Ah ok …. Sorry, Red. It was the ’German’ reference in your post that made me ask. ‘Cologne’ at Dogs was of German origin too.
I don’t remember seeing the ‘clone‘ username. Must have been before my time, I guess.
Anonymous said
Apr 11 4:21 AM, 2025
BBC World News: I knew exactly what the narrative would be on seeing the headline and knew what the incident would be about. However sometimes the article is too ridiculous and narrative too obvious even for BBC standards.
BBC Headline: Army chaplain forgives boy who stabbed him
Extract: Father Murphy said: "If it wasn't me it would have been someone else, and I am convinced, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was the right person, in the right place, at the right time - that night was filled with blessings."
He added: "I thank God every single day that the knife tore through my skin, and not through the body of one of my comrades.
"I consider it an honour and a privilege to carry those scars until my dying day."
So what was it all about. A 16 year old attempted to stab to death a military person entering / leaving an army barracks in Ireland on behalf of Islam. The "boy" has apologized and hopes to get a short sentence maybe commuted to community service given the support of the army chaplain.
-- Edited by Syl on Friday 11th of April 2025 12:20:22 PM
Red Okktober said
Apr 11 11:21 AM, 2025
The only other German poster I can remember was also on the forum who's name I can't recall. But she may have transferred to Dogs when that place shut down, as I did. So it could be the same person.
The only thing I remember about her is that she posted a pic of her cat. The strange thing was that the cat didn't have any ears, so I asked her about it and she didn't want to talk about it and got quite angry, way OTT. If you post a pic of a cat with no ears, people are bound to ask though. So I never found out if it was a special earless breed or was involved in some kind of unfortunate accident.
Anonymous said
Apr 14 10:06 AM, 2025
To the Anon who dislikes the BBC's style of reporting I'm not sure how they were biased in the aforementioned article. They have simply quoted what the chaplain said. It does sound a bit bonkers to be so readily forgiving and hugging your potentiat assailant but clearly this is one man of the cloth who takes his vows seriously. I think it is universally accepted that the BBC do not like to linger on a criminals ethnicity for fear of appearing racist. But thats true of all the main broadcasters. If an anchor on ITV declared "well, we know islamic chaps are more likely to commit potentially fatal crimes in the name of their religion" can you imagine the uproar. There would be riots and more hate based crimes as a result. That's why it's essential broadcasters retain a neutral stance.
Anonymous said
Apr 14 11:37 AM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
To the Anon who dislikes the BBC's style of reporting I'm not sure how they were biased in the aforementioned article. They have simply quoted what the chaplain said. It does sound a bit bonkers to be so readily forgiving and hugging your potentiat assailant but clearly this is one man of the cloth who takes his vows seriously. I think it is universally accepted that the BBC do not like to linger on a criminals ethnicity for fear of appearing racist. But thats true of all the main broadcasters. If an anchor on ITV declared "well, we know islamic chaps are more likely to commit potentially fatal crimes in the name of their religion" can you imagine the uproar. There would be riots and more hate based crimes as a result. That's why it's essential broadcasters retain a neutral stance.
The attack was never reported by the BBC on its website, only the forgiveness of the attack was reported much later and after the event on the website. One has to ask oneself, if you were to assess possible bias in the media how would one go about it?
Anonymous said
Apr 14 12:02 PM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
To the Anon who dislikes the BBC's style of reporting I'm not sure how they were biased in the aforementioned article. They have simply quoted what the chaplain said. It does sound a bit bonkers to be so readily forgiving and hugging your potentiat assailant but clearly this is one man of the cloth who takes his vows seriously. I think it is universally accepted that the BBC do not like to linger on a criminals ethnicity for fear of appearing racist. But thats true of all the main broadcasters. If an anchor on ITV declared "well, we know islamic chaps are more likely to commit potentially fatal crimes in the name of their religion" can you imagine the uproar. There would be riots and more hate based crimes as a result. That's why it's essential broadcasters retain a neutral stance.
The attack was never reported by the BBC on its website, only the forgiveness of the attack was reported much later and after the event on the website. One has to ask oneself, if you were to assess possible bias in the media how would one go about it?
One has to ask oneself, who is biased here? The attack was originally reported by the BBC on its website
To the Anon who dislikes the BBC's style of reporting I'm not sure how they were biased in the aforementioned article. They have simply quoted what the chaplain said. It does sound a bit bonkers to be so readily forgiving and hugging your potentiat assailant but clearly this is one man of the cloth who takes his vows seriously. I think it is universally accepted that the BBC do not like to linger on a criminals ethnicity for fear of appearing racist. But thats true of all the main broadcasters. If an anchor on ITV declared "well, we know islamic chaps are more likely to commit potentially fatal crimes in the name of their religion" can you imagine the uproar. There would be riots and more hate based crimes as a result. That's why it's essential broadcasters retain a neutral stance.
The attack was never reported by the BBC on its website, only the forgiveness of the attack was reported much later and after the event on the website. One has to ask oneself, if you were to assess possible bias in the media how would one go about it?
One has to ask oneself, who is biased here? The attack was originally reported by the BBC on its website
It was not linked to the original article. The original article contains youth and teenager. It was later changed to boy. No direct terrorist link was given ever though that information would have been known to the BBC. In the final article the forgiveness was reported as the main story.
Your support Islamic Jihad is noted.
jackb said
Apr 20 6:54 PM, 2025
Well after today’s announcement from the Bank of England, there is something very, very, very wrong in the system... 😡
So … let me get this straight:
* British Gas made a profit of £1.3bn between January & June
* BP announced profits of £6.95 billion between April and June alone
* Shell has profited by £9.4bn in a year
The MEN at the top:
* John Pettigrew, boss of National Grid received £6.5m bonus on top of his salary
* Chris O’Shea, chief executive of British Gas owner Centrica was paid almost £2m last year in salary and benefits
* Centrica's non-executive directors were paid almost £1m
* Scottish Power's CEO Keith Anderson is on £1.15m.
* E.On boss Michael Lewis is on £1m
* EDF's Simone Rossi is also on £1m
* And their top execs enjoyed a share of £4.65m
* Peter Simpson of Anglian Water earned a £1.3m pay package
* Welsh Water bosses awarded themselves bonuses of over £930,000
* Severn Trent bosses awarded themselves bonuses of £5.56m
* Thames Water's Sarah Bentley, received a £727,000 bonus on top of her £2m annual salary
Meanwhile there are...
* People who haven't had breakfast and/or lunch TODAY, because they can't afford it.
* People using FoodBanks because food is becoming more of a luxury than a necessity.
* Children celebrating a birthday without presents.
* Parents worrying about new school uniforms - and some schools enforcing rules which are not cost-effective.
* People who can't get to work because they can't afford to put petrol in their cars/pay for public transport anymore.
* People who are working so much they're making themselves ill, and they STILL CAN'T AFFORD to pay their bills.
* People who have been given fines by these same energy/water companies because they couldn't afford to pay their bills in the first place - increasing their debt.
* Customers being told to do STAR JUMPS TO KEEP WARM for crying out loud!
* Hose pipe bans when gallons of water leak away everyday.
* Elderly people NOT DRINKING because they're worried about running out of water!!!
All this and energy prices are set to rise up to 75% in October...
THIS IS MADNESS!.. I'm all for supporting profits … I'm not for supporting greed at the cost of lives of others.
Something needs to change.
Why is customers' money being used to make life more comfortable for those who are making life more intolerable for the rest of us?
I actually don't understand how the energy companies are allowed to get away with this and why the government aren't stopping them instead of handing out money.....
COPIED AND PASTED FROM OTHERS :
Well after today’s announcement from the Bank of England, there is something very, very, very wrong in the system... 😡 So … let me get this straight: * British Gas made a profit of £1.3bn between January & June * BP announced profits of £6.95 billion between April and June alone * Shell has profited by £9.4bn in a year The MEN at the top: * John Pettigrew, boss of National Grid received £6.5m bonus on top of his salary * Chris O’Shea, chief executive of British Gas owner Centrica was paid almost £2m last year in salary and benefits * Centrica's non-executive directors were paid almost £1m * Scottish Power's CEO Keith Anderson is on £1.15m. * E.On boss Michael Lewis is on £1m * EDF's Simone Rossi is also on £1m * And their top execs enjoyed a share of £4.65m * Peter Simpson of Anglian Water earned a £1.3m pay package * Welsh Water bosses awarded themselves bonuses of over £930,000 * Severn Trent bosses awarded themselves bonuses of £5.56m * Thames Water's Sarah Bentley, received a £727,000 bonus on top of her £2m annual salary Meanwhile there are... * People who haven't had breakfast and/or lunch TODAY, because they can't afford it. * People using FoodBanks because food is becoming more of a luxury than a necessity. * Children celebrating a birthday without presents. * Parents worrying about new school uniforms - and some schools enforcing rules which are not cost-effective. * People who can't get to work because they can't afford to put petrol in their cars/pay for public transport anymore. * People who are working so much they're making themselves ill, and they STILL CAN'T AFFORD to pay their bills. * People who have been given fines by these same energy/water companies because they couldn't afford to pay their bills in the first place - increasing their debt. * Customers being told to do STAR JUMPS TO KEEP WARM for crying out loud! * Hose pipe bans when gallons of water leak away everyday. * Elderly people NOT DRINKING because they're worried about running out of water!!! All this and energy prices are set to rise up to 75% in October... THIS IS MADNESS!.. I'm all for supporting profits … I'm not for supporting greed at the cost of lives of others. Something needs to change. Why is customers' money being used to make life more comfortable for those who are making life more intolerable for the rest of us? I actually don't understand how the energy companies are allowed to get away with this and why the government aren't stopping them instead of handing out money..... COPIED AND PASTED FROM OTHERS :
It's always been like this though. Because the majority of us are like sheep. We get bought, herded and slaughtered, then do fuck all about it. We're a culture of people who are used to being accommodating and uncomplaining. Which is why we're in the state we're in.
Barksdale said
Apr 23 11:24 AM, 2025
Looks like Government borrowing for the year is estimated to exceed the original forecast used in the Spring statement by 15 billion pounds.
That probably means more tax rises and / or public spending cuts will be announced in the Autumn budget. Couple this with all the price raises in April and you have to ask yourself how many people are going to stay afloat this year.
I have seen / heard of more instances of shoplifting this year than I can remember in living memory.
Maddog said
Apr 23 3:24 PM, 2025
Barksdale wrote:
Looks like Government borrowing for the year is estimated to exceed the original forecast used in the Spring statement by 15 billion pounds.
That probably means more tax rises and / or public spending cuts will be announced in the Autumn budget. Couple this with all the price raises in April and you have to ask yourself how many people are going to stay afloat this year.
I have seen / heard of more instances of shoplifting this year than I can remember in living memory.
You can just do what we do. Borrow more and let future generations worry about it..
Barksdale said
Apr 23 4:41 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Barksdale wrote:
Looks like Government borrowing for the year is estimated to exceed the original forecast used in the Spring statement by 15 billion pounds.
That probably means more tax rises and / or public spending cuts will be announced in the Autumn budget. Couple this with all the price raises in April and you have to ask yourself how many people are going to stay afloat this year.
I have seen / heard of more instances of shoplifting this year than I can remember in living memory.
You can just do what we do. Borrow more and let future generations worry about it..
The Labour Party committed to 2 key fiscal rules prior to be elected: 1) to balance the budget by the time of the next election and 2) to reduce the percentage of debt to GDP before the next election.
Our problem is although inflation is being managed, growth is nowhere to be seen. Borrowing is off the cards unless Labour break a key element of their manifesto commitments which I cannot see them doing this early. The Conservative Party seem to be more interested in wanging on about the trans issue than holding Labour to account on the economy so that will be our direction of travel for the foreseeable future.
Maddog said
Apr 23 5:48 PM, 2025
Barksdale wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Barksdale wrote:
Looks like Government borrowing for the year is estimated to exceed the original forecast used in the Spring statement by 15 billion pounds.
That probably means more tax rises and / or public spending cuts will be announced in the Autumn budget. Couple this with all the price raises in April and you have to ask yourself how many people are going to stay afloat this year.
I have seen / heard of more instances of shoplifting this year than I can remember in living memory.
You can just do what we do. Borrow more and let future generations worry about it..
The Labour Party committed to 2 key fiscal rules prior to be elected: 1) to balance the budget by the time of the next election and 2) to reduce the percentage of debt to GDP before the next election.
Our problem is although inflation is being managed, growth is nowhere to be seen. Borrowing is off the cards unless Labour break a key element of their manifesto commitments which I cannot see them doing this early. The Conservative Party seem to be more interested in wanging on about the trans issue than holding Labour to account on the economy so that will be our direction of travel for the foreseeable future.
Hopefully you weren't under the illusion that responsible levels of spending wouldn't come with pain.
I realize the typical voter can be fooled..
Red Okktober said
Apr 23 6:25 PM, 2025
Barksdale wrote:
Looks like Government borrowing for the year is estimated to exceed the original forecast used in the Spring statement by 15 billion pounds.
That probably means more tax rises and / or public spending cuts will be announced in the Autumn budget. Couple this with all the price raises in April and you have to ask yourself how many people are going to stay afloat this year.
I have seen / heard of more instances of shoplifting this year than I can remember in living memory.
Do you think that the result of next week's by-election will influence what Labour do next?
It's looking more and more likely that Reform are going to overturn a massive deficit from the GE. The PM and cabinet all appear to be quite stupid, and may not even realise how unpopular they are. But a crushing defeat at the ballot box would surely drive that message home.
So do they stick or twist? Higher taxes and spending cuts will make them even more unpopular - giving them practically zero chance at the next GE.
Anonymous said
Apr 24 12:55 AM, 2025
I don't understand how there haven't been riots or at least more protests about the disgusting way this government is treating the poor. The divide between rich and poor has never been so stark, but now its also like the poor simply don't matter and they are so demoralised they haven't the self worth to speak up. I agree with Digger that we are too conformist in this country and never want to make a fuss. The refusal to tax the rich when they are profiting even more in times of austerity and hardship shows how sly this apparent labour party are. They claimed they would be different to the conservatives and they are. Sadly they are even worse and clearly are heartless when it comes to the poor and vulnerable.
Barksdale said
Apr 24 6:38 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Hopefully you weren't under the illusion that responsible levels of spending wouldn't come with pain.
I realize the typical voter can be fooled..
Yeah, I had a reasonable expectation of what was going to unfold so I made my plans accordingly.
Should be OK for a while without having to squander the kids inheritance
Barksdale said
Apr 24 6:42 PM, 2025
Red Okktober wrote:
Barksdale wrote:
Looks like Government borrowing for the year is estimated to exceed the original forecast used in the Spring statement by 15 billion pounds.
That probably means more tax rises and / or public spending cuts will be announced in the Autumn budget. Couple this with all the price raises in April and you have to ask yourself how many people are going to stay afloat this year.
I have seen / heard of more instances of shoplifting this year than I can remember in living memory.
Do you think that the result of next week's by-election will influence what Labour do next?
It's looking more and more likely that Reform are going to overturn a massive deficit from the GE. The PM and cabinet all appear to be quite stupid, and may not even realise how unpopular they are. But a crushing defeat at the ballot box would surely drive that message home.
So do they stick or twist? Higher taxes and spending cuts will make them even more unpopular - giving them practically zero chance at the next GE.
Not this early on into their term I think. I'm sure they are budgeting for Reform to be a significant threat so if the economy / living standards doesn't improve nearing the next election they will probably ratchet up the rhetoric on immigration.
As I've sad before I think they will fail on the economy due to their middle of the road approach and end up pleasing no one, so I suspect that's what they will end up doing.
Red Okktober said
Apr 24 7:46 PM, 2025
Barksdale wrote:
Not this early on into their term I think. I'm sure they are budgeting for Reform to be a significant threat so if the economy / living standards doesn't improve nearing the next election they will probably ratchet up the rhetoric on immigration.
As I've sad before I think they will fail on the economy due to their middle of the road approach and end up pleasing no one, so I suspect that's what they will end up doing.
It's the first seat up for grabs since the GE, and will give the public the chance to show what they think of Labour's performance so far. Labour beat Reform by 53% to 18% in the GE - if that is overturned it will be a massive kick in the balls for Starmer.
It will mark Labour down as being completely fucking useless in the eyes of the public. It will be 'official' due to having votes recorded, and not just a feeling that they are crap. It will also give ammunition to their political opponents, and will be widely and often mentioned in the media.
Reform need to win for that to happen though, and the signs are that they probably will. The wider the margin of victory, the more crushing it will be. I also think it could trigger one or two high profile resignations.
All because Mike Amesbury punched that fella in the face!
Ah ok …. Sorry, Red. It was the ’German’ reference in your post that made me ask. ‘Cologne’ at Dogs was of German origin too.
I don’t remember seeing the ‘clone‘ username. Must have been before my time, I guess.
BBC World News: I knew exactly what the narrative would be on seeing the headline and knew what the incident would be about. However sometimes the article is too ridiculous and narrative too obvious even for BBC standards.
BBC Headline: Army chaplain forgives boy who stabbed him
Extract: Father Murphy said: "If it wasn't me it would have been someone else, and I am convinced, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was the right person, in the right place, at the right time - that night was filled with blessings."
He added: "I thank God every single day that the knife tore through my skin, and not through the body of one of my comrades.
"I consider it an honour and a privilege to carry those scars until my dying day."
So what was it all about. A 16 year old attempted to stab to death a military person entering / leaving an army barracks in Ireland on behalf of Islam. The "boy" has apologized and hopes to get a short sentence maybe commuted to community service given the support of the army chaplain.
I forgot to add a link to the article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxgg1xkvy8o
Army Chaplain forgives boy who stabbed him - BBC News
-- Edited by Syl on Friday 11th of April 2025 12:20:22 PM
The only thing I remember about her is that she posted a pic of her cat. The strange thing was that the cat didn't have any ears, so I asked her about it and she didn't want to talk about it and got quite angry, way OTT. If you post a pic of a cat with no ears, people are bound to ask though. So I never found out if it was a special earless breed or was involved in some kind of unfortunate accident.
The attack was never reported by the BBC on its website, only the forgiveness of the attack was reported much later and after the event on the website. One has to ask oneself, if you were to assess possible bias in the media how would one go about it?
One has to ask oneself, who is biased here? The attack was originally reported by the BBC on its website
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg1x6jxrd7o
It was not linked to the original article. The original article contains youth and teenager. It was later changed to boy. No direct terrorist link was given ever though that information would have been known to the BBC. In the final article the forgiveness was reported as the main story.
Your support Islamic Jihad is noted.
So … let me get this straight:
* British Gas made a profit of £1.3bn between January & June
* BP announced profits of £6.95 billion between April and June alone
* Shell has profited by £9.4bn in a year
The MEN at the top:
* John Pettigrew, boss of National Grid received £6.5m bonus on top of his salary
* Chris O’Shea, chief executive of British Gas owner Centrica was paid almost £2m last year in salary and benefits
* Centrica's non-executive directors were paid almost £1m
* Scottish Power's CEO Keith Anderson is on £1.15m.
* E.On boss Michael Lewis is on £1m
* EDF's Simone Rossi is also on £1m
* And their top execs enjoyed a share of £4.65m
* Peter Simpson of Anglian Water earned a £1.3m pay package
* Welsh Water bosses awarded themselves bonuses of over £930,000
* Severn Trent bosses awarded themselves bonuses of £5.56m
* Thames Water's Sarah Bentley, received a £727,000 bonus on top of her £2m annual salary
Meanwhile there are...
* People who haven't had breakfast and/or lunch TODAY, because they can't afford it.
* People using FoodBanks because food is becoming more of a luxury than a necessity.
* Children celebrating a birthday without presents.
* Parents worrying about new school uniforms - and some schools enforcing rules which are not cost-effective.
* People who can't get to work because they can't afford to put petrol in their cars/pay for public transport anymore.
* People who are working so much they're making themselves ill, and they STILL CAN'T AFFORD to pay their bills.
* People who have been given fines by these same energy/water companies because they couldn't afford to pay their bills in the first place - increasing their debt.
* Customers being told to do STAR JUMPS TO KEEP WARM for crying out loud!
* Hose pipe bans when gallons of water leak away everyday.
* Elderly people NOT DRINKING because they're worried about running out of water!!!
All this and energy prices are set to rise up to 75% in October...
THIS IS MADNESS!.. I'm all for supporting profits … I'm not for supporting greed at the cost of lives of others.
Something needs to change.
Why is customers' money being used to make life more comfortable for those who are making life more intolerable for the rest of us?
I actually don't understand how the energy companies are allowed to get away with this and why the government aren't stopping them instead of handing out money.....
COPIED AND PASTED FROM OTHERS :
Yes, it's from 2013 but still hilarious.
It's always been like this though. Because the majority of us are like sheep. We get bought, herded and slaughtered, then do fuck all about it. We're a culture of people who are used to being accommodating and uncomplaining. Which is why we're in the state we're in.
Looks like Government borrowing for the year is estimated to exceed the original forecast used in the Spring statement by 15 billion pounds.
That probably means more tax rises and / or public spending cuts will be announced in the Autumn budget. Couple this with all the price raises in April and you have to ask yourself how many people are going to stay afloat this year.
I have seen / heard of more instances of shoplifting this year than I can remember in living memory.
You can just do what we do. Borrow more and let future generations worry about it..
The Labour Party committed to 2 key fiscal rules prior to be elected: 1) to balance the budget by the time of the next election and 2) to reduce the percentage of debt to GDP before the next election.
Our problem is although inflation is being managed, growth is nowhere to be seen. Borrowing is off the cards unless Labour break a key element of their manifesto commitments which I cannot see them doing this early. The Conservative Party seem to be more interested in wanging on about the trans issue than holding Labour to account on the economy so that will be our direction of travel for the foreseeable future.
Hopefully you weren't under the illusion that responsible levels of spending wouldn't come with pain.
I realize the typical voter can be fooled..
Do you think that the result of next week's by-election will influence what Labour do next?
It's looking more and more likely that Reform are going to overturn a massive deficit from the GE. The PM and cabinet all appear to be quite stupid, and may not even realise how unpopular they are. But a crushing defeat at the ballot box would surely drive that message home.
So do they stick or twist? Higher taxes and spending cuts will make them even more unpopular - giving them practically zero chance at the next GE.
Yeah, I had a reasonable expectation of what was going to unfold so I made my plans accordingly.
Should be OK for a while without having to squander the kids inheritance
Not this early on into their term I think. I'm sure they are budgeting for Reform to be a significant threat so if the economy / living standards doesn't improve nearing the next election they will probably ratchet up the rhetoric on immigration.
As I've sad before I think they will fail on the economy due to their middle of the road approach and end up pleasing no one, so I suspect that's what they will end up doing.
It's the first seat up for grabs since the GE, and will give the public the chance to show what they think of Labour's performance so far. Labour beat Reform by 53% to 18% in the GE - if that is overturned it will be a massive kick in the balls for Starmer.
It will mark Labour down as being completely fucking useless in the eyes of the public. It will be 'official' due to having votes recorded, and not just a feeling that they are crap. It will also give ammunition to their political opponents, and will be widely and often mentioned in the media.
Reform need to win for that to happen though, and the signs are that they probably will. The wider the margin of victory, the more crushing it will be. I also think it could trigger one or two high profile resignations.
All because Mike Amesbury punched that fella in the face!