Reply to: Right-wing academics ‘forced to hide views’

[vetran]

Which I have quoted in my earlier post, but you chose to ignore. You've also only linked to 1 post not 15, and not a post from me.
Nor have you linked to where you answered the question directly, without being evasive, without "FTFY", and without your pitchfork fetish.

could do better

[WTFH]

Evasiveness suggests wile. Flailing is more likely.

Some people like flailing. I think NLyUK is still doing pensioner specials on Thursdays.

[darmstadt]

Evasiveness suggests wile. Flailing is more likely.

Lets all club together:

[Old Greg]

Which I have quoted in my earlier post, but you chose to ignore. You've also only linked to 1 post not 15, and not a post from me.
Nor have you linked to where you answered the question directly, without being evasive, without "FTFY", and without your pitchfork fetish.

Evasiveness suggests wile. Flailing is more likely.

[WTFH]

there you go P4 post 38.

It is like arguing with a child.

Which I have quoted in my earlier post, but you chose to ignore. You've also only linked to 1 post not 15, and not a post from me.
Nor have you linked to where you answered the question directly, without being evasive, without "FTFY", and without your pitchfork fetish.

[darmstadt]

o try to explain you aren't making sense.

Much like the above post...

[vetran]

You really aren't all there are you?

o try to explain you aren't making sense.

[darmstadt]

there you go P4 post 38.

It is like arguing with a child.

You really aren't all there are you?

[vetran]

For Where The Feck is Here!

Really, how about Elphicke who was suspended:



But Elphicke was needed:



And now he has been found guitly:



Tories, two faced all the time

there you go P4 post 38.

It is like arguing with a child.

[BR14]

Faukesayke.

[vetran]

Arfur

Brain?

[BR14]

Arfur

[WTFH]

FTFY

From your links quoted its obvious I answered the question respecting the knowledge available at the time the decisions made.

That is the problem with hindsight it is so often used by arseholes to make decisions after the facts become available.

How would you have answered the question other than he was a tory MP so he must be guilty despite at the time he still being under investigation or sub judice?

None of the links posted show a question being asked 15 times and you giving a non-evasive answer.

I am not the idiot who asked the same question 15 times.

How's your pitchfork sales going?

As you rightly say, you are using hindsight, as you often do. I posted a link to the sentence being passed out and then you meltdown.

Every time you do a "FTFY" to change what was said, it's because of hindsight.

You make up false claims - such as saying that the question was first asked on Page 4, post 38.

Actually it has , but Barmy & you are apparently slow on the uptake, because he has asked it repeatedly.

It was first asked on page 4 post 38. Try the thread search its pretty good.
I do try to provide answers in the face of the drivel. You boys just make tulip up and then accuse posters of being stupid.

Really, how about Elphicke who was suspended:

And when I post a link to Elphicke's sentence, you seem to think it is about someone else:

Ah so someone completely different was tried and found guilty? What has that got to do with your pitchfork fetish? Are all male white MPs guilty by default?

Then you slip into your "I've answered this many times before"

[BR14]

Good Grief!

[vetran]

You didn't because you made it up.



he hasn't answered it the way I wanted.


We're still trying to understand your answers you supplied below.

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2794888


https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2794899


https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2794912

FTFY

From your links quoted its obvious I answered the question respecting the knowledge available at the time the decisions made.

That is the problem with hindsight it is so often used by arseholes to make decisions after the facts become available.

How would you have answered the question other than he was a tory MP so he must be guilty despite at the time he still being under investigation or sub judice?