Jump to content


Site supporters - Gold
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Alteredbhoy

  • Birthday December 26

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Peterborough & Brussels
  • Interests
    Stockings, ladies in stockings, politics and statistics (more of an occupational involvement)

    Work regularly takes me to live in foreign countries, but I continue to pop back from time to time to see what is going on.
  • Favourite hosiery brand or style
    Whatever you are wearing

Recent Profile Visitors

18,547 profile views
  1. I'd follow you anywhere, if only I knew where to find you
  2. A lot of people also say COVID was a hoax and used by politicians to remove individual freedoms. Doesn't make them right. And your believing that there are a lot of them doesn't mean much. I thought the populations of the United Kingdom was rising, not declining. In which case the decline isn't a real thing. Unless of course you mean the purity of the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish ethnicities are declining. As someone who is of mixed race, I am part of the decline in that purity. I am though a British and English as the next man. I drink English beer, love cricket and football, eat standard British fare and am an active member of the Church of England (which I doubt most of your purer brethren can claim). But somehow, I'm impure.
  3. Nothing like a bit of division. After 60 years of immigration Muslims still account for what? Less than 10% of the population? And what are you suggesting? That they will form a homogenous political block that will out vote the minority? Most likely, we will still have political parties of left and right, irrespective of ethnicity. That you want parties based on ethnicity, with people of non standard British ethnicity being kept as minority and therefore denied any say in the running of the nation is not a surprise. But you are in the minority here (but still want your voice to be heard, even if you want to deny other minorities their voice).
  4. Yeah ignore the questions when they get too hard. If terrorists are people who terrorise others (your faux definition, not mine), then why doesn't the terror imposed on innocent Palestinian's by Israel, make the Israelis terrorists? If the blame is to be found in both parties to the conflict, why do you support one side killing the other?
  5. Have you changed your mind? You said that all the current violence is a result of Hamas's attack. Now you believe there is blame on both sides? But you still support Israel bombing innocent Palestinian's in retribution for Hamas's actions, even though you think the blame for the current situation is shared? Are you stupid? Or dishonest? Or both? Don't bother answering, the question is rhetorical.
  6. Are you unable to read? Terrorists do terrorise and terrify. But because someone has been terrified (which was your definition of a terrorist victim) doesn't make them the victim of a terrorist. The Palestinian's have been terrorised. Are you defining Israel as a terrorist?
  7. I don't support the attempts of either side to kill the other. That's what you do. I don't support any form of terrorism. That's what you do, by your own admission. A few days ago you defined terrorism as terrorising people. Do you think the actions of Israel are terrifying Palestinians? Now as it happens, your ability to define anything is limited by your lack of intellectual capability. But if your definition of terrorism was correct (which it isn't), then the actions of the Israeli Government would constitute terrorism. And you would be a self-admitted supporter of terrorism. Fortunately for you, I am here to tell you that your definition of terrorism is incorrect and save you from that allegation.
  8. You stated that as a fact, whereas it's an opinion. A pretty stupid opinion to be frank. The hostilities between Israel and Hamas did not begin on 7th October. In 3 days in early August 2022, 50 Palestinian's were killed in Gaza in Israeli airstrikes. 170 Palestinians were killed by Israeli Forces in the West Bank in 2022, the most in any year since 2006. Violence begets violence. Sure the Israeli action in Gaza now is a response to the Hamas attack. But the Hamas attack was in response to previous violence. And the current violence in Gaza will doubtless lead to more Palestinian violence. Pretending this cycle of violence began 2 months ago and is therefore justified is naive if not dishonest. The cycle will only be broken when both sides acknowledge that it needs to end. It's the politicians' jobs on both sides of the conflict to make that decision. Both sides have a responsibility to end the violence. Supporting the attempts of one side to kill the other into submission is supporting the endless cycle of killing civilians on both sides.
  9. You are a self confessed fraudster and a terrorist sympathiser. You have admitted to having a closed mind and not asking questions unless you already know the answer. You use racial slurs and support the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians, mainly women and children. What sort of man are you?
  10. Strange, you argue that it isn't possible to disarm Americans, but it is right for Israel to disarm Hamas, even if 20,000 innocent civilians have to die in the process. You are just a hypocrite.
  11. If they had been killed by Muslims, or by terrorists for whom he had no sympathy, he would be all over it.
  12. You clearly have no understanding of how disciplinary processes and appeals work. And neither have you read the very thorough findings of the disciplinary panel. The panel concluded that there was no smell of cannabis and the police officers lied. They considered whether the police officers were simply mistaken about the smell, but concluded it did not exist and that the police officers did not smell it and lied about smelling it. The appeal hearing will not reheat the case, they will review it. So they will check whether there is additional evidence. The conviction of the athlete is not relevant to whether the police officers did or did not smell cannabis. The panel will question whether the panel could reasonably come to the conclusion it did. It will not simply decide whether it agrees with the decision. It seems unlikely they could say the panel could not conclude what It did on the evidence in front of It. It will consider whether the process and rules were followed. I have seen nothing to suggest they weren't. And it will finally decide whether the sanction was too harsh. Having found that the officers lied, then the sanction does not seem too harsh. You simply want the decision over turned to favour your fellow officers. There is only a very slight chance that will happen. Despite all your bravura. As for being pro or anti police. I am neither. I am pro truth, justice and fairness. You are anti all those things in your rush to be pro-police.
  13. The decision of any disciplinary panel is never to the criminal evidential standard, but on the balance of probabilities. I'm be sure as a former Police Officer, you know this and are just trying to muddy the water. The panel concluded that it was more likely than not, that the Police Officers lied. That doesn't seem likely to change to me, despite current and former officers suggesting that it isn't a sackable action.
  14. He cannot tolerate any discussion the tenor of which does not agree with his prejudice. So he disrupts it, tells everyone they are wrong, but fails to add anything of value. He is a total waste of bandwidth.
  • Create New...