Ed Miliband's Labour Party on track for general election victory

First topic message reminder :






Labour are on course for election victory after enjoying an uninterrupted lead over the Tories for TWO years, our poll reveals today.

No party with an unbroken two-year lead has failed to win the following election in the past 40 years.

Today’s Sunday Mirror/ComRes survey puts Labour up two points on 37 per cent, the Tories also up two on 32 per cent, with the UK Independence Party down four on 15 per cent. The Lib Dems – up one point – trail in fourth place on nine per cent.

If a general election were held tomorrow, Labour leader Ed Miliband would be PM with a 60-seat Commons majority, our poll indicates.

The Tories would drop 59 seats while the Lib Dems would lose 36. UKIP would not win a single seat.

The last time the Tories were ahead in our poll was February 2012 when they were on 39 per cent with Labour at 38 per cent, the Lib Dems on 10 per cent and UKIP at five per cent.

ComRes expert Adam Ludlow said: “Going back to 1970, no party has ever avoided going behind in the main polls for two years without going on to form a government after the following election.”

The big losers are UKIP. Despite coming second behind Labour but ahead of the Tories in this week’s Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election, their popularity has plunged by four points.

UKIP have also lost the lead they had in our last poll as “most favoured” party. Just 24 per cent said they were most favourable towards UKIP – behind Labour on 31 per cent and the Tories on 28 per cent.

The public remained more favourable towards Mr Cameron (31 per cent) than the Tory Party (28 per cent) and less favourable towards Ed Miliband (22 per cent) than Labour generally (31 per cent).

   ComRes interviewed 2,031 adults.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-milibands-labour-party-track-3150615#ixzz2tUbAyOa9
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook



 ::sexbnan:  ::sexbnan:  ::sexbnan:

Phoenix wrote:

Catman wrote:

  

Fuck off Drinky.

There you have it. Now do you understand my comment.

You are even using Drinky quotes FFS!.....And you are stalking around the board like that turd used to do.   

Catman wrote:




Labour are on course for election victory after enjoying an uninterrupted lead over the Tories for TWO years, our poll reveals today.

No party with an unbroken two-year lead has failed to win the following election in the past 40 years.

Today’s Sunday Mirror/ComRes survey puts Labour up two points on 37 per cent, the Tories also up two on 32 per cent, with the UK Independence Party down four on 15 per cent. The Lib Dems – up one point – trail in fourth place on nine per cent.

If a general election were held tomorrow, Labour leader Ed Miliband would be PM with a 60-seat Commons majority, our poll indicates.

The Tories would drop 59 seats while the Lib Dems would lose 36. UKIP would not win a single seat.

The last time the Tories were ahead in our poll was February 2012 when they were on 39 per cent with Labour at 38 per cent, the Lib Dems on 10 per cent and UKIP at five per cent.

ComRes expert Adam Ludlow said: “Going back to 1970, no party has ever avoided going behind in the main polls for two years without going on to form a government after the following election.”

The big losers are UKIP. Despite coming second behind Labour but ahead of the Tories in this week’s Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election, their popularity has plunged by four points.

UKIP have also lost the lead they had in our last poll as “most favoured” party. Just 24 per cent said they were most favourable towards UKIP – behind Labour on 31 per cent and the Tories on 28 per cent.

The public remained more favourable towards Mr Cameron (31 per cent) than the Tory Party (28 per cent) and less favourable towards Ed Miliband (22 per cent) than Labour generally (31 per cent).

   ComRes interviewed 2,031 adults.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-milibands-labour-party-track-3150615#ixzz2tUbAyOa9
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook



 ::sexbnan:  ::sexbnan:  ::sexbnan:

Oh, if it's in the Daily Moron, sorry, Daily Mirror then it must be true.

I try never to use the damn things, but in this case...  

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Catman wrote:




Labour are on course for election victory after enjoying an uninterrupted lead over the Tories for TWO years, our poll reveals today.

No party with an unbroken two-year lead has failed to win the following election in the past 40 years.

Today’s Sunday Mirror/ComRes survey puts Labour up two points on 37 per cent, the Tories also up two on 32 per cent, with the UK Independence Party down four on 15 per cent. The Lib Dems – up one point – trail in fourth place on nine per cent.

If a general election were held tomorrow, Labour leader Ed Miliband would be PM with a 60-seat Commons majority, our poll indicates.

The Tories would drop 59 seats while the Lib Dems would lose 36. UKIP would not win a single seat.

The last time the Tories were ahead in our poll was February 2012 when they were on 39 per cent with Labour at 38 per cent, the Lib Dems on 10 per cent and UKIP at five per cent.

ComRes expert Adam Ludlow said: “Going back to 1970, no party has ever avoided going behind in the main polls for two years without going on to form a government after the following election.”

The big losers are UKIP. Despite coming second behind Labour but ahead of the Tories in this week’s Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election, their popularity has plunged by four points.

UKIP have also lost the lead they had in our last poll as “most favoured” party. Just 24 per cent said they were most favourable towards UKIP – behind Labour on 31 per cent and the Tories on 28 per cent.

The public remained more favourable towards Mr Cameron (31 per cent) than the Tory Party (28 per cent) and less favourable towards Ed Miliband (22 per cent) than Labour generally (31 per cent).

   ComRes interviewed 2,031 adults.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-milibands-labour-party-track-3150615#ixzz2tUbAyOa9
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook



 ::sexbnan:  ::sexbnan:  ::sexbnan:

Oh, if it's in the Daily Moron, sorry, Daily Mirror then it must be true.

I try never to use the damn things, but in this case...  

Com Res is an independent polling organisation, and the Daily Mail is your RW scum bible, and they are always in the litigation courts over their lies you silly old man.   

Catman wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Oh, if it's in the Daily Moron, sorry, Daily Mirror then it must be true.

I try never to use the damn things, but in this case...  

Com Res is an independent polling organisation, and the Daily Mail is your RW scum bible, and they are always in the litigation courts over their lies you silly old man.   

Com Res was commissioned by the Sunday Mirror, and had their findings been to the contrary they would never have been published.

You do, of course, have a list of all these Daily Mail (one of this country's finest national newspapers with a circulation and readership double that of the downmarket red top tabloid comic the Daily Mirror) "always in the litigation courts" don't you?

I sadly do not believe Ed is a born leader, this may well cost us a few votes, but nothing in comparison to this rebelling against the bedroom scumbag tax.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Catman wrote:

Com Res is an independent polling organisation, and the Daily Mail is your RW scum bible, and they are always in the litigation courts over their lies you silly old man.   

Com Res was commissioned by the Sunday Mirror, and had their findings been to the contrary they would never have been published.

You do, of course, have a list of all these Daily Mail  (one of this country's finest national newspapers with a circulation and readership double that of the downmarket red top tabloid comic the Daily Mirror) "always in the litigation courts" don't you?

There was a documentary about how they were the worst, on TV a while back.

There is no information available (that i can find) on the exact number of cases.

Catman wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Com Res was commissioned by the Sunday Mirror, and had their findings been to the contrary they would never have been published.

You do, of course, have a list of all these Daily Mail  (one of this country's finest national newspapers with a circulation and readership double that of the downmarket red top tabloid comic the Daily Mirror) "always in the litigation courts" don't you?

There was a documentary about how they were the worst, on TV a while back.

There is no information available (that i can find) on the exact number of cases.

Of course, there was. And because you want to believe it, it must be true, mustn't it? Actually, when judged by its peers, the Mail and its fine team of writers, reporters and columnists are held to be among the very best.

If you don't know for certain that the paper is always in the litigation courts, what basis have you for saying so?

And what constitutes a Daily Mail "lie" - something that does not agree with whatever your two operational brain cells believe?

Lol

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Catman wrote:

There was a documentary about how they were the worst, on TV a while back.

There is no information available (that i can find) on the exact number of cases.

Of course, there was. And because you want to believe it, it must be true, mustn't it? Actually, when judged by its peers, the Mail and its fine team of writers, reporters and columnists are held to be among the very best.

If you don't know for certain that the paper is always in the litigation courts, what basis have you for saying so?

And what constitutes a Daily Mail "lie" - something that does not agree with whatever your two operational brain cells believe?

...no Disrespect to you Ed, but the daily mail were claiming cannabis alone can kill a person ffs!



A world first!

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Catman wrote:

There was a documentary about how they were the worst, on TV a while back.

There is no information available (that i can find) on the exact number of cases.

Of course, there was. And because you want to believe it, it must be true, mustn't it? Actually, when judged by its peers, the Mail and its fine team of writers, reporters and columnists are held to be among the very best.

If you don't know for certain that the paper is always in the litigation courts, what basis have you for saying so?

And what constitutes a Daily Mail "lie" - something that does not agree with whatever your two operational brain cells believe?

The program was very informative and dealt with real life litigation cases against the RW scum rag.

Now fuck off, you rude and pompous old man!  

Joy Division wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Of course, there was. And because you want to believe it, it must be true, mustn't it? Actually, when judged by its peers, the Mail and its fine team of writers, reporters and columnists are held to be among the very best.

If you don't know for certain that the paper is always in the litigation courts, what basis have you for saying so?

And what constitutes a Daily Mail "lie" - something that does not agree with whatever your two operational brain cells believe?

...no Disrespect to you Ed, but the daily mail were claiming cannabis alone can kill a person ffs!



A world first!

I haven't seen the article but I think you'll find that someone else is making the claim and that the Mail is reporting it. It's what newspapers do, after all.

Joy Division wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Of course, there was. And because you want to believe it, it must be true, mustn't it? Actually, when judged by its peers, the Mail and its fine team of writers, reporters and columnists are held to be among the very best.

If you don't know for certain that the paper is always in the litigation courts, what basis have you for saying so?

And what constitutes a Daily Mail "lie" - something that does not agree with whatever your two operational brain cells believe?

...no Disrespect to you Ed, but the daily mail were claiming cannabis alone can kill a person ffs!



A world first!

The Mail claimed it or reported it? As did every newspaper lol

Catman wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Of course, there was. And because you want to believe it, it must be true, mustn't it? Actually, when judged by its peers, the Mail and its fine team of writers, reporters and columnists are held to be among the very best.

If you don't know for certain that the paper is always in the litigation courts, what basis have you for saying so?

And what constitutes a Daily Mail "lie" - something that does not agree with whatever your two operational brain cells believe?

The program was very informative and dealt with real life litigation cases against the RW scum rag.

Now fuck off, you rude and pompous old man!  

Well the programme would, of course, be "very informative" to someone who is so monumentally Left wing brainwashed and stupid that he thought the Speaker of the House of Commons was a Labour MP and apparently had no idea that the Tories had a number of ethnic minority MPs.

Intelligent people tend not to believe everything they've "seen on tele", but in your case stupidity and gullibility appear to be the norm, and I would imagine you also believe the Teletubbies are real people. Perhaps, in your weird world, they are...

However, I have far better and more enjoyable things to do than to try to educate the terminally dumb, so I suggest that you just wait a few minutes and perhaps nurse will come and change your nappy. You sound as though you are in need of it.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Catman wrote:

The program was very informative and dealt with real life litigation cases against the RW scum rag.

Now fuck off, you rude and pompous old man!  

Well the programme would, of course, be "very informative" to someone who is so monumentally Left wing brainwashed and stupid that he thought the Speaker of the House of Commons was a Labour MP and apparently had no idea that the Tories had a number of ethnic minority MPs.

Intelligent people tend not to believe everything they've "seen on tele", but in your case stupidity and gullibility appear to be the norm, and I would imagine you also believe the Teletubbies are real people. Perhaps, in your weird world, they are...

However, I have far better and more enjoyable things to do than to try to educate the terminally dumb, so I suggest that you just wait a few minutes and perhaps nurse will come and change your nappy. You sound as though you are in need of it.

I thought that the speaker of the house was indeed Labour, it appears that he used to be a Tory, he always came across as being labour, so that was an easy mistake to make.

Don't put words into my mouth you senile and pompous old fool, where did i suggest that the Tories had no ethnic MP's, i merely said that they needed to recruit more.

...So stop twisting my words you nasty piece of shit, and go shag a cow or something!   

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Catman wrote:

There was a documentary about how they were the worst, on TV a while back.

There is no information available (that i can find) on the exact number of cases.

Of course, there was. And because you want to believe it, it must be true, mustn't it? Actually, when judged by its peers, the Mail and its fine team of writers, reporters and columnists are held to be among the very best.

If you don't know for certain that the paper is always in the litigation courts, what basis have you for saying so?

And what constitutes a Daily Mail "lie" - something that does not agree with whatever your two operational brain cells believe?

  

You have to love the Daily Mirror!

Only 10 overall!

Wonder how those would work out if compared against readership?

sphinx wrote:Wonder how those would work out if compared against readership?

Count out all of the Daily Mail complaints, in all of their publications FFS!   

...And that fucking C*&T, the high of mighty Moley  ::zomb:: ..Refuses to accept the facts!

When are you going hunting and fishing together, you would make such a quaint couple!

 ::happ:: 

Catman wrote:...And that fucking C*&T, the high of mighty Moley  ::zomb:: ..Refuses to accept the facts!

When are you going hunting and fishing together, you would make such a quaint couple!

 ::happ:: 

I really don't like you. You are a horrible little ....e.

Phoenix wrote:

Catman wrote:...And that fucking C*&T, the high of mighty Moley  ::zomb:: ..Refuses to accept the facts!

When are you going hunting and fishing together, you would make such a quaint couple!

 ::happ:: 

I really don't like you. You are a horrible little ....e.

I could not care less, are you a Victorian whore of something!

Why do you do this??
I really don't understand. Are you pathologically addicted to being disliked?

Phoenix wrote:Why do you do this??
I really don't understand. Are you pathologically addicted to being disliked?

Disliked by certain RW C-N-S on here, granted! (There are about six of you on here)

Your plan has already been exposed! Andy exposed it on another part of this forum!

Why don't you just fuck off!....This place isn't run by Dean, it's run by Ben, he isn't RW orientated, but believes that everyone should be allowed to have their say!

Catman wrote:

Phoenix wrote:Why do you do this??
I really don't understand. Are you pathologically addicted to being disliked?

Disliked by certain RW C-N-S on here, granted! (There are about six of you on here)

Your plan has already been exposed! Andy exposed it on another part of this forum!

Why don't you just fuck off!....This place isn't run by Dean, it's run by Ben, he isn't RW orientated, but believes that everyone should be allowed to have their say!

Link please to this paranoid thread.

Are you receiving help???

Catman wrote:

Phoenix wrote:

I was referring to Catman who is rude to everyone right of Lenin.

Check out his erudite insults to everyone.

  

Fuck off Drinky.

A well known, and very obscure quote of yours..Dipstick!

You have used that quote quite a lot, what a wanker, you used it again in your new guise!

Hey Pheonix, Clarkson, Drinky....It's an obscure quote, don't you think, you tosser!   

sphinx wrote:Wonder how those would work out if compared against readership?

I can answer that (it's no good responding to Catman; he's too terminally dumb to understand anything more advanced than The Beano)

The Daily Mail has a circulation of an estimated two million and a presumed readership of more than four million.

The Daily Mirror has a circulation circa one million and a presumed readership of around two million.

Because of its strong political leanings and its willingness to campaign relentlessly on certain issues which upset the Left Wing of politics (and frequently the Right and Centre as well!) such as the effects of mass immigration, welfare and benefit fraud, the incidence of criminal activities among ethnic minorities and immigrant groups and the wrongdoings of the nation's "great and good" , it attracts many - and sometimes orchestrated - mass and online-based complaints.

I haven't seen a break-down of the complaints figures, but I would imagine that this type of complaint accounts for many if not most of them

It is also disliked by many of the litigious so-called celebrities because unlike the downmarket tabloid Mirror, it is not so prone to accepting almost unquestioningly their publicity "puff" material. Professional publicists with an angered "celeb" to placate can at least partly address the problem by saying that they "...have complained to the editor."

Complaints are also routinely made by people who feature in the newspaper in a less than pleasant light (back to benefit frauds, solicitors building up a case aimed at fighting an extradition order or deportation, etc., etc.)

Some readers make official complaints about what the papers' (DM and MoS) columnists have written on contentious issues (which comprises, of course, personal opinions which are always open to violent opposition) and even typographical errors!

Given the sheer range of hard news and of comment and the willingness of both the DM and MoS to tackle contentious issues and relentlessly to follow through on campaigns, I am not at all surprised that it attracts so much attention and so many "complaints."

And at the end of the day, Paul Dacre would probably say (as would I) "so what?"
The Mail is still the biggest middle market national paper by far (The Sun has a greater circulation but is in the downmarket class alongside the Mirror); its sales hold well, as does its advertising content...and most importantly, it is the most talked about newspaper in Britain, if not the world, and in this country the one which tends to be most quoted by the people whose job it is to analyse and to comment on the media.

So although on the face of it the Mail has 4 times the complaints the reality is that when readership is taken into account it only has twice the complaints - and there are reasons for that.

To describe a bigoted person as I have isn't that obscure. You are terribly bigoted that is there for all to see. If you get rid of all the RW poster who can we debate with??
You seem hell bent of driving them out.

sphinx wrote:So although on the face of it the Mail has 4 times the complaints the reality is that when readership is taken into account it only has twice the complaints - and there are reasons for that.

That's true, of course, and even the Guardian with a circulation of only just over a tenth of that of the DM notched up 10 instances of complaints resulting in a ruling by the PCC of a "breach of the editors' code. Of the national newspapers, both the Independent and the Daily Telegraph were also relatively high.

Quality and mid-range papers do tend to attract the largest number of references to the PCC because they are the ones which publish most of the serious and contentious news, whereas the content of the red top tabloids leans heavily towards downmarket stuff such as "celebrity" gossip which is not really the preserve of the more "thinking" readerships.

That means that the newspapers which count as their readership the greatest proportion of the higher social groupings - A, B and C1 - naturally become the targets  for most dissent and motivation towards formal complaint to the PCC.

Anyone reading the full provisions of the code will realise that like taking a car on the road it's very difficult not to break the rules in some form, and I would imagine that most complaints, if not bordering on the spurious, are over what most people would regard as relatively minor matters.

Catman, however,  seems to be under the impression that the PCC is a "litigation court" (his words) and that its rulings somehow constitute a judicial sentence and penalty. Neither is the case.

The DM, for example, publishes a regular "apologies" box in which it acknowledges that it has made a mistake, often like simply mixing one Fred Bloggs up with another Fred Bloggs in a news item or saying the Prince Harry was in Windsor when he was in Wapping.

Some of these corrections will have been made because the complainant approached the PCC direct, and if the paper admitted its "guilt" it would be recorded as a breach of one of the many and highly detailed sections of the Code of Editors.

So just what is the forum's resident idiot Catman crowing about? Forty seven recorded breaches of the code over a period of two years and against a background of a circulation of now (just looked it up) some 1,863,000. Wow! Quelle horreur!

Push you down the septic tank, moley, you septic Tory C**T!

Not as much as you would if I ever got my hands on you you wimpy little tart.

you talk big on here catshit,face to face you'd run a mile. I may be an old senile fucker as you say but I'd love to meet you face to face,i'd punch you silly.

nicko wrote:you talk big on here catshit,face to face you'd run a mile. I may be an old senile fucker as you say  but I'd love to meet you face to face,i'd punch you silly.

I would say that his typical response to my post about the editors' code and complaints procedures proves once and for all that the little slug (sorry, that's an insult to slugs) is here for one thing and one thing only; and that's to create trouble.

Either that or he was unable to understand my post because it contained words of more than two syllables.

nicko wrote:you talk big on here catshit,face to face you'd run a mile. I may be an old senile fucker as you say  but I'd love to meet you face to face,i'd punch you silly.

You could never grow tired of punching him truly I have never met a more rancid personality of these forums.

nicko wrote:you talk big on here catshit,face to face you'd run a mile. I may be an old senile fucker as you say  but I'd love to meet you face to face,i'd punch you silly.

No i wouldn't, i'm about 6ft tall and i have a decent build, i'd wipe the floor with you, you feeble old fuck.

Phoenix wrote:

nicko wrote:you talk big on here catshit,face to face you'd run a mile. I may be an old senile fucker as you say  but I'd love to meet you face to face,i'd punch you silly.

You could never grow tired of punching him truly I have never met a more rancid personality of these forums.

You're the foulest trail of dog diarrhea on here.

Catman wrote:

nicko wrote:you talk big on here catshit,face to face you'd run a mile. I may be an old senile fucker as you say  but I'd love to meet you face to face,i'd punch you silly.

No i wouldn't, i'm about 6ft tall and i have a decent build, i'd wipe the floor with you, you feeble old fuck.

You'd shit yourself faced with any of us. You hide behind your firewall issuing insults to all and sundry never in a million years would you do so IRL. You are a cowardly little prick and a low life to boot.

I believe you don't work either so I doubt you are the sort to work out. Why don't you try being decent with people instead of getting everyone to hate you. You've got problems big problems.

Phoenix wrote:

Catman wrote:

No i wouldn't, i'm about 6ft tall and i have a decent build, i'd wipe the floor with you, you feeble old fuck.

You'd shit yourself faced with any of us. You hide behind your firewall issuing insults to all and sundry never in a million years would you do so IRL. You are a cowardly little prick and a low life to boot.

I believe you don't work either so I doubt you are the sort to work out. Why don't you try being decent with people instead of getting everyone to hate you. You've got problems big problems.

  

I can't get smeagle out of my mind I know how you look. Weedy evil and pathetic.

Phoenix wrote:I can't get smeagle out of my mind I know how you look. Weedy evil and pathetic.

Blah Blah Blah...  

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:You would need a PR voting system, for UKIP to stand any chance of gaining a seat in parliament at the next election.
That's never going to happen.
Even if they did win a few seats, that's still not enough for them to have any kind of real power in politics, but you RW scum carry on deluding yourselves if you so wish!  

We have over 18 months - and we only need to win a single seat (which I am confident we will do) to bring the current system down completely.

As for having any kind of real power in politics - UKIP already have that.  The Tories are changing their policies because of us, Lib dems try to steal our policies and Labour has instigated a task force to combat us.

As for RW scum - is that what you call the likes of John Bickley?  You would do better if you actually understood that the fight is no longer between LW and RW - Tories and Labour agree on just about everything these days. The fight is now Big government versus small government and UKIP provide the only real alternative.

How exactly would UKIP winning one seat bring down the current system?

I agree a Labour win is most likely; followed by a Labour/Liberal coalition- which as much as it might be unpalatable to many on both sides; WOULD be formed if that is the only way government could be formed.

Catman wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Of course, there was. And because you want to believe it, it must be true, mustn't it? Actually, when judged by its peers, the Mail and its fine team of writers, reporters and columnists are held to be among the very best.

If you don't know for certain that the paper is always in the litigation courts, what basis have you for saying so?

And what constitutes a Daily Mail "lie" - something that does not agree with whatever your two operational brain cells believe?

The program was very informative and dealt with real life litigation cases against the RW scum rag.

Now fuck off, you rude and pompous old man!  

How you can call anyone rude- do you even read your own posts?

I disagree with Ed on just about everything tbh; sometimes his views even infuriate me haha; but rude he most certainly is not   

Eilzel wrote:

Catman wrote:

The program was very informative and dealt with real life litigation cases against the RW scum rag.

Now fuck off, you rude and pompous old man!  

How you can call anyone rude- do you even read your own posts?

I disagree with Ed on just about everything tbh; sometimes his views even infuriate me haha; but rude he most certainly is not   

Thank you
Reply with quote

Re: Ed Miliband's Labour Party on track for general election victory

Post by Fred Moletrousers on Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:22 pm

Catman wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Com Res was commissioned by the Sunday Mirror, and had their findings been to the contrary they would never have been published.

You do, of course, have a list of all these Daily Mail (one of this country's finest national newspapers with a circulation and readership double that of the downmarket red top tabloid comic the Daily Mirror) "always in the litigation courts" don't you?


There was a documentary about how they were the worst, on TV a while back.

There is no information available (that i can find) on the exact number of cases.


Of course, there was. And because you want to believe it, it must be true, mustn't it? Actually, when judged by its peers, the Mail and its fine team of writers, reporters and columnists are held to be among the very best.

If you don't know for certain that the paper is always in the litigation courts, what basis have you for saying so?

And what constitutes a Daily Mail "lie" - something that does not agree with whatever your two operational brain cells believe?

Really?

I don't want to divert this thread phil- but actually consider the way you have insulted Ed lately; he can be forgiven for his comparatively very slight dig imo

Eilzel wrote:I don't want to divert this thread phil- but actually consider the way you have insulted Ed lately; he can be forgiven for his comparatively very slight dig imo

You obviously don't read all of the threads then, he replies with terrible insults, especially towards Scrat and i.

Eilzel wrote:

Catman wrote:

The program was very informative and dealt with real life litigation cases against the RW scum rag.

Now fuck off, you rude and pompous old man!  

How you can call anyone rude- do you even read your own posts?

I disagree with Ed on just about everything tbh; sometimes his views even infuriate me haha; but rude he most certainly is not   

He is the antithesis of rude the way Scrat and Phil have treated Ed is appalling. I have completely changed my view of Scrat and Catman simply continues to go lower from an already subterranean start.

That's it!

We are watching BBC question time!

We are going to get Labour party window bills!

When my family and i, we moved into a richer part of Eltham, we always used to have Labour party window bills...But all of a sudden, my mother didn't want them displayed in the front windows.

I got onto the Labour party, ordered loads of them, then i put them up, and they weren't taken down!