Grenfell Tower Investigators To Consider Manslaughter Charges

by Guest Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:03 pm

First topic message reminder :

Police will consider manslaughter charges as part of the investigation into the Grenfell Tower blaze, which left at least 79 people dead. Scotland Yard said on Friday that the fire started in a faulty fridge and that insulation and tiles on the block failed safety tests. Nine out of the 79 dead or presumed dead have been formally identified, police said.

Metropolitan Police Detective Superintendent Fiona McCormack said: “I know there is a fear that that number is a lot higher and I do not want any hidden victims of this tragedy.”

Police said they are still trying to establish who was in the 24-storey tower block the night the fire broke out last Wednesday. DSI McCormack confirmed that neither the police, nor the Home Office, will use the tragedy to check the immigration status of anybody in the block and urged friends and relatives of those feared missing to come forward.

The search of the Lancaster West Estate high-rise could take until the end of the year.

Police said there are currently more than 250 specialist investigators working on “all aspects” of the investigation.

“The terrible reality is we may not find or identify all those who died in the fire,” DSI McCormack added.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/grenfell-tower-tiles-failed-safety-tests-met-police-say_uk_594cdc45e4b0da2c731ad593?utm_hp_ref=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:04 pm

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:'The fire was small in the kitchen. I could see it because the flat door was open. There was no alarm.'

So the fire was small at this point... so small that it hadnt set off the heat/smoke detector alarms inside the kitchen and rest of flat...

We all know how sensitive these detectors are and how they go off at the slightest bit of burnt toast...

The neighbour said she could see into kitchen and fire was small...

Wetting a couple of towels/sheets or even a couple of cotton shirts or pairs of jeans and throwing them over fire would have put them out...

Also the fridge fault and fire would have tripped out the kitchen sockets circuit so water would have been safe to use... or if not sure then he could have switched off all of flat electricity by flicking main switch off at fuseboard and then used water...

Is it possible if the fire had tripped the electrical circuit he wouldn't have been able to see because it was so dark?
I wouldn't know whether water was safe to use or not if it was an electrical fire.

Sockets are run on their own circuits... one ring circuit for kitchen sockets and another ring circuit for sockets in rest of flat... although with newer RCD fuseboards the fridge socket is often run on its own individual circuit that will have its own separate RCBO breaker, instead of MCB fed from the fuseboards RCD... the lights will be running on their own separate circuit...

The initial fridge fault alone would almost certainly been enough to at least blow the fuse in its own plug, which would already have rendered it as disconnected from the electrical supply... but most likely to have tripped the circuit breaker at board for that circuit...

It is possible that the fuseboard was RCD and that this tripped out the power to whole flat... but in this case, there would have been enough light from the fire itself to see... and you would know for sure that electricity was off throughout flat and that it was safe to use water from kitch sink to throw onto fire to put it out...

by Guest Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:05 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Syl wrote:

Is it possible if the fire had tripped the electrical circuit he wouldn't have been able to see because it was so dark?
I wouldn't know whether water was safe to use or not if it was an electrical fire.

Sockets are run on their own circuits... one ring circuit for kitchen sockets and another ring circuit for sockets in rest of flat... although with newer RCD fuseboards the fridge socket is often run on its own individual circuit that will have its own separate RCBO breaker, instead of MCB fed from the fuseboards RCD... the lights will be running on their own separate circuit...

The initial fridge fault alone would almost certainly been enough to at least blow the fuse in its own plug, which would already have rendered it as disconnected from the electrical supply... but most likely to have tripped the circuit breaker at board for that circuit...

It is possible that the fuseboard was RCD and that this tripped out the power to whole flat... but in this case, there would have been enough light from the fire itself to see... and you would know for sure that electricity was off throughout flat and that it was safe to use water from kitch sink to throw onto fire to put it out...

Hearsay again when you know nothing about the actual fridge fire Tommy

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:30 pm

nicko wrote:Smother with a DRY towel, surely not Tommy?

The aim of smothering a fire is to cut off its air supply... obviously a wet/damp towel would be better... but a dry average size and average thickness cotton bath towel would do the job on a small fire too...

I would rather use a small wet tea towel than a dry bath towel on a frying pan fire, for example... but both would do the job... even covering it with a whole newspaper flat across it would be enough to cut off the air supply to flames and put fire out...

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:02 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:All council flats are fitted with heat/smoke detectors... one in kitchen and one in hallway... connected so that both will go off when either detects a fire... also they are powered from the mains... the eye witness neighbour said the mans flat door was open and that she could see into kitchen and that there was only a small fire, PLUS THE SMOKE ALARMS WERE NOT GOING OFF!

Also it is advised that if you do discover a small fire, that you should attempt to put it out yourself... and smothering it with a towel (preferably wet/damp but dry would do) is one of the main recommended methods if there is no suitable fire extinguiser available... plus this is both common sense as well as common knowledge...!

Now... what exactly do you mean by 'outlandish claims on electricity'...!?

Show me the evidence that during the fridge fire in had short circuited the power to the electricity within the flat or that he could tackle he fire with water?

Inside flats there would have been the standard smoke/heat detectors fitted... one in kitch on ceiling and one in hallway on ceiling too...

Of course you should try to put out a small fire first if you find one... I thought everyone knew that... would you run away if your toaster jammed and your toast was burning, just because you had not actually had any official 'fire training', and because you didnt have the appropriate 'burnt toast certificate'...!?

Electrical systems are designed to trip out under fault conditions... the initial fault would have most likely blown plug fuse as well as tripped out circuit breaker/RCBO/RCD... if under the unlikely circumstances that it hadnt then the fire surely would have... but if under the impossible situation that neither had happened then he could have swiched breakers off himself... or even throwing a plastic jugs worth of water over fire would have tripped it out... as well as put fire out...

by Guest Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:11 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Show me the evidence that during the fridge fire in had short circuited the power to the electricity within the flat or that he could tackle he fire with water?

Inside flats there would have been the standard smoke/heat detectors fitted... one in kitch on ceiling and one in hallway on ceiling too...
Thorin wrote: Do they? Show me in regards to these Flats in question? Or that if there were, that they were working?

Of course you should try to put out a small fire first if you find one... I thought everyone knew that... would you run away if your toaster jammed and your toast was burning, just because you had not actually had any official 'fire training', and because you didnt have the appropriate 'burnt toast certificate'...!?
Thorin wrote: Should you and what if that person then endangers their own life for doing so? That people with no ideas about electrical fires then tried to put this out with water? In any training it only advises to tackle if trained and comfortable to do so. Again you are expecting to know how to tackle an electrical fire. Many people do not know how to.

Electrical systems are designed to trip out under fault conditions... the initial fault would have most likely blown plug fuse as well as tripped out circuit breaker/RCBO/RCD... if under the unlikely circumstances that it hadnt then the fire surely would have... but if under the impossible situation that neither had happened then he could have swiched breakers off himself... or even throwing a plastic jugs worth of water over fire would have tripped it out... as well as put fire out...

Again you are speculating off not knowing about the actual details of this fridge fire. Even worse you are expecting everyone to know about safety measures with electrical systems. This is the problem with your argument, that you are expecting people to have an understanding you have, when many people will not. I see no evidence the lights were out in the flat, or where the fire was. Which they would be if the fuses had tripped out for the flat.

The above views lack any evidence and are based on your opinions
You need to back them up with facts.
What we do know is that the Fire Brigade were able to put out the fire in his flat and were even leaving, when to their horror, the fire had ignited on the outside cladding. Without this cladding, there would not have been a disaster here.

No unless you can back up your claims with evidence Tommy from reports about the fire, then, you have no case here and are simply speculating

Night

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:32 pm

I never said lights had tripped out... i said fridge circuit would have tripped...

Plus...

'...smoke alarms inside the flats worked, according to residents...'

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/notting-hill-fire-managers-were-ordered-to-improve-safety-at-other-blocks-years-ago-a3564936.html

by Guest Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:36 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I never said lights had tripped out... i said fridge circuit would have tripped...

Plus...

'...smoke alarms inside the flats worked, according to residents...'

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/notting-hill-fire-managers-were-ordered-to-improve-safety-at-other-blocks-years-ago-a3564936.html

You need to read your own link, so clearly there was a fault with the fire alarm system so see you tomorrow

In other developments:

Residents claimed no fire alarm sounded and there was no central sprinkler system.
They told of concerns about previous power surges.
Signs had been erected telling residents to “stay put” in their flats in the event of fire, unless their own property was affected.
Only smoke alarms inside the flats worked, according to residents.
There were claims Grenfell Tower’s recently-fitted “Polystyrene-type” cladding helped the fire to spread rapidly.
Modernisation work by Kensington and Chelsea council on Grenfell, a 120-home tower originally built in 1974, was completed in May last year at a cost of £10.3 million.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:39 am

I wasnt talking about any main building fire alarm system... I was talking about the smoke/heat alarms in flats... and the fact that neighbour had said the fire was very small when she looked through mans open door into kitchen, and that she said his smoke alarms were not going off...

So is obvious that fire could most likely have been extinguished at that point quite easily had the man bothered trying... like a normal person would have done...

by Guest Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:58 am

Tommy Monk wrote:I wasnt talking about any main building fire alarm system... I was talking about the smoke/heat alarms in flats... and the fact that neighbour had said the fire was very small when she looked through mans open door into kitchen, and that she said his smoke alarms were not going off...

So is obvious that fire could most likely have been extinguished at that point quite easily had the man bothered trying... like a normal person would have done...

The neighbour said it was a small fire, of which is subjective to interpretation, as seen but how you have changed this to now very small. Again the smoke detectors did not work as no alarms sounded.
Again you keep claiming it could be put out based on your knowledge expecting others to know how to tackle a fire.
Many people do not know how to and the size of the fire is also open to interpretation

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:36 pm

If she said it was small when she saw it then it woul have been very small when he first discovered it... plus the fact his heat detector in kitchen had not yet gone off or was there enough smoke in flat to set off smoke detector in hallway rather than not working...

by Guest Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:42 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:If she said it was small when she saw it then it woul have been very small when he first discovered it... plus the fact his heat detector in kitchen had not yet gone off or was there enough smoke in flat to set off smoke detector in hallway rather than not working...

Subjective to say the least, as what is the timescale between him telling her and how she would view a fire?
All of this is irrelevant anyway, as i have explained. What should happen is such towers should have better fire systems, people trained in fire training and to have fire marshals. As I say the Fire brigade put the fire out in his flat. The issue here is with the cladding. Not on man where the fire started

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:58 pm

The eye witnesses said different...

by nicko Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:07 pm

Just wondered, how did the fire get to the outside of the Building when it started in the Kitchen?

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:37 pm

nicko wrote:Just wondered, how did the fire get to the outside of the Building when it started in the Kitchen?

Wooden furniture, flammable materials and skirting boards> rugs and carpets > soft furnishings > curtains, drapes and blinds > open window...

by Original Quill Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:03 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
nicko wrote:Just wondered, how did the fire get to the outside of the Building when it started in the Kitchen?

Wooden furniture, flammable materials and skirting boards> rugs and carpets > soft furnishings > curtains, drapes and blinds > open window...

...or broken windows. Never underestimate the power of heat. It seeks oxygen and creates backdraft, breaking out windows.

by HoratioTarr Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:06 pm

nicko wrote:Just wondered, how did the fire get to the outside of the Building when it started in the Kitchen?

Air vents?

by nicko Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:21 pm

Can't see it H/T.

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Wooden furniture, flammable materials and skirting boards> rugs and carpets > soft furnishings > curtains, drapes and blinds > open window...

...or broken windows. Never underestimate the power of heat. It seeks oxygen and creates backdraft, breaking out windows.

Exactly, Quill. Many, many years ago I was required to attend lectures and demonstrations on how a very small electrical fire has the ability to engulf an entire aircraft within minutes.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:03 pm

Nearly 100 blocks in around 30 different regions have been found to have flammable cladding now...

Another labour legacy...

by nicko Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:15 pm

The only charges that should be brought is those against the Manufacturer who sold it, knowingly or not it was flammable .How can you blame those who bought it or those who fixed it, buyers and fixers would not have given it a thought !

by nicko Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:19 pm

Lets go back a few years, Childrens nighties, they caught fire, did you blame the shop were they were bought? did you blame the workers who put them together,NO, the blame was with the MANUFACTURER !

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:25 pm

If this stuff was allowed by regulations then it is those who set the regulations who are responsible...

by nicko Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:31 pm

Did the "regulations" include testing for fire resistance before it was used?

by Original Quill Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:03 pm

nicko wrote:Lets go back a few years, Childrens nighties, they caught fire, did you blame the shop were they were bought? did you blame the workers who put them together,NO, the blame was with the MANUFACTURER !

Well, actually, as to children's nightwear, the manufacturers and stores that sold them were held responsible. I handled a number of those lawsuits so I saw them from the inside.

As far as the tower cladding, the workers or installers were just following orders from the decision-makers, and the decision-makers will be held responsible I expect, along with designers, manufacturers, architects, safety engineers and even Councils, who approved/allowed them.

by nicko Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:17 pm

I don't think it's right, sole blame should be manufacturers.

by Original Quill Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:30 pm

nicko wrote:I don't think it's right, sole blame should be manufacturers.

The jurors decide, so any complaints go to them. All the law says is you can sue or charge anyone for which there is a reasonable basis for believing they did wrong.

Anyone can be sued, it's the jurors who make the final decision.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:23 pm

Was reading that it was an american company who were making these panels...

by Fred Moletrousers Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:I don't think it's right, sole blame should be manufacturers.

The jurors decide, so any complaints go to them. All the law says is you can sue or charge anyone for which there is a reasonable basis for believing they did wrong.

Anyone can be sued, it's the jurors who make the final decision.

As always, Quill, I bow to your superior legal knowledge, but surely that would only apply if the case progressed to one of criminal responsibility, such as an action for manslaughter or corporate manslaughter.

A civil case, for example for alleged negligence arising from the flawed interpretation of regulations, would not be determined by a jury in the UK, but by the appointed judge/judges sitting in either the District, High or - potentially - Supreme Courts depending on whether lower court judgements led to appeals on points of law.

by JulesV Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:30 am

Call off the search for the best orator in town. Exquisite eloquence from GG.
The icing on the cake is an imperious Glasgow accent. Grenfell Tower Investigators To Consider Manslaughter Charges - Page 5 1716015268

Grenfell Tower Investigators To Consider Manslaughter Charges - Page 5 1716015268

by JulesV Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:35 am

I wrote down some of that magnificent speech by Galloway from the vid above. Took me ages, and I cannot guarantee 100% accuracy and it is slightly abbreviated. Loved the way he used fire imagery throughout.

GEORGE GALLOWAY SAID:

"Tonight may be a turning point in our country's affairs. There's something in the air and it's not just the acrid smoke of corporate manslaughter. It's not even just the flames that seem lightly to spread across the north of Ireland in the marching season, as the Good Friday Agreement reaches a moment of peril. It's that our govt is burnt out. In west London there is that pall of darkness, a pall of anger and fury. There is the outrage that scores, maybe hundreds of people were scorched and incinerated because of corporate negligence.

I don't want another public enquiry. Remember Chilcot anyone?
I want arrests.
I want prosecutions.
I want to know who made that decision.
I don't need a public enquiry to tell me that whoever signed the deal for flammable cladding, is guilty of manslaughter. That decision signed a death warrant.

I want to know why there was no sprinkler in that tower. Corporate manslaughter. They should go to prison for very long time
I want to know why there was no fire alarm.
I want to know why Boris Johnson didn't see that closing fire stations, that dismantling firefighting equipment, decommissioning fire appliances, ....
I want to know why Boris Johnson - promoted to foreign secretary - did not understand when he was mayor of London, that whatever savings he made by closing these fire stations, wrecking these appliances, might not have to be paid for in human blood.
I want to know why the govt thought freezing the pay of firefighters for years, sacking firefighter colleagues, decommisioning fire engines, closing fire stations ....was utterly bankrupt of any moral content.

I want to know how it came to pass that we in 2017 are living in a renteer economy, where £25 Billions of public money every year is being paid out to landlords in housing benefit, when we could and should be using that money and more, to build safe, quality public housing so there would be no need for the renteers. This is a turning point I believe, because cos our govt was burnt out before Grenfell.

We have a PM so bereft of moral, political and parliamentary standing that she is forced to go cap in hand to the bigots of the orange order, in order to form a govt. A PM who called an unnecessary election, had to scrap her own law in order to do so.
Lost the majority she already had, and seeks to cling on to power by the tassels of an orange sash. That's strong & stable theresa, isnt it?

I want to know why this cell of jihadists, and libyan islamic fighting group - the clue was in the name,Theresa - had their control orders lifted and their passports returned.
I want to know why our security service under the command of the then home secretary Theresa May, facilitated the passage of the libyan islamic fighting group back and forward ... that ended in a hail of razor sharp steel which cut down young children (at the concert). I want to know who is going to take the responsibility for that. Boris Johnson, I want to know why you moved the railings on London's bridges making it possible not once but twice for fanatic head-chopping extremists to go on their murderous rampage. The govt has spent the last 7 yrs feeding the beast of islamic fanatism, and imagining that it would not come home to us. I want to know how long this wretched govt with no majority beyond the marchers of 12 july , ... how long are you going to sit there, Theresa May? In the name of God, GO!"

He's gooood! Cool

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:45 am

GG is a twat!!!

by Syl Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:56 am

Tommy Monk wrote:GG is a twat!!!

Everything he does now is overshadowed by the awful memory of him pretending to be a pussy cat lapping milk up whilst Rula Lenska stroked his head. cat

by JulesV Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:05 am

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:GG is a twat!!!

Everything he does now is overshadowed by the awful memory of him pretending to be a pussy cat lapping milk up whilst Rula Lenska stroked his head.

He did it to raise money for charity. He wasn't too proud to make a fool of himself to help the less fortunate. He gave every penny to charity.

by JulesV Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:10 am

Tommy Monk wrote:GG is a twat!!!

So are the alt-right morons like your namesakes Tommy Mair and Tommy Robinson whose ass you kiss.

Pucker up!!
Grenfell Tower Investigators To Consider Manslaughter Charges - Page 5 Kiss-my-ass

Grenfell Tower Investigators To Consider Manslaughter Charges - Page 5 Kiss-my-ass

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:40 am

My opinion of him has nothing to do with the big brother bullshit...

Everything he said (in Jules above quote) can easily be shown to be typical labour/leftie lies and spin waffle...

And all really rooted in labour govt failings...

Happy to explain on a point by point basis if you need help understanding the truth of it all...

by Original Quill Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:15 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The jurors decide, so any complaints go to them. All the law says is you can sue or charge anyone for which there is a reasonable basis for believing they did wrong.

Anyone can be sued, it's the jurors who make the final decision.

As always, Quill, I bow to your superior legal knowledge, but surely that would only apply if the case progressed to one of criminal responsibility, such as an action for manslaughter or corporate manslaughter.

No, the reasonableness standard is applicable in a civil action as well. For example, the following are California jury instructions for negligence, standard of care:

CACI 401 wrote:Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to oneself or to others.

A person can be negligent by acting or by failing to act. A person is negligent if he or she does something that a reasonably careful person would not do in the same situation or fails to do something that a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation.

You must decide how a reasonably careful person would have acted in [name of plaintiff/defendant]’s situation.

Fred M. wrote:A civil case, for example for alleged negligence arising from the flawed interpretation of regulations, would not be determined by a jury in the UK, but by the appointed judge/judges sitting in either the District, High or - potentially - Supreme Courts depending on whether lower court judgements led to appeals on points of law.

Interpretation of regulations or statutes are always for judicial determination. A jury's role is to determine facts. Here again though, reasonable standard of care in a legal maneuver can be put to a jury...if the question is, did the attorney commit malpractice (?).

The formula is quite simple in all civil cases. You work backwards from the injury: how were you harmed? What harmed you? Who is responsible for that which harmed you? There can be multiple causes, or multiple effects, and that's why there are cases with multiple parties.

This case would be one with multiple causes and multiple defendants. There could even be multiple plaintiffs, although these are frequently handled as class actions. I'm not a British lawyer, but here, the government approval of a faulty product might lead to one cause of action. The selection of a faulty product by the architect might lead to another cause of action. The installation, if defective, might lead to another cause of action against the contractor. And so it goes, on and on. All might be tried in one trial, or they might be severed for tactical considerations.

by 'Wolfie Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:42 am

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Thank you.
However I am entitled to warn Mags who is relatively new here to ignore the forum troll if I so choose.

Can we please get back to the debate now, which was interesting before Wolf tried to disrupt it by using his usual method.

He did stop after I spoke out Syl.

You are right to get back to the debate, sorry

Sly's up to her usual bullshit here...

Referring to me falsely as the "forum troll" -- when Sly herself is clearly the one trolling and disrupting this thread !!!

People should ask themselves one question -- Why can't Sly stop her racist and white supremacy slurs on here ? And, what is it with these Floptards' deflections on this thread ???

The simple fact remains -- I have NEVER trolled on here, or anywhere else for that matter.

Sly is a lying dog, pure and simple..

by HoratioTarr Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:57 am

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:GG is a twat!!!

Everything he does now is overshadowed by the awful memory of him pretending to be a pussy cat lapping milk up whilst Rula Lenska stroked his head.

That's the first thing I thought of when I saw him in this thread. That had to be the most cringiest, toe curling display in the history of TV...an old man being sexually suggestive about licking milk off...... YUK!

by eddie Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:36 am

Jules I gave you a green for that - purely for the fact you put all that work in.

Still think he's a bit of a wally though he does make some good points.

by eddie Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:38 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
nicko wrote:Just wondered, how did the fire get to the outside of the Building when it started in the Kitchen?

Air vents?

It was a very hot day - I'd say open windows.

by HoratioTarr Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:35 am

eddie wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

Air vents?

It was a very hot day - I'd say open windows.

Does anyone know if that fire would have taken a hold regardless of the cladding? I know the cladding went up fast on the outside but what about the inside? Would that have happened if no cladding was in place?

I remember watching a brick barn go up years ago. It was so fast and so ferocious, it was all over in minutes. I'd never seen anything like it.

by Syl Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:38 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Thorin wrote:

He did stop after I spoke out Syl.

You are right to get back to the debate, sorry

Sly's up to her usual bullshit here...

Referring to me falsely as the "forum troll" -- when Sly herself is clearly the one trolling and disrupting this thread !!!

People should ask themselves one question -- Why can't Sly stop her racist and white supremacy slurs on here ? And, what is it with these Floptards' deflections on this thread ???

The simple fact remains -- I have NEVER trolled on here, or anywhere else for that matter.

Sly is a lying dog, pure and simple..

Grenfell Tower Investigators To Consider Manslaughter Charges - Page 5 Tantrum

by magica Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:02 pm

Why are you so nasty Wolfie, you dig Syl out all the time. Horrible to read the spite you write.

by 'Wolfie Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:48 pm

magica wrote:
Why are you so nasty Wolfie, you dig Syl out all the time. Horrible to read the spite you write.

I'M not the "nasty" one on here...

There is no "spite" behind my attacks on Sly, nor the other Floptards

Why is Sly lying about me? I have never"trolled", on here or elsewhere..
Why is Sly too gutless to own up to her own xenophobic and racist leanings?

Why hasn't anyone called out Sly, Tommy and Raggs over their deliberate deflections over these tragedies, their attempted scapegoating on here, and Sly's subsequent attempts at derailing this thread ?

Sly has always been Stormee's #1 fan, and Deano's faithful little handmaiden, hasn't she..

No surprise then, to see her bringing their brand of crap over here...

by Victorismyhero Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:54 pm

wolfie...you are touched by the same insanity as scrat....

go see a shrink

by Victorismyhero Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:57 pm

Lord Foul wrote:wolfie...you are touched by the same insanity as scrat the insignificant....

go see a shrink

by Original Quill Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:39 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Syl wrote:

Everything he does now is overshadowed by the awful memory of him pretending to be a pussy cat lapping milk up whilst Rula Lenska stroked his head.

That's the first thing I thought of when I saw him in this thread. That had to be the most cringiest, toe curling display in the history of TV...an old man being sexually suggestive about licking milk off...... YUK!

Ageism...old people are the next Negros. Just like we have preconceived notions about blacks--good dancers, xlnt at sports, but unintelligent and uncivilized--we have preconceived notions about old people.

One is, we can't imagine them in intimate situations. They are all dried up, and useless. We'd rather they just went off and died, of course leaving us their house and money. Lol.

by HoratioTarr Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:53 pm

Original Quill wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

That's the first thing I thought of when I saw him in this thread. That had to be the most cringiest, toe curling display in the history of TV...an old man being sexually suggestive about licking milk off...... YUK!

Ageism...old people are the next Negros. Just like we have preconceived notions about blacks--good dancers, xlnt at sports, but unintelligent and uncivilized--we have preconceived notions about old people.

One is, we can't imagine them in intimate situations. They are all dried up, and useless. We'd rather they just went off and died, of course leaving us their house and money. Lol.

Stop behaving like an arse and twisting stuff to suit your own agenda. Galloway looked like a complete prick and just about ruined his career. He got lambasted by his constituents and peers. The saying There's no fool like an old fool' which is something you spouted recently yourself, was very apt. So stop being a hypocrite.

by HoratioTarr Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:55 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
magica wrote:
Why are you so nasty Wolfie, you dig Syl out all the time. Horrible to read the spite you write.

I'M not the "nasty" one on here...

There is no "spite" behind my attacks on Sly, nor the other Floptards

Why is Sly lying about me? I have never"trolled", on here or elsewhere..
Why is Sly too gutless to own up to her own xenophobic and racist leanings?

Why hasn't anyone called out Sly, Tommy and Raggs over their deliberate deflections over these tragedies, their attempted scapegoating on here, and Sly's subsequent attempts at derailing this thread ?

Sly has always been Stormee's #1 fan, and Deano's faithful little handmaiden, hasn't she..

No surprise then, to see her bringing their brand of crap over here...

You're right, you're not a troll. You're too thick to be a troll and too stupid to be anything but the forum swimming pool turd.

by HoratioTarr Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:56 pm

magica wrote:Why are you so nasty Wolfie, you dig Syl out all the time. Horrible to read the spite you write.

He's the Multiple Miggs of Newsfix.

by Sponsored content