Licence To Troll - Blacksmith Bureau

Not Born Yesterday wrote:No doubt I shall kick myself when someone answers, but who is the "jd" referred to earlier?

no doubt, no doubt at all.

Judge Dread I believe

Okay, I'm kicking myself!

cherry1 wrote:To be honest not really sure what you are going on about so we best leave the discussion there.

we're both talking about pros and antis being the same. okay now?

Not Born Yesterday wrote:No doubt I shall kick myself when someone answers, but who is the "jd" referred to earlier?

I thought it was Jack Daniels what with it being a blacksmith thread ?

Lioned wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:No doubt I shall kick myself when someone answers, but who is the "jd" referred to earlier?

I thought it was Jack Daniels what with it being a blacksmith thread ?

nice one.

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:To be honest not really sure what you are going on about so we best leave the discussion there.

we're both talking about pros and antis being the same. okay now?

Ive made it clear I don't believe they are the same, as I said majority of antis are perfectly sensible, polite and ask things in a courteous manner, do not name call mccanns and are not abusive, from what I have observed it is the pros who are in the majority rude, abusive, making threats etc.

I said we have to agree to disagree as you think otherwise - so it is not correct to say we are talking about pros and antis being the same. I don't believe that at all.

Agreed, Cherry.

That is my experience too with people on both sides of the divide.

Inevitably there are some people who do not believe the McCanns whose behaviour leaves a lot to be desired but most of them are reasoned and polite.

cherry1 wrote:

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:To be honest not really sure what you are going on about so we best leave the discussion there.

we're both talking about pros and antis being the same. okay now?

Ive made it clear I don't believe they are the same, as I said majority of antis are perfectly sensible, polite and ask things in a courteous manner, do not name call mccanns and are not abusive, from what I have observed it is the pros who are in the majority rude, abusive, making threats etc.

I said we have to agree to disagree as you think otherwise - so it is not correct to say we are talking about pros and antis being the same. I don't believe that at all.

cherry, you appeard to get somewhat confused over a post i made in relation to the issue being discussed, not being sure what it was related to. i'm simply blowing the fog away for you.

thank you Marky and I am blowing away the fog for you to make it clear that we don't think the same on the subject of pros and antis.

Suggest we now move on .......

cherry1 wrote:thank you Marky and I am blowing away the fog for you to make it clear that we don't think the same on the subject of pros and antis.

Suggest we now move on .......

i know we don't agree and wasn't disputing it. try reading posts properly please.

Having looked at the Sky Editorial Guidelines and the Ofcom code it would appear that these have not been adhered to in relation to the piece that was done on Brenda.

No doubt a complete waste of time for anyone to do anything about it.

yes sadly I would think so although I believe some may have sent complaints in but they will cover their own backs.

cherry1 wrote:

ah, cherry. you used to be smarter than that.

cherry1 wrote:Having looked at the Sky Editorial Guidelines and the Ofcom code it would appear that these have not been adhered to in relation to the piece that was done on Brenda.

the coroner disagrees with you.

That doesn't make her right. Looks like she did not study the Editorial Guidelines carefully enough.

cherry1 wrote:That doesn't make her right. Looks like she did not study the Editorial Guidelines carefully enough.

oh really, sounds very much like she didn't call it the way you wanted. well hell cherry, you can't always get what you want.



ps. still waiting on your 'theory' that you won't share.

Its not to do with what I wanted, its to do with what is clearly set out in the guidelines.

Try starting with the Gaspar Statements Marky!

Gasper was alluding to the possibility that David Payne and gerry are peado's.

My thoughts on the Gaspar statements for what they're worth.

If there were no other oddities about this case, I wouldn't give them much value. Speaking generally, would two people with a shared interest in something unspeakable really discuss it in front of someone who was not of a similar persuasion.

They would need to be quite sure that any listeners were like-minded.

Then I think of other issues, like the infamous page 129 comment of Kate's in her novel, the awful photos of Madeleine plastered in make-up and posing inappropriately which the McCanns thought fit to publish and the very unfortunate double meaning of tuppence - as in Madeleine giving whoever she's with her tuppence worth - which Kate as a northerner would know.

There are definitely times when I think that the McCanns are playing sick jokes on us.

cherry1 wrote:Try starting with the Gaspar Statements Marky!  

ah, thought as much.