He is leaning so far left that there is a possibility that he will walk around in ever decreasing circles, until he disappears up his own "jacksie."
We already know that leave overspent on the campaign and lied about it, now the money they spent was supplied by someone who shouldn't have, what next?
The Leave campaign actually spent less money than the government. Would you care to explain how this was “fair and equitable “ ?
Some of those on here whingeing about trolling really ought to check their glasshouse insurance is up to date. Unless one of you is actually Aaron Banks surely its really a case of adopted offence and virtue signalling?
The referendum leaflet that Cameron’s government sent out to 27 million homes was solely for the Remain side and cost £9.3 million apparently.
Arron Banks is the Sorus of the leave party, just not as rich or horrible. Are all of these people really wrong. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/01/uk-business-figures-still-backing-brexit
I think that £2.90 the government spent on sending that leaflet to me was the most the government have spent on me in my entire life. It was a waste of money of course.........................i'll just assume the hundreds of thousands of pounds i've paid them over the years isn't.
[QUOTE="btiw2, You’re right. @screwfix.peter Any chance of adding blatant trolling to the t&c/rules? Surely if someone posts something inflammatory and without meaningful content, especially when it’s purely an attempt to draw a hostile reaction, then it has to have consequences. No? Free speech isn’t consequence free speech. Purely an attempt to draw a hostile reaction?! Blimey, btiw, you read a lot in to what was a somewhat ironic ("I'm not biased, me") expression of my delight at this repulsive individual hopefully having his collar felt. This topic was started without any premise; there was no topic to discuss. It was just an attack on someone’s appearance and designed to provoke argument. It was an attack on his ideology, mostly - which is expressed through his mannerisms and - yes - as it happens, his physical appearance; that smirk required some work. @Allsorts If your argument had value then it lost it when you threw it into the gutter. As I said, it wasn't an 'argument'; it was ohnevermind. Shame really. There was probably a decent discussion on the foreign influence of elections buried under the bile.[/QUOTE] So, what do you think of Banks?
I may have done Banks a disservice - looks like he's a worse piece of humanity than I thought. How does he respond to legitimate journalistic investigation? With bullying, threats and intimidation. https://www.theguardian.com/global/...ss-how-arron-banks-repels-charges-against-him
Liar,,, It was designed to provoke argument. Plain and simple DA. Your very own words. You’re more see through than Waitrose’s shop windows. Give it a bloody rest man.
I'd never heard of him until this week. I still have no opinion about the man. Leaving appearances aside, especially as attacking someone on their appearance seems to be a terrible form of bigotry, isn't Chippie's post the relevant one? IF foreign governments are meddling with our politics then isn't that the interesting bit? It really doesn't matter on which side of the referendum one voted, possible foreign manipulation should be the topic under discussion. I've read that foreign bots and professional trolls use forums, Twitter and Facebook in order to spread lies and stir up trouble. One analysis showed that these trolls and bots often took both sides of contentious issues. They would post inflammatory memes and stories on both sides of gun control, Brexit, liberal values, vaccinations, climate change - anything polarising. It appears (to me) that their goal is not to push a particular agenda; it is to sow enmity, to s*** stir, to set us against each other, to divide us. Every time you start a flame war about Brexit and every time RS swallows a story about "liberal neo-marxist *whatever*", then you're helping their sinister trolling cause. Don't get me wrong - I like a good full-contact discussion - but arguments purely intended to polarise? That's firing Russian bullets at your own side.
Perhaps, btiw2, perhaps. My OP was just a gloat over this guy's hopeful and very deserved comeuppance. Come on - it was also tongue-in-cheek and self-defeating with "I'm not biased..." and the references to his appearance; of course that's bigotry - it was ironic. (It's true tho'...) What's all this intended to polarise stuff?! The two sides are polar-opposites and that will never change. I don't have any hope or wish to change the attitudes of some on here - I am far more comfortable with them very far on the other side. Happy to have topics worthy of discussion. Banks' character ain't one of them. (Nor is Soros's, Longsie. Unless you have some actual justification?)
If you learned how to quote properly, then perhaps this wouldn’t happen, but hey ho. His answer is correct, the original post was designed to provoke argument.