Forced child migration 'bigger abuse scandal than Savile'

First topic message reminder :

The forced migration of UK children overseas was a bigger sex abuse scandal than that of Jimmy Savile, ex-prime minister Gordon Brown has said. Mr Brown told the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse that the 2,000 surviving British child migrants who suffered abuse should be compensated. He said the mass transportation of 130,000 British children overseas was "government-enforced trafficking". Across 50 years, the children were sent to ex-colonies such as Australia. The transportation programme began in the 1920s, partly to ease the population of the UK's orphanages in the years after the First World War, and to give "lost" children the chance of a new life in Britain's colonies.

But children continued to be be sent abroad until 1974.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40669699

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I presume they weren't snatched off the streets, so I don't understand where the parents were in order to give consent anyway. If they weren't orphans, why were they in orphanages?

Possibly some were in some sort of care after WW1 and WW2....that doesn't account for children still being sent as recently as the 70's though.
Many of the parents didn't give consent did they?

The same question applies though.

I don't know the answer...obviously lots have been covered up.

I thought the parent/s give up any rights over the child when handed over to state care system...?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:



Did I?

Show me the post where you claim I said it did matter where the parents were?

Put up or jog on love

Reading back on this thread, you've done to Raggs what you always do, poke and poke and repeat the same passive aggressive  nonsense you seem to take great delight in doing when you want to start some aggro.   Three times you've posted the same reply as she's tried to debate the point she's trying to put across.  She's made a very good point  that's relevant to the OP and you're trying to ridicule her for it.  

I asked her a question

She could not answer

She then got angry and abusive

You dont like that, tough

You can give the snowflake a hug as you made her a victim to nothing she was a victim of.

Here this might help

Raggamuffin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

To Ragg's :

The British did not act in good faith --  their reasons were multi-fold but none were proper or honourable  :

Politics --  being seen to "do something"

Expedience --  one less thing for the guvm'nt to worry about

Economics --  shifting a potential problem onto other countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia..)

And, worst of all -- pandering to their friends in various paedophile rings --  during the 1940s, many of the "paedophile rings" around the former colonies were organised and populated with expat' Brits in the foreign service/diplomatic corps/military/'charities' --  see my reference to the 'Viscount' William Slim above..


There is simply no way that you can blame the authorities in Canada, Australia and New Zealand for the actions of British authorities, charities and churches back at home..

Australian, Canadian and Kiwi governments have already recognised and admitted wrongdoings by gov't departments, authorities, charities and church groups in our countries...

The British gov't and "establishment" are still largely in denial, don't want to admit any wrondoing, and are probably basically scared of having to pay ££billions££ in compensation payouts...

I can certainly blame the authorities in Australia if they did nothing to stop the abuse - that's where it happened, is it not? Passing the buck to the British for that is beyond the pale. You're the ones who should be paying compensation because it was in Australia that the abuse occurred.

There we have it again, exonerating the trafficking of 130,000 children over decades by successive British Governments. Also blaming a poster for any abuse suffered by some of these who suffered abuse in Australia and Britain.

When some of the abuse actually happened in the UK. The point British Governments were involved in the trafficking of tens of thousands of children and whilst some were told their parents were dead, when in fact they were alive. That is disgusting on all levels.

Tommy Monk wrote:I thought the parent/s give up any rights over the child when handed over to state care system...?

And given that orphaned children were evacuated to all manner of different places in the uk during the war times... I dont think its that much of a leap of thought for the idea to arise that sending some to British territories further afield, where there was no war or rationing etc, might be a safer option for them...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I thought the parent/s give up any rights over the child when handed over to state care system...?

And given that orphaned children were evacuated to all manner of different places in the uk during the war times... I dont think its that much of a leap of thought for the idea to arise that sending some to British territories further afield, where there was no war or rationing etc, might be a safer option for them...

Australia has been an independent nation since 1901
So what about all the years there was no threat to the UK through wars?
Seems to me you are defending child trafficking, which is no surprise.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:You see, there are two aspects to this: The fact that they were sent abroad without consent of their parents, and the abuse they suffered in Australia. That is why I asked where their parents were. If they children were in orphanages, that would suggest they were orphans, or that their parents had abandoned them.

There is two sides to this...how and why could the government forcibly remove children away from this country and ship them off to Australia sometimes without parental approval or knowledge, and why were the children told they were orphans when many were not?

Obviously the abuse they suffered in Australia is the fault of the abusers, no question of that.......but why were they sent, as recently as the mid 70's in the first place?

If this goes back decades, then I do believe yes, the Government could forcibly remove children from both their parents and the country. Particularly orphans. So yes, looks like both countries are to blame.

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Reading back on this thread, you've done to Raggs what you always do, poke and poke and repeat the same passive aggressive  nonsense you seem to take great delight in doing when you want to start some aggro.   Three times you've posted the same reply as she's tried to debate the point she's trying to put across.  She's made a very good point  that's relevant to the OP and you're trying to ridicule her for it.  

I asked her a question

She could not answer

She then got angry and abusive

You dont like that, tough

You can give the snowflake a hug as you made her a victim to nothing she was a victim of.

Here this might help

She answered you several times. What she didn't do, was engage in your silly mind games. What you need to ask yourself is why so many people on here keep on pulling you up about the same behaviour, and why you repeatedly get banned. Doesn't that tell you something?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:



I asked her a question

She could not answer

She then got angry and abusive

You dont like that, tough

You can give the snowflake a hug as you made her a victim to nothing she was a victim of.

Here this might help

She answered you several times.   What she didn't do, was engage in your silly mind games.   What you need to ask yourself is why so many people on here keep on pulling you up about the same behaviour, and why you repeatedly get banned.  Doesn't that tell you something?

She failed to answer my question.
She has throughout the day acted like a child having a temper tantrum, hence making your fake outrage nothing short of a joke
You are the only one pulling me up.
Mainly as you excuse her poor behaviour.
You even ignore she is exonerating the crime of successor British Governments over this child trafficking.
How about you actually take her to task on this?
Or is this showing again your double standards?

Seriously stop wasting my time with your fake outrage drivel

Rationing went on for years after WW2...


But the point is, the children were in state care, and it may have been thought, with best intentions, that some could be given a fantastic opportunity of a better new life overseas...

Tommy Monk wrote:Rationing went on for years after WW2...


But the point is, the children were in state care, and it may have been thought, with best intentions, that some could be given a fantastic opportunity of a better new life overseas...

Wow, so you think that makes it acceptable to continue to traffic children abroad?

Rationing?

They were sent away from their own country and had no say in the matter.

That is wrong on every level.

it may have been thought, with best intentions, that some could be given a fantastic opportunity of a better new life overseas...

Tommy Monk wrote:it may have been thought, with best intentions, that some could be given a fantastic opportunity of a better new life overseas...

How is it in the best interest of the child, to take them away from everything that they know?
And again without their consent?

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:it may have been thought, with best intentions, that some could be given a fantastic opportunity of a better new life overseas...

How is it in the best interest of the child, to take them away from everything that they know?
And again without their consent?

That doesnt seem to bother you when a young child is handed over to a couple of homosexuals here without the consent of child or parent/s...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:

How is it in the best interest of the child, to take them away from everything that they know?
And again without their consent?

That doesnt seem to bother you when a young child is handed over to a couple of homosexuals here without the consent of child or parent/s...

So you are now comparing this to children up for adoption and wanted by loving parents in the UK?

How exactly?

Show me where many objected to being adopted?

No... you show me where consent of child/parents has been required and given...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:No... you show me where consent of child/parents has been required and given...!!!???

You brought it up and made the claim, hence the onus is on you.

Anyway.

http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:it may have been thought, with best intentions, that some could be given a fantastic opportunity of a better new life overseas...

How is it in the best interest of the child, to take them away from everything that they know?
And again without their consent?

No... you brought it up... as seen here above...


And earlier you were trying to argue that parent/s hadnt given consent either...!!!


Although you also argue that children should be handed over to homosexuals without childs consent even being required, and even when parents disagree with this happening...

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


That doesnt seem to bother you when a young child is handed over to a couple of homosexuals here without the consent of child or parent/s...

So you are now comparing this to children up for adoption and wanted by loving parents in the UK?

How exactly?

Show me where many objected to being adopted?

Actually you brought it up Tommy

So you are now comparing this to children up for adoption and wanted by loving parents in the UK?

How exactly?

Show me where many objected to being adopted?

Tommy Monk wrote:


And earlier you were trying to argue that parent/s hadnt given consent either...!!!

Really?

Where did I say that?

Beginning of thread... Raggs was asking about why orphans needed the consent of parents to be sent overseas...


Then you argued that childs consent was not given either...


But you are happy with child being given to homosexuals without childs consent, and even when parents express opposition to it...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:
Then you argued that childs consent was not given either...


But you are happy with child being given to homosexuals without childs consent, and even when parents express opposition to it...!!!

So you admit to lying then.

As not once did I say parents did I?

https://www.gov.uk/child-adoption/birth-parents-your-rights


Which shows again you have no idea what you are talking about.

Maybe you can tell me what harm comes to children being adopted by homosexual parents?

Which is far removed from trafficking children abroad

If the child is currently subject to Placement Order proceedings the local authority must seek the consent of the court to advertise the child.

When a Placement Order has been granted the consent of the parent or the court is not required. The local authority can consent to advertising. However the agency should obtain the consent of the child where the agency considers the child is of sufficient age and understanding.

https://www.adoptionuk.org/law-featuring-children

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:



I asked her a question

She could not answer

She then got angry and abusive

You dont like that, tough

You can give the snowflake a hug as you made her a victim to nothing she was a victim of.

Here this might help

She answered you several times.   What she didn't do, was engage in your silly mind games.   What you need to ask yourself is why so many people on here keep on pulling you up about the same behaviour, and why you repeatedly get banned.  Doesn't that tell you something?

Thank you again. He was baiting and pretending that the issue of where the parents were didn't matter, even though the article said that they didn't give consent, so it clearly does matter. Now he thinks it's important of course - because now he can bait people about that.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't think so, Raggs.  I think it's a good thread, born of good intentions.  Didge is just trying to shed some light on the subject.

Moving on, I also agree with didge that the immediate wrong is in the doing of the illegal act.  The abuse of the children.  Now, in law it is recognized that there can be multiple causes of an event...proximate cause, concurrent cause, etc.  Each of them must be dealt with separately and in their own way.  They are not meant to compete with one another, but dealt with individually.

Institutional causes (unwanted children, troublesome children, etc.) are of particularly concern because institutions (as opposed to criminal wrongdoers): (1) require a different perspective; and (2) they can too easily be lost in the never-neverland of red tape: commissions to study; experimental answers; low-priority, etc.

So you're both right.  But that's no excuse.  Treat them as two separate problems, and approach each accordingly.

+1

Great post Quill

Catch you later

Ah,because Quill agrees with you ,he isn't trying to act like a mod.

Tommy Monk wrote:Rationing went on for years after WW2...


But the point is, the children were in state care, and it may have been thought, with best intentions, that some could be given a fantastic opportunity of a better new life overseas...

I think it was done with the best of intentions, sending children to a land that must have seemed like paradise compared to conditions at home. Raggs question is the obvious starting point. Were these children sent without parental consent, if they had parents why were they in orphanages ? Were they sent to Australia as cheap labour or because it was genuinely felt they would have a better life?

Miffs, Horatio and Tommy join in attempting to defend the indefensible on the part of the British government, while also trying to shift the blame wholly-and-solely onto the recipient countries...

Why am I not surprised ???

That mob of odious and uncaring slimeballs are getting worse by the week.

Miffs2 wrote:

Thorin wrote:


+1

Great post Quill

Catch you later

Ah,because Quill agrees with you ,he isn't trying to act like a mod.

Quill made some good points, maybe you can try doing so for once in your life yourself Nems.

As to your point about how kids torn away from the country they are raised in and make out that then they are on their way to paradise? It was not just Australia that they were sent to and since when was all of Australia a paradise. What the Uk was doing was offloading a problem, when it had a due care to their own citizens.

Mr Brown said the forced transportation programmes were a "violation of human rights".

He said: "Clearly, successive governments have failed in a duty of care. And that is a source of shame.

"Children were denied a childhood, an identity, a family and any sense of belonging. Many, some as young as three, were sent abroad, often having been falsely told their parents were dead.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Miffs, Horatio and Tommy join in attempting to defend the indefensible on the part of the British government, while also trying to shift the blame wholly-and-solely onto the recipient countries...

Why am I not surprised ???

That mob of odious and uncaring slimeballs are getting worse by the week.

Maybe you should take notice of what other posters are saying for a change rather than pursue your own agenda of trying to blame the UK for what Australians did.

Raggamuffin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Miffs, Horatio and Tommy join in attempting to defend the indefensible on the part of the British government, while also trying to shift the blame wholly-and-solely onto the recipient countries...

Why am I not surprised ???

That mob of odious and uncaring slimeballs are getting worse by the week.

Maybe you should take notice of what other posters are saying for a change rather than pursue your own agenda of trying to blame the UK for what Australians did.

Maybe you should actually take note of what he said and about Australia taking responsibility for their part.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

To Ragg's :

The British did not act in good faith --  their reasons were multi-fold but none were proper or honourable  :

Politics --  being seen to "do something"

Expedience --  one less thing for the guvm'nt to worry about

Economics --  shifting a potential problem onto other countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia..)

And, worst of all -- pandering to their friends in various paedophile rings --  during the 1940s, many of the "paedophile rings" around the former colonies were organised and populated with expat' Brits in the foreign service/diplomatic corps/military/'charities' --  see my reference to the 'Viscount' William Slim above..


There is simply no way that you can blame the authorities in Canada, Australia and New Zealand for the actions of British authorities, charities and churches back at home..

Australian, Canadian and Kiwi governments have already recognised and admitted wrongdoings by gov't departments, authorities, charities and church groups in our countries...

The British gov't and "establishment" are still largely in denial, don't want to admit any wrondoing, and are probably basically scared of having to pay ££billions££ in compensation payouts...

The British government of the day was ignoring the rights of British children in the same way as the Australian gov't ignored the rights of Aboriginal children, and the Canadian gov't their First Nation children, (and later on the Brazilian government ignored the crimes against their "Missing Children"..) at various times...


The rights of both the children, and in many cases their parents, were taken away;

The responsibility for them was handed over to a bureaucracy, with a faux "childrens advocate" role given to those authorities..

Various officials, and certain charities and church groups working "hand in glove" with them, then deliberately lied to both the children and their parents, and to the wider population in general...


While enquiries and early official investigations in Canada and Australia began back in the 1980s, and some compensation is already being paid out to victims, and some individual British politicians and former politicians have brought the subject up in parliament, with coverage by British newspapers and the BBC, we are still seeing both the British authorities themselves failing to admit any wrongdoing..

While that odious British "establishment" with their Robber Baron wealth, aristocratic heritage, and wastrel offspring, are doing backflips and contortions to hide their own favourite paedo's and criminal involvement...


And on here even now, we see a handful of people -- all but one with that common connection to Deano's Flophouse -- doing their bit in aiding and abetting the behaviours of those more sinister corners of Britain's "establishment" and their ongoing denials -- while pathetically attempting to blame Australians for those crimes..

At least Australia is doing something as well

"In Australia, a national redress scheme may offer up to 150,000 Australian dollars (£90,000) to abused migrants. It is for Australian and other Commonwealth countries to compensate for the failure to protect and prosecute when children came to their country."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-sex-abuse-inquiry-jimmy-savile-forced-transportation-deportation-to-australia-gordon-brown-a7852041.html

If the children had led happy lives out there, I bet there wouldn't be complaints. Australians abusing children is Australia's problem.

The transportation scheme began in the 1920s, in part to east the population of UK orphanages int he years after the First World War, but also to give "lost" children a fresh start in the colonies.

Bindoon Boys Town: The sad truth behind Britain's lost children
But many children, some of whom were forcibly taken from their parents and were not told where they were going, found a life of hardship and depravity once they arrived as many were forced to work on farms and were subject to severe sexual and physical abuse.

One of the surviving victims, David Hill, waived his right to anonymity earlier this year to urge the chair of the inquiry, Professor Alexis Jay, to "name the villains" responsible for the policy.

Mr Hill, who later became the managing director of the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABC), later uncovered documents shown to the inquiry which said a fact-finding mission was set from the UK to Australia in 1956 after people raise concerns about the policy.

As a result, a blacklist of institutions which were mistreating the children was drawn up by the British government but it was never enforced due to political pressure from the some of the charities and agencies involved.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-sex-abuse-inquiry-jimmy-savile-forced-transportation-deportation-to-australia-gordon-brown-a7852041.html

So much for the crap people were claiming about going for a better life and it being a paradise. Some people are so nationalistic, they can admit to clear wrongs done by this country. Thus becoming poor apologists to a crime.

Not to excuse or lessen any wrongdoings on the part of the Australian, Canadian or New Zealand governments and their authorities...

In the first half of the 20th century each of these countries were operating their immigration policies under a "populate or perish ! " philosophy;  where the governments took a narrow view of ways to build the nations' populations to a more "sustainable" level fast --  and with a particular bias to building and maintaining the "white" majorities in these countries.

The same kind of insular and "end of empire" thinking that also led to the 'White Australia Policy' after WWI..

And gave us those authorities and their bureaucracy that were all too ready to ignore criminal acts, abuses and outright denials of basic human rights...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Miffs, Horatio and Tommy join in attempting to defend the indefensible on the part of the British government, while also trying to shift the blame wholly-and-solely onto the recipient countries...

Why am I not surprised ???

That mob of odious and uncaring slimeballs are getting worse by the week.

Hey. Moron. Don't tell me what I think.

Miffs2 wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Miffs, Horatio and Tommy join in attempting to defend the indefensible on the part of the British government, while also trying to shift the blame wholly-and-solely onto the recipient countries...

Why am I not surprised ???

That mob of odious and uncaring slimeballs are getting worse by the week.

Hey. Moron. Don't tell me what I think.

Do Fuck off, you idiotic trolling twat...

Your fascist, racist and white supremacist ideals are quite clear for everyone to see on here  !!!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

Hey. Moron. Don't tell me what I think.

Do Fuck off, you idiotic trolling twat...

Your fascist, racist and white supremacist ideals are quite clear for everyone to see on here  !!!

Stop trying to back yourself up with ridiculous statements that others see what you see....you certainly don't speak for me...and obviously there is only ONE troll in this thread....clue...its not Miffs.

Syl wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Do Fuck off, you idiotic trolling twat...

Your fascist, racist and white supremacist ideals are quite clear for everyone to see on here  !!!

Stop trying to back yourself up with ridiculous statements that  others see what you see....you certainly don't speak for me...and obviously there is only ONE troll in this thread....clue...its not Miffs.

Well wolf is right that Nems, Tommy and rags have given a poor apologist stance to a crime

Wolf at least has given many good points on this, whilst the others because they see no wrong ever in what the uk does, came out with what can only be described as complete bollocks.

Making them piss poor apologists. Wolf even stated the wrongs by Australia, but as seen Nems, and co seem to think it was a paradise to be sent away.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Stop trying to back yourself up with ridiculous statements that  others see what you see....you certainly don't speak for me...and obviously there is only ONE troll in this thread....clue...its not Miffs.

Well wolf is right that Nems, Tommy and rags have given a poor apologist stance to a crime

Wolf at least has given many good points on this, whilst the others because they see no wrong ever in what the uk does, came out with what can only be described as complete bollocks.

Making them piss poor apologists. Wolf even stated the wrongs by Australia, but as seen Nems, and co seem to think it was a paradise to be sent away.

He didn't mention me actually, you stirring moron. All he's done is try to blame the UK for the abuse, which happened in Australia, and is therefore down to the Aussies. You clearly enjoy seeing him trolling and getting abusive - a bit like you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Well wolf is right that Nems, Tommy and rags have given a poor apologist stance to a crime

Wolf at least has given many good points on this, whilst the others because they see no wrong ever in what the uk does, came out with what can only be described as complete bollocks.

Making them piss poor apologists. Wolf even stated the wrongs by Australia, but as seen Nems, and co seem to think it was a paradise to be sent away.

He didn't mention me actually, you stirring moron. All he's done is try to blame the UK for the abuse, which happened in Australia, and is therefore down to the Aussies. You clearly enjoy seeing him trolling and getting abusive - a bit like you.

Well that shows you cannot read what he did say and it shows he did show blame to Australia

You tried to exonerate the Uk from any wrongs, of which they did plenty wrong here and you are still doing it now

Its not stirring to point out you are an apologist

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He didn't mention me actually, you stirring moron. All he's done is try to blame the UK for the abuse, which happened in Australia, and is therefore down to the Aussies. You clearly enjoy seeing him trolling and getting abusive - a bit like you.

Well that shows you cannot read what he did say and it shows he did show blame to Australia

You tried to exonerate the Uk from any wrongs, of which they did plenty wrong here and you are still doing it now

Its not stirring to point out you are an apologist

He's constantly trying to draw attention away from the Aussies by blaming the UK and getting abusive towards other members here. Still, it's good to know that you approve of abuse ...

You're an apologist for the Aussies.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well that shows you cannot read what he did say and it shows he did show blame to Australia

You tried to exonerate the Uk from any wrongs, of which they did plenty wrong here and you are still doing it now

Its not stirring to point out you are an apologist

He's constantly trying to draw attention away from the Aussies by blaming the UK and getting abusive towards other members here. Still, it's good to know that you approve of abuse ...

You're an apologist for the Aussies.

Raggs, you're such a drama queen.  He's not said anything that many of us have mentioned.  It's just...Brits are a bit over-sensitive.  If everything said about them is not perfect, they begin to feel unloved.  

Lordy, if I took every criticism about the US to heart, I'd be in an institution by now.  Lighten up...learn to meditate.  Light some aroma-candles.  Here:



Now, don't that feel better?  Y'all just need to get used to a little criticism...roll with it.

Each time, though, a couple of those usual odious suspects from the Flopcave have entered the fray, attempting to excuse British authorities of these virtually_criminal activities, and trying to deflect attention by referring to unrelated Australian and American issues..

See how he's trying to distance the Aussies from the abuse.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He's constantly trying to draw attention away from the Aussies by blaming the UK and getting abusive towards other members here. Still, it's good to know that you approve of abuse ...

You're an apologist for the Aussies.

Raggs, you're such a drama queen.  He's not said anything that many of us have mentioned.  It's just...Brits are a bit over-sensitive.  If everything said about them is not perfect, they begin to feel unloved.  

Lordy, if I took every criticism about the US to heart, I'd be in an institution by now.  Lighten up...learn to meditate.  Light some aroma-candles.  Here:



Now, don't that feel better?  Y'all just need to get used to a little criticism...roll with it.

You do take criticism to heart. You got abusive when I proved you wrong yesterday ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggs, you're such a drama queen.  He's not said anything that many of us have mentioned.  It's just...Brits are a bit over-sensitive.  If everything said about them is not perfect, they begin to feel unloved.  

Lordy, if I took every criticism about the US to heart, I'd be in an institution by now.  Lighten up...learn to meditate.  Light some aroma-candles.  Here:



Now, don't that feel better?  Y'all just need to get used to a little criticism...roll with it.

You do take criticism to heart. You got abusive when I proved you wrong yesterday ...

No, I just left you with your lack of understanding.  You can lead a horse to water... and all that.  I did exactly what I'm advising you to do...go around once or twice, then roll your eyes and move on.  

Even if you think you are right, it's not worth the grief. The point is, you Brits over-react, and think the world is out to get you. It's the price you pay for such British-chauvinism.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You do take criticism to heart. You got abusive when I proved you wrong yesterday ...

No, I just left you with your lack of understanding.  You can lead a horse to water... and all that.  I did exactly what I'm advising you to do...go around once or twice, then roll your eyes and move on.  

Even if you think you are right, it's not worth the grief.  The point is, you Brits over-react, and think the world is out to get you.  It's the price you pay for such British-chauvinism.

I understand the situation very well, it's you who doesn't know the difference between a referendum and an election, and you don't know the system in your own country! I'm obviously going to challenge you when you make false statements.

You should just admit it when you get something wrong Quill - it would save a lot of time.