Of course, that is why it is hypocritical (nay, stupid)for JoT to suggest the NHS guilty without proof also. Anyway, seems JoT left the room...
Don't you go getting nice or anything. I got names stored up for you!
That's why I said you are ignorant, you haven't followed the thread, or you would know this. Read it all, or don't bother. I ain't going over...
NO. He said the NHS would not pay out without a reason. That is ONE option, he thinks they are guilty.
You will find it very difficult to find anywhere to prove that I would disown my son. 'Disown' is a 'complete' word with no lenience. Go ahead, try.
Yes he did. He is saying they wouldn't have paid out without a reason. That is calling them guilty. He is saying that they must be guilty because...
It was all quiet in the thick seats for a long time until you stood up.
Butt out chippie. You are way off the mark and ignorant on the subject. You will see that our accusation of Branson, is NO different to the...
There is no conundrum. We call Branson a cheat and a bad loser. You say there is no proof. You call NHS guilty because they settled. How can...
Well you are saying the NHS are guilty. By your own method, just saying something doesn't make it true. Where is your proof?
It seems to have all gone quiet over there!!
So you are calling them guilty. Where is your proof? So I call you a liar.
Anyway, you still calling the NHS guilty when you have no proof?
???????????
I'll give you a clue, as you haven't got it yet. IDIO-T Does that help?
Never mind. You must be back to pre-school next week! Here, make a word using these letters, I D I O T Let's see if you can get it.
You really should get a grasp of the English language. Since when did unsubstantiated name-calling be regarded as 'criticism'? You got it bad....
Unfortunately, success in that field is rare on here.
...about as long as it took for the powers that be to see what a stalker you are, brought on by being 'outed' by leesparky. Once more I'll ask...
Separate names with a comma.