Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Harold Davis
May 19, 2016, 6:15:01 AM5/19/16
to
Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are both
male?
Every report I've read refers to "PJS" (David Furnish) having "young
children" with his "spouse" "YMA" (Elton John), without saying that his
"spouse" is another man.
male?
Every report I've read refers to "PJS" (David Furnish) having "young
children" with his "spouse" "YMA" (Elton John), without saying that his
"spouse" is another man.
Harold Davis
May 19, 2016, 6:31:12 AM5/19/16
to
Harold Davis <th...@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote in
news:XnsA60D727465...@213.239.209.88:
There's legitimate public interest in the issue of whether a 63-year-old
man and his 48-year-old boyfriend should have been allowed to adopt a baby.
They, the judges and the newspaper editors know that.
Let the info out and someone could start a poll.
Are they the right sort of people? Should there be better vetting?
news:XnsA60D727465...@213.239.209.88:
man and his 48-year-old boyfriend should have been allowed to adopt a baby.
They, the judges and the newspaper editors know that.
Let the info out and someone could start a poll.
Are they the right sort of people? Should there be better vetting?
abelard
May 19, 2016, 6:33:07 AM5/19/16
to
Dan S. MacAbre
May 19, 2016, 6:37:58 AM5/19/16
to
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
May 19, 2016, 8:08:58 AM5/19/16
to
Harold Davis <th...@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:
> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are
> both male?
A 'crisis' that has been largely manufactured by the rightard press. The
> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are
> both male?
case involves two gay men, and of course, hinges on conflicting rights as
expressed in Articles 8 and 10 of the hated European Convention on Human
Rights.
So the rightard press bays about 'press freedom' being infringed, and their
readership (most of whom already find gay sex to be downright distasteful
if not wrong, and can't wait for the UK to leave Europe so that it can be
criminalized again) vows to vote 'leave' on 23 June, because fuck those 'EU
Judges' and their trampling all over Blighty. The whole said with a Saarf
East Laaandaarn accent, to the strains of 'Rule Britannia'.
But .. sssshh!! No one mention how the same press toed the line when told
not to publish racy pics of Kate Middleton, and of the fury when the French
celeb press refused to obey!
'cos freedom of the press is OK, as long as one-way.
God save the Queen!
Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'I approve of anybody who commits such acts of violence. Really, I
don't think that we can sit back and watch Arabs throwing rocks at
buses whenever they feel like it. They must understand that a bomb
thrown at a Jewish bus is going to mean a bomb thrown at an Arab
bus...'
(Meir Kahane (1932 - 1990))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
<http://thereligionofpeace.com/>
abelard
May 19, 2016, 8:24:34 AM5/19/16
to
On Thu, 19 May 2016 13:08:50 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
<yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>Harold Davis <th...@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are
>> both male?
>
>A 'crisis' that has been largely manufactured by the rightard press. The
>case involves two gay men
how gay are they? is this circus increasing or reducing their gayness?
<yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>Harold Davis <th...@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are
>> both male?
>
>A 'crisis' that has been largely manufactured by the rightard press. The
>case involves two gay men
or isn't it making any difference?
>, and of course, hinges on conflicting rights as
>expressed in Articles 8 and 10 of the hated European Convention on Human
>Rights.
>
>So the rightard press bays about 'press freedom' being infringed, and their
>readership (most of whom already find gay sex to be downright distasteful
and
why do you want to find it?
is it behind the cupboard? or even the closet?
is it genetic or environ-mental?
can't you find it because you're unusually ugly?
>if not wrong, and can't wait for the UK to leave Europe so that it can be
>criminalized again) vows to vote 'leave' on 23 June, because fuck those 'EU
>Judges' and their trampling all over Blighty. The whole said with a Saarf
>East Laaandaarn accent, to the strains of 'Rule Britannia'.
>
>But .. sssshh!! No one mention how the same press toed the line when told
>not to publish racy pics of Kate Middleton, and of the fury when the French
>celeb press refused to obey!
>
>'cos freedom of the press is OK, as long as one-way.
>
>God save the Queen!
--
www.abelard.org
Norman Rowling
May 19, 2016, 9:30:28 AM5/19/16
to
Vidcapper
May 19, 2016, 9:54:56 AM5/19/16
to
On 19/05/2016 11:33, abelard wrote:
>>
>> There's legitimate public interest in the issue of whether a 63-year-old
>> man and his 48-year-old boyfriend should have been allowed to adopt a baby.
I thought the were the biological offspring of one of them, albeit via
>>
>> There's legitimate public interest in the issue of whether a 63-year-old
>> man and his 48-year-old boyfriend should have been allowed to adopt a baby.
surrogacy, so adoption doesn't come into it.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Barclay Weir
May 19, 2016, 11:33:29 AM5/19/16
to
question in an earlier thread. If you live in England, are you awaiting
a visit from the authorities? - or from PJS/YMA heavies? Ooops! there
I've (nearly) gone and done it too!
Dan S. MacAbre
May 19, 2016, 12:53:19 PM5/19/16
to
Ophelia
May 19, 2016, 1:13:29 PM5/19/16
to
"Barclay Weir" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:dq64m8...@mid.individual.net...
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
Ophelia
May 19, 2016, 1:13:29 PM5/19/16
to
"Dan S. MacAbre" <n...@way.com> wrote in message
news:nhkqr7$cuv$1...@dont-email.me...
Umm you didn't snip it either ...
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
Harold Davis
May 19, 2016, 2:49:00 PM5/19/16
to
Barclay Weir <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
news:dq64m8...@mid.individual.net:
Juan Carr
May 19, 2016, 2:57:35 PM5/19/16
to
In article <dq64m8...@mid.individual.net>, nob...@nowhere.invalid
says...
Unless you are suggesting that every single UK citizen is supposed to be
aware of every single piece of legislation that is passed.
In which case, it gets thrown out on the grounds of being unenforceable.
And, no, "ignorance of the law is no defence" doesn't work.
Unless we're actually living in North Korea.
Well......are we?
says...
>
> You have named the "unnameable". Do you live abroad?
I fail to see the relevance?
> You have named the "unnameable". Do you live abroad?
Unless you are suggesting that every single UK citizen is supposed to be
aware of every single piece of legislation that is passed.
In which case, it gets thrown out on the grounds of being unenforceable.
And, no, "ignorance of the law is no defence" doesn't work.
Unless we're actually living in North Korea.
Well......are we?
Barclay Weir
May 19, 2016, 3:40:38 PM5/19/16
to
enforceable (see my earlier caveat in relation to Ophelia's question) in
England (and Wales). You have actually put your finger on the whole
point - I am a UK citizen living not in North Korea but in the UK - just
not in England. Hence the question to the OP.
Indeed this raises the whole question about the Supreme Court (a Blair
fantasy), how can it rule on the applicability of laws only enforceable
in part of the UK? Just asking.
Dan S. MacAbre
May 19, 2016, 5:11:13 PM5/19/16
to
abelard
May 20, 2016, 4:19:06 AM5/20/16
to
On Thu, 19 May 2016 19:57:32 +0100, Juan Carr <juan...@gmx.com>
wrote:
'law' in an oppressive country is crafted so's there is just about
always something you can be attacked with...
that is particularly true if you have no constitutional constrictions
on government...which is the case in the uk...and most everywhere
else...
i'm glad to see the cameron government is committed to introducing
a uk bill of rights
--
www.abelard.org
wrote:
always something you can be attacked with...
that is particularly true if you have no constitutional constrictions
on government...which is the case in the uk...and most everywhere
else...
i'm glad to see the cameron government is committed to introducing
a uk bill of rights
--
www.abelard.org
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
May 20, 2016, 5:08:02 AM5/20/16
to
abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
> i'm glad to see the cameron government is committed to introducing
> a uk bill of rights
The 'Cameron government' is 'committed' to no such thing. One, because
> i'm glad to see the cameron government is committed to introducing
> a uk bill of rights
basic civil and political rights are anathema to right-wing governments,
and always have been - from Hitler all the way down to Cameron.
But more important, any such 'bill of rights' would not be worth the paper
it was written on.
abelard
May 20, 2016, 5:15:15 AM5/20/16
to
On Fri, 20 May 2016 10:06:46 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
<yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>> i'm glad to see the cameron government is committed to introducing
>> a uk bill of rights
>
>The 'Cameron government' is 'committed' to no such thing.
he is carrying out other promises...remember, he isn't a socialist
<yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>> i'm glad to see the cameron government is committed to introducing
>> a uk bill of rights
>
>The 'Cameron government' is 'committed' to no such thing.
who therefore lies for practice...
but your mind reading skills will doubtless be lauded by your fellow
cultists...
or perhaps you don't understand what 'commitment means
> One, because
>basic civil and political rights are anathema to right-wing governments,
>and always have been - from Hitler all the way down to Cameron.
>But more important, any such 'bill of rights' would not be worth the paper
>it was written on.
surely you could do better? surely??
so...for this one post...
you believe you can discern the future...
you believe you can read minds...
you don't understand basic politics...
and you don't know the meaning of english words...
and you wonder how you got to be class clown!!
--
www.abelard.org
Ophelia
May 20, 2016, 5:44:57 AM5/20/16
to
news:nhl9uo$938$1...@dont-email.me...
Oooooooooohhhh :)
If he ever gets a peerage, will t'other one be Lady thingy?
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
If he ever gets a peerage, will t'other one be Lady thingy?
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
Dan S. MacAbre
May 20, 2016, 6:38:18 AM5/20/16
to
equivalent soon enough.
frederick
May 20, 2016, 7:01:17 AM5/20/16
to
They can adopt.
OR
They can find women.
Harold Davis
May 20, 2016, 7:47:59 AM5/20/16
to
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in
news:6m031d-...@server.com.il:
> abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>> i'm glad to see the cameron government is committed to introducing
>> a uk bill of rights
>
> The 'Cameron government' is 'committed' to no such thing.
Yes it is - in its recent statement of its legislative programme, read out
by the monarch.
Whether it would be worth the paper it's written on is another matter.
news:6m031d-...@server.com.il:
> abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>> i'm glad to see the cameron government is committed to introducing
>> a uk bill of rights
>
> The 'Cameron government' is 'committed' to no such thing.
by the monarch.
Whether it would be worth the paper it's written on is another matter.
Harold Davis
May 20, 2016, 7:51:28 AM5/20/16
to
frederick <fake...@gmail.com> wrote in news:nhmqj4$j29$2...@dont-email.me:
Have you been on the internet long? It takes a man and a woman to have a
child.
child.
Ophelia
May 20, 2016, 10:15:05 AM5/20/16
to
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
May 22, 2016, 8:36:02 AM5/22/16
to
be any different from the others he has made and broken?
abelard
May 22, 2016, 8:50:02 AM5/22/16
to
On Sun, 22 May 2016 13:35:12 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
<yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>Harold Davis <th...@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:
>> Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in
>> news:6m031d-...@server.com.il:
>>> abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>>>> i'm glad to see the cameron government is committed to introducing a uk
>>>> bill of rights
>
>>> The 'Cameron government' is 'committed' to no such thing.
>
>> Yes it is - in its recent statement of its legislative programme, read
>> out by the monarch.
>>
>> Whether it would be worth the paper it's written on is another matter.
>
>Which was my point. Cameron is a proven liar. Why should this 'promise'
>be any different from the others he has made and broken?
i look forward to your list...
<yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>Harold Davis <th...@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:
>> Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in
>> news:6m031d-...@server.com.il:
>>> abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>>>> i'm glad to see the cameron government is committed to introducing a uk
>>>> bill of rights
>
>>> The 'Cameron government' is 'committed' to no such thing.
>
>> Yes it is - in its recent statement of its legislative programme, read
>> out by the monarch.
>>
>> Whether it would be worth the paper it's written on is another matter.
>
>Which was my point. Cameron is a proven liar. Why should this 'promise'
>be any different from the others he has made and broken?
or i'll just have to guess that is just another lie towards
your monthly quota
--
www.abelard.org
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
May 22, 2016, 12:10:02 PM5/22/16
to
abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2016 10:06:46 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
> <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>> i'm glad to see the cameron government is committed to introducing
>>> a uk bill of rights
>>
>>The 'Cameron government' is 'committed' to no such thing.
> he is carrying out other promises...
The only 'promise' that he is carrying out is the one he made to his banker
> On Fri, 20 May 2016 10:06:46 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
> <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>> i'm glad to see the cameron government is committed to introducing
>>> a uk bill of rights
>>
>>The 'Cameron government' is 'committed' to no such thing.
> he is carrying out other promises...
and arms dealer friends to make them richer at the expense of the majority
of the UK.
> remember, he isn't a socialist
> who therefore lies for practice...
uk.politics.misc have to suffer from this insane rightard troll. We're
used to it, but I shall snip crossposts, to save you having to read the
words of an imbecile who blames 'socialism' for everything from the
extintion of the dinosaurs, through the last age and everything up to the
present day via the eruption of Mount St Helen's.
{ binned unread to save you any more embarrassment }
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
May 22, 2016, 5:51:21 PM5/22/16
to
abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2016 13:35:12 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
> <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
>>Harold Davis <th...@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:
>>> Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in
>>> news:6m031d-...@server.com.il:
>>>> abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>> i'm glad to see the cameron government is committed to introducing a uk
>>>>> bill of rights
>>
>>>> The 'Cameron government' is 'committed' to no such thing.
>>
>>> Yes it is - in its recent statement of its legislative programme, read
>>> out by the monarch.
>>>
>>> Whether it would be worth the paper it's written on is another matter.
>>
>>Which was my point. Cameron is a proven liar. Why should this 'promise'
>>be any different from the others he has made and broken?
>
> i look forward to your list...
I have already provided it - the first time I did so, being 01 October 2014
> On Sun, 22 May 2016 13:35:12 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
> <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
>>Harold Davis <th...@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:
>>> Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in
>>> news:6m031d-...@server.com.il:
>>>> abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>> i'm glad to see the cameron government is committed to introducing a uk
>>>>> bill of rights
>>
>>>> The 'Cameron government' is 'committed' to no such thing.
>>
>>> Yes it is - in its recent statement of its legislative programme, read
>>> out by the monarch.
>>>
>>> Whether it would be worth the paper it's written on is another matter.
>>
>>Which was my point. Cameron is a proven liar. Why should this 'promise'
>>be any different from the others he has made and broken?
>
> i look forward to your list...
in the thread, 'Cameron's Lies start 'now'...
'September 2010, he claimed that the Royal Colleges of General
Practitioners, Physicians and Nursing supported his health "reforms".
Lie. They all opposed it.
June 2011, he said, "We will not endanger universal coverage - we will
make sure it remains a National Health Service". Lie. The NHS is
currently being broken up into "GP Commissioning Groups".
Before the last general election, he promised 3000 more midwives. Lie.
The numbers have been reduced by 3%.
January 2012, Prime Minister's Question Time, he claimed that there are
more people in work than at the previous election. Lie. The Office
for National Statistics reported at that time that the number in work
had fallen by 26,000 since the election.
He also claimed that the number of children living in "workless"
households had doubled under the Labour government. Lie. The Office
for National Statistics showed that the numbers of children in
households where no one worked fell by 372,000 between April-June 1997
and April-June 2010...'
But your standard response is to dodge.
And that's what you're about to do now.
abelard
May 22, 2016, 6:35:59 PM5/22/16
to
On Sun, 22 May 2016 22:51:02 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2)no such person...
> June 2011, he said, "We will not endanger universal coverage - we will
> make sure it remains a National Health Service". Lie. The NHS is
> currently being broken up into "GP Commissioning Groups".
weak
2)by what date?
> January 2012, Prime Minister's Question Time, he claimed that there are
> more people in work than at the previous election. Lie. The Office
> for National Statistics reported at that time that the number in work
> had fallen by 26,000 since the election.
don't talk rot...please
> He also claimed that the number of children living in "workless"
> households had doubled under the Labour government. Lie. The Office
> for National Statistics showed that the numbers of children in
> households where no one worked fell by 372,000 between April-June 1997
> and April-June 2010...'
i don't believe you.....but that's ok...
>But your standard response is to dodge.
>
>And that's what you're about to do now.
already done...
good to see you are referring to the time when he had no majority
...i suppose you didn't expect anyone to notice your lies
your vacuous arrogance is a joy to watch...
now redo your home work
--
www.abelard.org
<yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 May 2016 13:35:12 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>> <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>>>Harold Davis <th...@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in
>>>> news:6m031d-...@server.com.il:
>>>>> abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> i'm glad to see the cameron government is committed to introducing a uk
>>>>>> bill of rights
>>>
>>>>> The 'Cameron government' is 'committed' to no such thing.
>>>
>>>> Yes it is - in its recent statement of its legislative programme, read
>>>> out by the monarch.
>>>>
>>>> Whether it would be worth the paper it's written on is another matter.
>>>
>>>Which was my point. Cameron is a proven liar. Why should this 'promise'
>>>be any different from the others he has made and broken?
>>
>> i look forward to your list...
>
>I have already provided it - the first time I did so, being 01 October 2014
>in the thread, 'Cameron's Lies start 'now'...
>
> 'September 2010, he claimed that the Royal Colleges of General
> Practitioners, Physicians and Nursing supported his health "reforms".
> Lie. They all opposed it.
1)liar
>abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 May 2016 13:35:12 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>> <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>>>Harold Davis <th...@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in
>>>> news:6m031d-...@server.com.il:
>>>>> abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> i'm glad to see the cameron government is committed to introducing a uk
>>>>>> bill of rights
>>>
>>>>> The 'Cameron government' is 'committed' to no such thing.
>>>
>>>> Yes it is - in its recent statement of its legislative programme, read
>>>> out by the monarch.
>>>>
>>>> Whether it would be worth the paper it's written on is another matter.
>>>
>>>Which was my point. Cameron is a proven liar. Why should this 'promise'
>>>be any different from the others he has made and broken?
>>
>> i look forward to your list...
>
>I have already provided it - the first time I did so, being 01 October 2014
>in the thread, 'Cameron's Lies start 'now'...
>
> 'September 2010, he claimed that the Royal Colleges of General
> Practitioners, Physicians and Nursing supported his health "reforms".
> Lie. They all opposed it.
2)no such person...
> June 2011, he said, "We will not endanger universal coverage - we will
> make sure it remains a National Health Service". Lie. The NHS is
> currently being broken up into "GP Commissioning Groups".
> Before the last general election, he promised 3000 more midwives. Lie.
> The numbers have been reduced by 3%.
1)cite
> The numbers have been reduced by 3%.
2)by what date?
> January 2012, Prime Minister's Question Time, he claimed that there are
> more people in work than at the previous election. Lie. The Office
> for National Statistics reported at that time that the number in work
> had fallen by 26,000 since the election.
> He also claimed that the number of children living in "workless"
> households had doubled under the Labour government. Lie. The Office
> for National Statistics showed that the numbers of children in
> households where no one worked fell by 372,000 between April-June 1997
> and April-June 2010...'
>But your standard response is to dodge.
>
>And that's what you're about to do now.
good to see you are referring to the time when he had no majority
...i suppose you didn't expect anyone to notice your lies
your vacuous arrogance is a joy to watch...
now redo your home work
--
www.abelard.org
0 new messages