• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Anders Breivik up in court"

Collapse

  • amcdonald
    replied
    Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
    A bit off topic but isn't it the case that the internet has the knack of rewriting history?

    Yesterday, before Breivik mentioned Luton, Googling "Luton no go areas" would have brought up quite a bit on the subject. Now, for umpteen pages, there is hardly anything but his reference to it. It's a bit like the diminution of events that the mists of time normally brings to history but, instead of taking decades or centuries, it can happen overnight.

    At one time most probably had no real grasp of world events because they never happened to read about it. Now we can all read about at the touch of a keyboard I am not sure we are any better informed.
    I don't know about no go areas, but one of my neighbours drives up their regularly to buy clothing materials and for years had to go with a local as otherwise she either wouldn't get served or would have to pay much higher prices. Whilst she accepted by those who recognise her now, it's still indicative of segregation at some level

    Leave a comment:


  • xoggoth
    replied
    A bit off topic but isn't it the case that the internet has the knack of rewriting history?

    Yesterday, before Breivik mentioned Luton, Googling "Luton no go areas" would have brought up quite a bit on the subject. Now, for umpteen pages, there is hardly anything but his reference to it. It's a bit like the diminution of events that the mists of time normally brings to history but, instead of taking decades or centuries, it can happen overnight.

    At one time most probably had no real grasp of world events because they never happened to read about it. Now we can all read about at the touch of a keyboard I am not sure we are any better informed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Written by Dan Hodges - a Blairite cuckoo in the Miliband nest. He has worked for the Labour Party, the GMB trade union and managed numerous independent political campaigns. He writes about Labour with tribal loyalty and without reservation.
    Think there are quite a few ex and present Labour MP's we could wish the same about

    Leave a comment:


  • SimonMac
    replied
    Luton residents have hit back at slurs on their town by mass killer Anders Breivik, dismissing him as a "nutter".

    Addressing the Norwegian court where he is on trial for the massacre of 77 people, Breivik reportedly described "war-like conditions" in the multicultural Bedfordshire town and referred to so-called "Islamic no-go zones".


    Now where is Suity when you need him

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    I wish they'd just killed him: Anders Behring Breivik and the tragedy of justice – Telegraph Blogs

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    talking about the brits killing civilians, presumably by bombing, is talking about total war. A new industrialised warfare that targets the industrial base, which includes targeting the workforce, in addition to economic warfare, like sinking merchant ships.
    not nice, but all sides did it. mostly.

    Any soldier who has his enemy disarmed and surrendered , is obliged to take them prisoner or let them go. Going around shooting unarmed combatants is illegal, and its a war crime. Civilians more so

    So there are two ideas here , that are getting mixed up

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by SupremeSpod View Post
    Go on then, which of your little sensibilities have I offended this time?
    Both of them

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Originally posted by zeitghost
    Indeed.

    Just look at Menachem Begin.
    ...Nelson Mandela

    Leave a comment:


  • SupremeSpod
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    Another ban?
    Go on then, which of your little sensibilities have I offended this time?

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    How many germans were killed by the British in WW1 &WW2?
    loads

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by SupremeSpod View Post
    Please Sir!?! Is the correct answer "Not enough!"?
    Another ban?

    Leave a comment:


  • SupremeSpod
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    How many germans were killed by the British in WW1 &WW2?
    Please Sir!?! Is the correct answer "Not enough!"?

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
    he didnt mean 900 dodgy, over here we pronounce that . as a ,

    he meant 900,000



    How many germans were killed by the British in WW1 &WW2?

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    Which is nothing compared to what Churchill did.
    I can see why he changed back to SupremeSpod again

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    Which is nothing compared to what Churchill did.
    he didnt mean 900 dodgy, over here we pronounce that . as a ,

    he meant 900,000



    Leave a comment:

Working...
X