R.I.P Mary Ellis

Bit of an unfair question really, surely asking "do you think that SOME women use abortion as a first choice of contraception" would be more appropriate, sadly the answer would be yes. I'm talking about vulnerable people, people with learning difficulties etc.

 

Nope! I read my post again and it still reads fine.
Basically, we obviously cannot know what thought process a person has, but we do have some women who give their reasoning.
Your post still reads wrong though. You misquoted my words.

 

That is why I told Chippie there is more points to the answer.
I think I will use Chippie’s forum technique though. He asks short question(s) and then breaks down an answer he receives with put downs and then asks short questions again.

 

I would agree; abortion is probably as serious a matter for women - and men - as can be.

But please don't go down the 'some' women route to try and make a point about a much larger issue on which 'all' women have a judgement and should have an entitlement.

 

Who is 'Tommy r', and why would anyone use such a reprehensible username on here?

 

Yes, it's a 'hell' of an assumption, my over-egging little pudding, you. Because you are right - I have no idea how the wonderful lady may have voted, if at all.

I'll take my totally despicable behaviour further for you - since you so clearly enjoy being so sanctimonious; I wonder what your avatar would think of you and your choices?

I'm pretty sure he would despair at anything that risks the breakup of the European Union, which has been such a proven success, more even than he almost certainly could have imagined.

(No doubt you'll now churn out the tired old line - "The corrupt, telling US what to do, EU is not what Churchill would have wanted!", to which I'll pre-empt with "The destruction and break up of the EU is certainly not what he would want, the possibility of which the u-s are creaming themselves over").

 

What is it with threads like this?!

The seeming obsession with war heroes by Brexiteers. It's not just on here, it is common to all social media - along with their love of poor little animals.

I think I know what it is.

Looks to me like a duplicitous combination of trying to pinch a little of the associated glory, with the added benefit of feeling secure that no-one can criticise their comments 'cos who on earth is going to diss' our army or wee poochie animals?!

A cake and eating it scenario.

Dare to ***** that sanctimonious bubble and all HELL breaks loose; "a hell of an assumption...", "Totally despicable...", "a really special kind of lowlife...trying to make her death favourably to your side..."

Ok, ok, ok, SOZ, Mr 'Churchill is my avatar'.

 

It kinda reminds me of that other recent thread about David Norris. That was well weird, that one; the u-s were so impassioned...

I think it might bear a second look.

 

I guess it's a reference to Tommy Robinson.

But why the hate AS?
Tommy Robinson made a mistake.
He admitted that mistake - that is, he pleaded guilty (not pled according to my spellcheck).
He is being punished for that mistake.
Once he's served his time then his debt is paid. No?

I don't feel the need to judge Tommy Robinson - a professional judge already did that.

Admittedly I haven't kept up with this story, and I don't really know anything about him.
I find all the fuss a bit of laugh and joke - it's cruel and snobbish of me - but I think there's something funny about inarticulate people trying to express what they're angry about. That's not just a "free tommy" thing, I think it's funny when the inarticulate are American college kids too (what the u-s would call liberal) .
The phrase "hashtag free tommies" has become a collective noun for referring to a group of my nuttier in-laws, but as one of them is Catholic priest it's probably an upgrade from his last nickname.

 

bang... :-(

 

'Reprehensible' = 'hate'?

Nah.

But, yes, I do hate him .

Why, because he didn't make a mistake - it was carefully judged, knew what would happen, and had the desired response.

He is a stirrer and manipulator of low-life.

no irony intended...

 

None taken.

 

Pretty much sums him up. In some important ways he's like the canary in the coal mine, highlighting politically incorrect issues that the general public/government/establishment are ignoring. But how he approaches some of these issues, he's his own worst enemy.

Should he be freed? Hell no. He broke the law, knowingly and he is not above the law.

 

I think the mass grooming of underage and vulnerable girls for sex is a little more than 'politically incorrect', it's illegal isn't it?

 

Exactly, it's illegal and wasn't raised due to fear of being labelled a racist or what have you.

I didn't say these issues were only politically incorrect.

 

Heat seems to be suggesting that women shouldn't have a choice simply because some women might use that choice unwisely.

 

Robinson is simply interested in what raises his profile.

He also has a huge track record of dishonesty.

As for the "grooming" that he loves to exploit.

He cares not one jot for the victims only for the capital he can extract from them.

He also cherrypicks cases that fit his agenda.

There are numerous cases of systematic abuse perpetrated by white British people.

Unless its a case that he can use to condemn Islam he is not interested.

 

Everything.