your insistence on changing the subject – as if the existence of Muslims in the world excuses Biased BBC commenters from any sense of decency – MUST be answered or you get all hot under the collar. Another one to chalk up in Biased BBC’s already overflowing “grubby little hypocrisy” column.
Alan lies. That you seek to deflect from that so brazenly speaks volumes. Does that mean you think it’s acceptable to lie if that lie props up a false, prejudiced but anti-BBC viewpoint?
Or are you going to take the “John Anderson” la-la-la-I’m-not-listening approach and continue to provide an unintentional layer of hilarity to your obfuscation and hypocrisy?
Don’t feed trolls. They always insist on having the last word.
‘Lying’ is a very strong accusation, Scott, so you need to be careful, especially as your own evasive tactics will have been noted by all.
But what is without doubt is the BBC lies through its teeth, and hence one of the reasons this site exists…
I’ve pointed out where Alan has lied, on this and other threads.
Every time I have done, a group of aliases have attempted to drown me out. None have attempted to rebut my comments, instead describing me as a troll, laying into their perceptions of my looks, or in your case trying to change the subject entirely, as if the presence of Muslim extremism in the world means that Biased BBC writers should be able to misrepresent with impunity.
If you’re so against people throwing accusations of lying around, where were you when ChrisH further up this thread described the News of the World hacking Milly Dowler’s phone as a lie – a comment which, itself, was false, as the NotW had admitted doing that?
I don’t think what you falsely ascribe as my “evasive tactics” get a look in, compared to the smears, evasion and falsehoods propagated by Biased BBC commenters who won’t admit that Alan habitually misrepresents BBC content in order that his fictionalised versions can contribute to his shaky prejudices.
But what is without doubt is the BBC lies through its teeth
I don’t think it is without doubt at all. And the need for Alan to misrepresent BBC content to back up his flights of fancy rather indicates that.
If you want this site to hold the BBC to account, you must realise that first it should hold itself to the high standards it demands from others. Otherwise, it will forever remain a hive of hypocrisy that exists solely to perpetuate the bigotries of its posters.
Don’t feed the boring boring boring troll, spluttering away beneath the bridge
That’s nice, “John”. Any time you want to stop repeating yourself and engage like an adult, you’ll be sure and let us know, won’t you?
‘I don’t think it is without doubt at all.’
You don’t think they lied about 28gate?
And you are evasive. I’ve not tried to change the subject within this thread, merely trying to get you to answer the questions I asked on the ‘Take Back Our children’ thread (and others previously) which was about Islamic extremism in English schools.
You refused there and you refused here.
What’s your problem?
And to be honest I couldn’t really give a stuff about the News of the World ‘hacking’ compared to Leveson having been cynically railroaded by shady left-wing pressure groups with the aim of curtailing free speech. Wasn’t it the case that The Guardian accused the NotW of deleting some of the messages, which was never proven and were more likely deleted automatically?
Alan does not lie but he may have confused the two – I’m just guessing. Certainly none of this justifies your screaming hysterics.
So, going back to my question: pray do tell when you are going to answer it as I shall be going on holiday soon…
Scott, you are not seriously trying to suggest that the BBC have given anywhere near equal weight or coverage to the indescretions of the Mirror Group and News International are you? Yes I know that the BBC have covered “alleged” hacking at the Mirror, but with nowhere near the zeal or to the extent of the hacking linked to News International.
Let’s be clear, all the hacking took place under a labour government, in labour supporting newspapers and claims were initially investigated and thrown out by a Met police team under the leadership of the most partisan pro-labour Met Police Commissioners ever.
This was at a time when Blair, Campbell, Murdoch and Commissioner Blair were all in a very tight friendly group all pushing the same agenda.
The hacking scandal is clearly a labour scandal, in that it happened under labour in labour supporting papers, stories were used by labour against their opponents, and the labour supporting police chief ensured that the police looked the other way when it happened.
Yet how has the BBC reported it since Cameron decided to put an end to it? Ask anyone in the street which politician is linked most to the phone hacking scandal, or which Prime Minister is responsible for it, and most will say Cameron. Such misleading impressions must come from somewhere and the BBC, as the massively over dominant news media provider, must take the lion’s share of the blame.
No, he’s not seriously suggesting. He’s deflecting. Ignore him. He gets all hot under the collar when you do that.
OT… but, yes, RD, clearly.
Ok, wiser heads ‘n all, if you think it will work it’s worth a go. But showing up rampant hypocrisy can (not always) pause the spigot as the handlers suss out their champions are a few cannonballs loose of a broadside and the friendly fire or backfires become too damaging. Even sudden victim shroud-waving wailing can look pretty sorry when what is wailed about is shown to have been deployed eagerly when not challenged.
The only concern is that denial of service attrition really takes little effort to poison the pool.
And as the Trojan Horse case has shown, ignoring such things and hoping to create isolated no-go zones can lead to worse down the line as they expand, nearly impossible to protect against much less rectify. Pastor Niemoller captured the principle well.
Once critics are silenced they can revert to more subtle fare, and if there is a germ of validity on the coating, the unwary can be easily seduced by what is seeded within.
Take this just shared on Guido:
http://order-order.com/2014/06/12/carla-in-jealous-bikini-huff/
Breathtaking hypocrisy by HuffPo, and not for the first time. But repeat it often enough and who knows what can get embedded? They clearly know they are doing it and don’t care, so it must work.
But should Guido ignore it, or mock it?
I am glad he shared as I do actually include the HuffPo in my reading, and such as this reminds me that whatever they run with needs taking with massive doses of salt before according any credibility.
BBC modding rules would near obliterate most that takes place here in an instant, and see emails and proxies blacklisted in perpetuity. Which granted would admittedly see howls of irony-free indignation from limitless new names that can be generated from the Borg-box, as it appears is already happening.
But showing up rampant hypocrisy can (not always) pause the spigot
Unless you’re pointing out rank hypocrisy in Biased BBC posters & commenters. Then they just start whining at you as if their actions are beyond reproach.
Don’t feed the troll
Fine line, GW. And I would add I don’t always follow my own advice because some are too good to pass up. When I say ignore, I don’t mean not to point out hypocrisy etc. or talk about him, but rather not to reply directly.
It’s quite amusing to watch the reaction when “Don’t feed the troll” is used repeatedly. I’d swear Scott’s avatar is becoming redder in the face each time.
It’s quite amusing to watch the reaction when “Don’t feed the troll” is used repeatedly.
I’m more amused by the thought that someone out there calling himself “John Anderson” thinks he’s making a practical contribution, and yet when asked directly why he ignores worse behaviour – including personal abuse and lying –from frequent Biased BBC contributors, he avoids answering.
I’ll just take it that you are as content as he for Biased BBC commenters to be seen as lying, foul-mouthed hypocrites, shall I?
Don’t feed the troll – it claims to have a day job which it should be concentrating on rather than its obsession with trying to disrupt this website
Oh dear… exemptions, RD? They seldom work out well:)
I may just go with Mr. Anderson’s approach for a while because it does as you say seem to be having an impact and can create interesting effects (even if other Agent S’s will always spawn to clog another day)…
The Mirror didn’t close down. News.
Samwell, you hit it on the head. If the BBC had been unbiased and treated the two phone-hacking rags in the same way then we should all be asking – “Why hasn’t the Mirror been closed down like the NotW?” Let alone that their sister paper, the Guardian having admitted doing the same. Another question “Why hasn’t the Guardian been closed down?” Either Murdoch is more a man of honour than anyone at the other two lie-sheets, or the BBC has been remarkably less diligent about how it leads relentless attacks against them than it did against the NotW.
Face palm.
I presume this applies to the police and CPS as well then.
Always impressed by ‘two wrongs make a BBC excuse’.
It is to be hoped you are not one of those who, if articulating anything in reply, turns out to be a pseudonymous idiot who is just going to ignore it anyway?
Likely not worth the bother, as has been advised.
‘There was no place for him in the world, so he’s come here’
well they haven’t but that could be due to the fact that the trial of Murdoch’s lackies for crimes deserves a lot more coverage than mere allegations of mirror group’s civil wrongdoing.
what isn’t addressed by scott and other bbc apologists is the triangulation strategy – whereby the bbc and guardian work hand in glove selectively to find evidence of murdoch’s lackies’ crimes, get a prosecution and then report it – with the calculated and partisan lack of journalistic inquiry and investigation on what the mirror group was up to at the same time.
Glad you have highlighted the outrage of the BBC Scot. That “outrage” would be the “no comment” – “private matter”.
Don’t feed the troll.
An odd one to bring out Agent S on another self-destructing mission.
Good job he seems to have limitless respawn capacity.
And now we have Mr. Yentob as The Oracle?
Can’t wait for the Trading as WDR take.
I would have thought it to be criminal NOT to hack Yentob’s phone. The man is one of the biggest thieves of TV tax money.
Not just Yentob.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/11/phone-hacking-allegations-mirror-group-peter-andre-jude-law-shane-richie
Of course, the issue is not that the BBC did not report voicemail access by the Mirror Group. BBC were in full “Get Murdoch at all costs and smear Cameron for appointing Coulson” mode.
I pity the fool that has to listen to Peter Andre’s messages …
Scott,
I have nothing against theatrical types. My daughter goes to theatre school and she’s probably more eyes teeth and jazz hands than you. In the body of my straight female teenager beats the heart of a very camp homosexual man.
I don’t particularly like it when people gang up on you as its a bit like kicking a puppy for pooing.
However sometimes I have to say you must be deluded. How many times have you watched newsnight and the Tuscan landlady is on spouting about News int and hacking?How many times has the Graun been challenged by Paxo to defend their alleged hacking? I could count it on my dick and I only have one of them.
When the mirror is caught the beeb mutter it under their breath because they are obliged to broadcast it . There has never been any real effort by the self styled ‘seekers of truth and justice’ to hold the left wing press to account.
If you can’t see that you are wilfully blind.
And as for the hacking. It’s a misnomer.
Hacking suggests some tech savvie computer geek spending hours trying to break a code and pass through firewalls and encryption system. The so called ‘phone hackers’ used the default voicemail passcodes which used to come with every phone. The majority were either 1234 or 3333. Tech wizardry even my 78 yr old mother in law could perform.
Anyway I digress. The beeb use hacking in their proxy war with Murdoch when it doesn’t suit them they go all bashful and quiet.
In fairness, Scott has you at a disadvantage in the availability of dicks on which to count.
(Cue: faux outrage)
As much as I like these spats with our resident “don’t call me a troll”, there are times when I miss the good old Anglo Saxon way of dealing with a disagreement. Out the back of the pub after a few bevies, trying to land a good punch on the other fellow for a few minutes. Then a bit of wrestling in the dirt, a couple of black eyes, followed by a good natured hand shake and then back to the pub for a few more pints.
This internet thingy just ain’t the same.
As for the Daily Mirror, the comic for socialists. Do the decent thing like Murdoch did to the NoW. Shut it now & put Morgan on trial. He should have been sent to jail when he was sacked for printing false pictures of our troops. The man is a cretin of the first water.
scott seems just to be rebelling against his middle class privileged background and needs a invisible enemy who he feels is tormenting and persecuting him to vent his anger and bile at,it seems that alan has become his target for all this anger that is quiet bizarre to me, i cant quite work out what is going on in scotts mind but i am not going to mock him because we dont know what demons are swimming around in his head.i subcribe to the theory of not feeding the troll the same way you would not give a alcoholic a bottle of whiskey as a christmas present.
Funny, you weren’t using the alias “Stuart” when on another thread you were telling me I needed psychiatric help. Unless it was another contributor who coincidentally has *exactly* the same disregard for spacing, punctuation and capital letters. Similar attitude in that post too – I disagree with the herd on Biased BBC, therefore I must need help. Talk about hilariously misplaced egotism.
Don’t feed the troll
Don’t feed John Anderson.
Don’t jonder Feed Anson.
Trolling is a recognised ‘psychotic’ condition! (according to Prof Claire Hardaker from Leicester University in her 2009 Research paper), she was able to observe that ‘Internet Trolls’ are a distant kin to ‘Plasmodium falciparum’, (a protozoan parasite). A troll is someone: ‘who constructs the identity of sincerely wishing to take part of the group in question, including professing, or conveying pseudo-sincere intentions, but whose real intentions(s) is/are to cause disruption and/or to trigger or exacerbate conflict for the purposes of their own amusement’.
http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/profiles/claire-hardaker
Reference only: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jplr.2010.6.issue-2/jplr.2010.011/jplr.2010.011.xml
I’ve said this before, but given the current pervasiveness on this site of the sort of infestations I refuse to name but you know EXACTLY who I mean, I will say it again:
When the comments get narrower
and narrower they become
hard to read but it’s us
ually a silly tiff be
tween trolls
so not w
orth
the
eff
or
t.
They are still peddling the Smith about Millie Dowler
i never use an alias scott,that is your paranoia kicking in,but one question i need to ask you scott,why do you and your mates on the left always defend these vile islamists who spread fear,hatred amd intimidation against anybody that does not agree with there hard line islamist ideology,why on earth do you and the left support,appease and defend these islamists and there fascist agenda,it just baffles me scott.
i never use an alias scott,that is your paranoia kicking in
Funny, you accused me of “paranoia” when you posted as “Roy”, too. Or are we expected to believe that there are two of you who abuse punctuation, spacing and a lack of capital letters in *exactly* the same way, and using the same vocabulary? Occam’s razor suggests the simpler solution – that both personas are you, and you’ve just lied about that.
And you make the same fundamental error that johnnythefish makes, in assuming that disagreeing with you is somehow an endorsement of Islamist extremism. That’s either breathtakingly arrogant or incredibly stupid, and quite possibly both.
@ scott. not like you to voice an opinion,are you going to answer stus question ?
Bob, I’ve answered you above, where you posted as Stuart. If you’re going to post under multiple personas, you really should try using a grammatical style that isn’t quite so consistently recognisable.
i give up on you scott,and as usual you have not answered my question,i told you i wont mock you and make fun of you,best i leave you be to sort out your own problems in your head,good luck mate.
Perhaps if you stopped pretending to be multiple people, stuart/bob/roy, and perhaps if you stopped implying that people who disagree with you need psychiatric help – perhaps then people might start to consider the option of taking you seriously. Until then…
Don’t feed the attention-seeking troll
here is your last chance paranoid scott.will you answer the question i posed to you,do you support the racist muslims in these schools who call white women dirty prostitutes,call white children dirty kuffars.chant anti christian songs in these schools in birmingham,this is your last chance scott to reply to my question,if you dont reply i take it you support this type of racism and fascism in these schools,last chance scott,i wont be asking you again bubba.