- Joined
- Aug 12, 2015
- Messages
- 6,150
- Reaction score
- 1,788
Corbyn is a professional agitator who is using this tragedy to stir up trouble and incite violence.
Corbyn is a professional agitator who is using this tragedy to stir up trouble and incite violence.
What?? There's no fire suppression systems in place? That's insane.Corbyn voted against a bill that would have made it a legal obligation to fit sprinkler systems in all high rise flats.
All your links proved is that he's not a holocaust denier. He's against terrorism, anyone who says otherwise is either simple or being disingenuous. He even made it part of his manifesto to not support states that have poor human rights record (i.e. terrorist states), which goes against May's policies (see involvement with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya etc.).
"Corbyn voted against a bill that would have made it a legal obligation to fit sprinkler systems in all high rise flats."
- And you still haven't provided a source for this, so I can only assume you plucked this information out of thin air.
you are full of shit, he attempted to make contact with the other side to help broker peace. ask yourself why they didnt respond? because they didnt want peace
capitulation? you are seriously overdramatic, he wanted an end to conflict.
you have a seriously distorted view of the troubles, we were in no way the good guys...... and we in no way made things better. we empowered the paramilitaries, we empowered the orange order and the loyalist community. only an idiot would think we made things better
they never accepted his requests for meetings, I wonder why? maybe they didnt want peace(it was their political wing that voted against the good friday agreement after all). you would realise that if you werent so blindI can find plenty of examples of Corbyn sucking Adam's cock, among other Repulicans. Show me one example of him attending a Loyalist rally. Or expressing support to the family and friends of a British soldier murdered by IRA terrorists. Go head, take your time. I'll wait.
We had to run NI because the natives were too retarded and blood-thirsty to do it themselves. And I'm including both sides in that discription. It would have been far more efficient simply to round up every terrorist, Republican or Loyalist, along with their families, and shoot every last one of them. Unfortunately, we no longer had the stomach for that sort of heavy lifting. So we simply used the Northern Irish as a huge training area for our military and intelligence services. It's all most of the natives were good for: target practice.
Corbyn is a professional agitator who is using this tragedy to stir up trouble and incite violence.
they never accepted his requests for meetings, I wonder why? maybe they didnt want peace(it was their political wing that voted against the good friday agreement after all). you would realise that if you werent so blind
that last paragraph is just idiotic
View attachment 240419
Talk to any Brit soldier who served in Ireland. It was a firing range with targets that shot back and bled when hit.
The attitude is summed up in the hilarious response of an SAS soldier who was asked why he shot an IRA terrorist thirteen times,
"A Browning only holds thirteen rounds".<45>
you are an idiot lol
I hope he succeeds. A bunch of Crusty Jugglers are already trying to organise a march on Westminster to coincide with the State Opening of Parliament. If that happens, there will be blood in the streets. Most politicians are as gutless as Corbyn when it comes to risking their own lives. Any attempt to storm Parliament will be met with overwhelming force.
I'll buy some popcorn tomorrow
oh look, its the guy that never contributes to the topic of the threads
dude your are an incessant troll...if I gave a fuck I would respond to your childish rants...oh look, its the guy that never contributes to the topic of the threads
oh yeah, nobody gives a fuck
says the guy that doesnt contribute? hilariousdude your are an incessant troll...if I gave a fuck I would respond to your childish rants...
dude your are an incessant troll...if I gave a fuck I would respond to your childish rants...
Are you intentionally arguing in circle?
- A manufacturer provide cladding products in fire-resistance (FR) and non-fire resistance plastic (PE) versions.
- The plastic version is banned in the U.S for building taller than 40 feet, because fire-resistance is important in America.
- The plastic version is being widely used in the Britain with no height restrictions, because the British government determined that it's safe for any height, as fire-resistance is not important in Britain.
- A British company decide to buy the plastic version to save money, and installed it on a British high-rise according to British regulations. They saved £5000 in material costs, and it burns just like the specs says it would.
- You think the manufacturer/seller is somehow responsible for legally offering a product that have met all British regulation standards, even though they have no control as to where and how their products would be installed by the British consumers.
How does this make any sense? What exactly are you planning to charge them with? Doing business in accordance with British laws?
I just posted a link to the bill when you asked what it was. I never said whether or not Corbyn voted on it. I have no idea on that. As for Corbyn and holocaust denial, why did he spend over ten years attending rallies and meetings where the whole theme and rhetoric being spouted is antisemitism and holocaust denial? Why did he give money to this group? Why did he lie about no longer being involved with the DRY after he was found out? What logical reason is there for any of this if he doesn't support their views?
Selling a product they know is dangerous for the application. There are many cases in the US of companies legally selling products that met the regulations but getting in deep trouble for doing it. Volkswagen diesels passed the US emission tests but it cost them $14 billion or more. 6 Volkswagen executives are facing criminal charges in the US for their part in the deception. That is just for pollution that might contribute to health problems.
This is a case where a product lead directly to the deaths of many. Survivors and relatives of the dead might be able to seek civil damages against the manufacturer in a US court.