Can I remind some of you of the rules

First topic message reminder :

Nothing wrong with trading barbed insults and getting a little heated but can some of you, the guys in particular, watch their insults and remember it's simply not on, to turn up on a thread and make your posts about the poster and not the post.

It's getting boring now. This is newsfix not bitchfest.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Where does it say that in the rules?

You do support and defend tax avoidance, as you have on here, which is the same ethically as tax evasion and have done numerous times, and live in a country that helps you avoid taxes. How is that libel when its a fact?

I see nothing in the rules here to back your claim

http://www.newsfixboard.com/h1-about-newsfix-who-we-are-the-rules

If I do not register, then why do most of your posts, are posts to me?

Triggered much?

And very much a contradiction in terms, as you clearly are constantly wound up and I am not even attempting to doso. Which shows you are allowing yourself to get wound up

Priceless

I got the all clear today. its all that inconsistencies that I keep banging on about.

You got nothing, when as seen you clearly did not read the rules

So there is no inconsistency, especially when you are constantly yourself acting like a child name calling..

Most amusing

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
ah bless, you have difficulty with that dont you. not black or white is it chippy

Well clearly, as you have been bitching about this on numerous threads its clear, you have been well and truly triggered and again allowed yourself to be wound up

Love your new name for me, just makes me smile further.

Triggered

chortle. you are so predictable.
not interesting but predictable.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I dont have a grudge head, as that is clearly you by changing names and failing to delete their accounts.
You are doing it to poke fun are you not.?
I find it funny, because you think it gives you some power over people, lol
You are very much mistaken, as its in reverse, as you actually have no control over them, as seen.

Glad I could expose your hypocrisy for you.

your account has been deleted, there is no one called didge on my site, there is no email of yours on any account on my site and there is no password that you can use to access my site, i would suggest that means your account has been deleted.

it is impossible to delete the plethora of rubbish you posted and FM do not expect people to do so. they just require your name and login details are removed. But I am sure you will be in touch with them to whine like the puppy you are.

My posts are still there but under the name dirge. Which means people can still read my posts.

Why would you change then name, because I reasoned why you avoid paying tax and how factually this ends up robbing the elderly of their pensions.

That is what you banned me for, being factually correct

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Well clearly, as you have been bitching about this on numerous threads its clear, you have been well and truly triggered and again allowed yourself to be wound up

Love your new name for me, just makes me smile further.

Triggered

chortle. you are so predictable.
not interesting but predictable.

At exposing your hypocrisy?

I know

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
your account has been deleted, there is no one called didge on my site, there is no email of yours on any account on my site and there is no password that you can use to access my site, i would suggest that means your account has been deleted.

it is impossible to delete the plethora of rubbish you posted and FM do not expect people to do so. they just require your name and login details are removed. But I am sure you will be in touch with them to whine like the puppy you are.

My posts are still there but under the name dirge. Which means people can still read my posts.

Why would you change then name, because I reasoned why you avoid paying tax and how factually this ends up robbing the elderly of their pensions.

That is what you banned me for, being factually correct

Oh and talk about inconsistency

There is no such rule over what you banned me on.

I never saw the rule, head gets upset and acts like a baby rule.

Angry Andy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's what making you angry? A lot of people seem distressed by that kind of thing. You can't do anything about any of it though, so try not to worry about it.

I understand what you say Rags, and at my age it probably will not affect me too much.
It is my kids who are going to pay a heavy price for the shortcomings, lack of foresight , incompetence ( from all parties) and corruption of those in power. 
Is Trump actually seriously denying climate change.
Does May actually not care for 5 year olds orphanedr  because Trump and Putin blew their parents to fuck?
That doesnt even include the Brexit legacy.
Only Nostrodamus knows how that will pan out. The encumbant politiciants certainly cannot know for sure.

I wonder whether Nostradamus knew that a future leader of the Labour Party would deliberately defy his party whips no fewer than 428 times while he was one of the foot soldiers...and then demand on pain of disciplinary action complete obedience to his three line diktats after he had been promoted to the top job? Almost as hypocritical as his former mistress Diane Abbott who campaigned against the right of parents to withdraw their children from state schools and pay for them to go to private schools...and was then caught out, er, withdrawing her child from a state school and paying for him to go to a private school!

And as for party corruption, where would you like us to start? With the three Labour MPs that were jailed for fiddling their expenses and the one that got off because she was poorly? Robert Maxwell who stole his employees' pensions? Keith Vaz?

Or how about Labour's Ed Miliband and Harriet Harman bleating about the evils of tax avoidance...while their families were using tax avoidance schemes?

And talking of people being "blown to fuck", how many have died because Labour's Tony Blair lied to Parliament and the nation to force us into an illegal war?

I wouldn't trust any of the buggers, regardless of what colour rosettes they wear when they're out on the stump lying to us before election time.

Thorin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

My posts are still there but under the name dirge. Which means people can still read my posts.

Why would you change then name, because I reasoned why you avoid paying tax and how factually this ends up robbing the elderly of their pensions.

That is what you banned me for, being factually correct

Oh and talk about inconsistency

There is no such rule over what you banned me on.

I never saw the rule, head gets upset and acts like a baby rule.

you got booted for being a pompous arsehole mainly. but also you could not back up the scurrilous accusations you made with a single fact. you in fact just repeated bollox that scrats made up years ago and believed because he saw it on t'internet.

I think the rule you broke is right there on the front page of the forum.

but what do you care, it's almost as if forums are your life and you cannot bear not being loved. you are the arse gravy from the arse of a bug that lives on arse gravy. you are amusing in the laughing at variety not the laughing with sort, but apart from that not really registering

I should point out that that is just my deeply held opinion and fair comment to ensure that it is within the rules according to ben who announced it to polly parrot today

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:
I understand what you say Rags, and at my age it probably will not affect me too much.
It is my kids who are going to pay a heavy price for the shortcomings, lack of foresight , incompetence ( from all parties) and corruption of those in power. 
Is Trump actually seriously denying climate change.
Does May actually not care for 5 year olds orphanedr  because Trump and Putin blew their parents to fuck?
That doesnt even include the Brexit legacy.
Only Nostrodamus knows how that will pan out. The encumbant politiciants certainly cannot know for sure.

And talking of people being "blown to fuck", how many have died because Labour's Tony Blair lied to Parliament and the nation to force us into an illegal war?

Not many died due to the actual war, it was where both Shia's and Sunni Muslims decided to use Iraq, as a battle ground. I would argue that it in the end saved countless lives. As the reality is the Arab Spring would have come to Iraq, without the invasion, and based on the last uprising that cost 200,000 lies after the first Iraq War. Its more likely, it would have turned into a prolonged civil war as seen in Syria. Where already hundreds of thousands died under Saddam. I dont see something as illegal, if the reasoning was to remove a genocidal murderer. Yes it was a lie the reason why we invaded Iraq, but the actual war loss were minimal. It was the insurrection that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. I would hardly blame Blair for that, but Iran and Saudi, due to them instigating a proxy war. Most people when freed dont decide to then butcher each other, after leaving under such a regime.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Oh and talk about inconsistency

There is no such rule over what you banned me on.

I never saw the rule, head gets upset and acts like a baby rule.

you got booted for being a pompous arsehole mainly. but also you could not back up the scurrilous accusations you made with a single fact. you in fact just repeated bollox that scrats made up years ago and believed because he saw it on t'internet.

I think the rule you broke is right there on the front page of the forum.

I did back it up and so as I stated, you banned me, because you invented a new rule, "head is acting like a baby rule". And claiming I am a pompous arse, shows its you that was the one with the grudge and dislike here, not me. Which further shows you simple did not like me constantly showing you up.
There was no such rule, you did this before when I expose a hypocritical PM you made as well.

Inaflap forum rules wrote:"REMEMBER YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU POST. IF YOU MAKE AN ACCUSATION THAT IS LIBELLOUS IT MAY BE REMOVED UNLESS YOU CAN JUSTIFY WHY YOU POSTED IT."

Nothing about banning, just that the post maybe removed lol
That was also hilarious.
I love to show up constantly your double standards.



And please, continue bringing over your grudge and dislike of me onto here.
I absolutely love it

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
you got booted for being a pompous arsehole mainly. but also you could not back up the scurrilous accusations you made with a single fact. you in fact just repeated bollox that scrats made up years ago and believed because he saw it on t'internet.

I think the rule you broke is right there on the front page of the forum.

I did back it up and so as I stated, you banned me, because you invented a new rule, head is acting like a baby. And claiming I am a pompous arse, shows its you that was the one with the grudge and dislike here, not me. Which further shows you simple did not like me constantly showing you up.
There was no such rule, you did this before when I expose a hypocritical PM you made as well.
"REMEMBER YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU POST. IF YOU MAKE AN ACCUSATION THAT IS LIBELLOUS IT MAY BE REMOVED UNLESS YOU CAN JUSTIFY WHY YOU POSTED IT."

Nothing about banning, just that the post maybe removed lol
That was also hilarious.
I love to show up constantly your double standards.



And please, continue bringing over your grudge and dislike of me onto here.
I absolutely love it

oh bless your cotton socks, you really think you backed it up dont you, however your whole premise was based on a lie repeated often by scrat which you could not provide a shred of proof over because their is no proof to be had because it is all from the warped mind of a smear meister. but bless you for trying.I know you cant help it, but 12 steps, one at a time

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I did back it up and so as I stated, you banned me, because you invented a new rule, head is acting like a baby. And claiming I am a pompous arse, shows its you that was the one with the grudge and dislike here, not me. Which further shows you simple did not like me constantly showing you up.
There was no such rule, you did this before when I expose a hypocritical PM you made as well.
"REMEMBER YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU POST. IF YOU MAKE AN ACCUSATION THAT IS LIBELLOUS IT MAY BE REMOVED UNLESS YOU CAN JUSTIFY WHY YOU POSTED IT."

Nothing about banning, just that the post maybe removed lol
That was also hilarious.
I love to show up constantly your double standards.



And please, continue bringing over your grudge and dislike of me onto here.
I absolutely love it

oh bless your cotton socks, you really think you backed it up dont you, however your whole premise was based on a lie repeated often by scrat which you could not provide a shred of proof over because their is no proof to be had because it is all from the warped mind of a smear meister.   but bless you for trying.I know you cant help it, but 12 steps, one at a time  

Had nothing to do with Scrat, but you arguing in defense of tax avoidance, where I then researched into Brits living in Turkey with tax avoidance. So nothing to do with Scrat, and I think the man is a nutball.
Now as seen, there was no such rule, so its clearly, you did act like a baby

So how many more times tonight, am I going to expose your hypocrisy and double standards here?

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
oh bless your cotton socks, you really think you backed it up dont you, however your whole premise was based on a lie repeated often by scrat which you could not provide a shred of proof over because their is no proof to be had because it is all from the warped mind of a smear meister.   but bless you for trying.I know you cant help it, but 12 steps, one at a time  

Had nothing to do with Scrat, but you arguing in defense of tax avoidance, where I then researched into Brits living in Turkey with tax avoidance. So nothing to do with Scrat, and I think the man is a nutball.
Now as seen, there was no such rule, so its clearly, you did act like a baby

So how many more times tonight, am I going to expose your hypocrisy and double standards here?

you object to people obeying the law, and for that you accuse me of breaking it. that is magnificent reasoning even for you.
how can I avoid taxes in turkey when I pay 24% on my savings here and pay a minimal amount in the UK as I dont have an income there higher than the tax allowance. you are just a bit of a fool, your only saving grace is the mirth you bring me when I watch you flounder around trying to justify your self

Thorin wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:





And talking of people being "blown to fuck", how many have died because Labour's Tony Blair lied to Parliament and the nation to force us into an illegal war?

Not many died due to the actual war, it was where both Shia's and Sunni Muslims decided to use Iraq, as a battle ground. I would argue that it in the end saved countless lives. As the reality is the Arab Spring would have come to Iraq, without the invasion, and based on the last uprising that cost 200,000 lies after the first Iraq War. Its more likely, it would have turned into a prolonged civil war as seen in Syria. Where already hundreds of thousands died under Saddam. I dont see something as illegal, if the reasoning was to remove a genocidal murderer. Yes it was a lie the reason why we invaded Iraq, but the actual war loss were minimal. It was the insurrection that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. I would hardly blame Blair for that, but Iran and Saudi, due to them instigating a proxy war. Most people when freed dont decide to then butcher each other, after leaving under such a regime.

One could, of course, legitimately argue that the countless deaths caused by insurgency, insurrection and instability are still demonstrably consequences of that war.

However, that's nit-picking. Blair lied. War followed. People died. Will we ever learn?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Had nothing to do with Scrat, but you arguing in defense of tax avoidance, where I then researched into Brits living in Turkey with tax avoidance. So nothing to do with Scrat, and I think the man is a nutball.
Now as seen, there was no such rule, so its clearly, you did act like a baby

So how many more times tonight, am I going to expose your hypocrisy and double standards here?

you object to people obeying the law, and for that you accuse me of breaking it. that is magnificent reasoning even for you.
how can I avoid taxes in turkey when I pay 24% on my savings here and pay a minimal amount in the UK as I dont have an income there higher than the tax allowance. you are just a bit of a fool, your only saving grace is the mirth you bring me when I watch you flounder around trying to justify your self

Triggered again ha ha ha ha ha

Where do I object to people obeying the law?
I object to how some laws are interpreted and how people who are facing poverty and oppression, are treated as criminals, which is disgusting on every level. It depends what you are declaring and what you get as a reduction.

As to Turkey and Tax avoidance? This is just one example


British expats living in Turkey or wishing to retire in Turkey can now transfer their pension into a QROPS Turkey to maximize pension tax relief. British expats living or working in Turkey can take advantage of their offshore status and transfer their UK pension offshore to somewhere secure like the Malta or New Zealand and will no longer have to pay UK taxes on their pension if they stay offshore.
Turks working in the UK and Turks who have worked in the UK and built up a substantial pension can also transfer their pensions offshore to avoid UK taxes, in particular the 55% tax upon death whilst drawing your pension income and UK income taxes.

http://www.qropsspecialists.com/qrops-turkey/

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Not many died due to the actual war, it was where both Shia's and Sunni Muslims decided to use Iraq, as a battle ground. I would argue that it in the end saved countless lives. As the reality is the Arab Spring would have come to Iraq, without the invasion, and based on the last uprising that cost 200,000 lies after the first Iraq War. Its more likely, it would have turned into a prolonged civil war as seen in Syria. Where already hundreds of thousands died under Saddam. I dont see something as illegal, if the reasoning was to remove a genocidal murderer. Yes it was a lie the reason why we invaded Iraq, but the actual war loss were minimal. It was the insurrection that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. I would hardly blame Blair for that, but Iran and Saudi, due to them instigating a proxy war. Most people when freed dont decide to then butcher each other, after leaving under such a regime.

One could, of course, legitimately argue that the countless deaths caused by insurgency, insurrection and instability are still demonstrably consequences of that war.

However, that's nit-picking. Blair lied. War followed. People died. Will we ever learn?

How could they be? They were led directly from where Shia's had suffered under Saddam, which led to this, as had already happened? So based on another Arab Spring, it would have happened anyway. Just as it did happen before. So I would refute the claim it led to something that would have happened anyway, come the Arab Spring. Giving people their freedom, means building a new life, not then murdering hundreds of thousands.

Blair did lie, but I do not think he is accountable for people throwing away their freedom, to then abuse that freedom, to engage in a proxy religious war.


Night Fred

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:
I understand what you say Rags, and at my age it probably will not affect me too much.
It is my kids who are going to pay a heavy price for the shortcomings, lack of foresight , incompetence ( from all parties) and corruption of those in power. 
Is Trump actually seriously denying climate change.
Does May actually not care for 5 year olds orphanedr  because Trump and Putin blew their parents to fuck?
That doesnt even include the Brexit legacy.
Only Nostrodamus knows how that will pan out. The encumbant politiciants certainly cannot know for sure.

I wonder whether Nostradamus knew that a future leader of the Labour Party would deliberately defy his party whips no fewer than 428 times while he was one of the foot soldiers...and then demand on pain of disciplinary action complete obedience to his three line diktats after he had been promoted to the top job? Almost as hypocritical as his former mistress Diane Abbott who campaigned against the right of parents to withdraw their children from state schools and pay for them to go to private schools...and was then caught out, er, withdrawing her child from a state school and paying for him to go to a private school!

And as for party corruption, where would you like us to start? With the three Labour MPs that were jailed for fiddling their expenses and the one that got off because she was poorly? Robert Maxwell who stole his employees' pensions? Keith Vaz?

Or how about Labour's Ed Miliband and Harriet Harman bleating about the evils of tax avoidance...while their families were using tax avoidance schemes?

And talking of people being "blown to fuck", how many have died because Labour's Tony Blair lied to Parliament and the nation to force us into an illegal war?

I wouldn't trust any of the buggers, regardless of what colour rosettes they wear when they're out on the stump lying to us before election time.

Green from me moley!


The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds... and it knows no criticism from their supporters in their wilful blindness...

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Oh and talk about inconsistency

There is no such rule over what you banned me on.

I never saw the rule, head gets upset and acts like a baby rule.

you got booted for being a pompous arsehole mainly. but also you could not back up the scurrilous accusations you made with a single fact. you in fact just repeated bollox that scrats made up years ago and believed because he saw it on t'internet.

I think the rule you broke is right there on the front page of the forum.

but what do you care, it's almost as if forums are your life and you cannot bear not being loved. you are the arse gravy from the arse of a bug that lives on arse gravy. you are amusing in the laughing at variety not the laughing with sort, but apart from that not really registering

I should point out that that is just my deeply held opinion and fair comment to ensure that it is within the rules according to ben who announced it to polly parrot today

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

I needed a laugh today.