Our Corbyn who art in heaven, if you have ANY sense of decency, **** up
tomorrow big time.
If our future is in your hands we are truly ****ed and to a standstill.
Your kingdom might come, eventually.
Praise a lord.
John McDonnell give us our daily bread and utter more tripe, the lord make
us truly thankful.
Forgive Diane Abbott her sins and spout even more crap tomorrow.
Praise a lord.
Deliver us from the evil of Trident so that any Tom/Dick/Harry might crap
upon us and give us peace.
May Sir Keir Starmer, shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European
Union get some sense ****ed into him, and a smile.
Praise a lord.
May the (hopefully) shadow cabinet tell the truth and admit they all think
Corbyn is a **** and are not doing it for the money and may the GBP not get
taken in by all this ********.

Did someone mention Brexit? Jezza thinks it's a new cereal.

See? I CAN do it, not one mention of sound engineers.

En el artículo . com, bm
escribió:

Did someone mention Brexit?

This about sums it up:

http://s1.b3ta.com/host/creative/55979/1496840759/TheresaMayBrexitPlan.jpg

I'll be glad when this ****ing election is over and we can get back to TV
cabinets and kitties.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

On 08/06/2017 03:13, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo . com, bm
escribió:

Did someone mention Brexit?

This about sums it up:

http://s1.b3ta.com/host/creative/55979/1496840759/TheresaMayBrexitPlan.jpg


I don't think that's far wrong. Not lose, but destabilise, and blame
everything on the weird mandate that'll come from this election. It's
difficult to explain the 'dementia tax' in any other way.

I'll be glad when this ****ing election is over and we can get back to TV
cabinets and kitties.

+1



--
Cheers, Rob

"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 08/06/2017 03:13, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo . com, bm
escribió:

Did someone mention Brexit?

This about sums it up:

http://s1.b3ta.com/host/creative/55979/1496840759/TheresaMayBrexitPlan.jpg


I don't think that's far wrong. Not lose, but destabilise, and blame
everything on the weird mandate that'll come from this election.

Even sillier than you usually manage. There will be no weird mandate, you
watch.

It's difficult to explain the 'dementia tax' in any other way.

Its the only sensible approach. Why should the relos end up with a
much larger inheritance when the state pays for the domiciliary care etc ?

I'll be glad when this ****ing election is over and we can get back to TV
cabinets and kitties.

+1

On 08/06/17 07:34, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 08/06/2017 03:13, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo
. com, bm
escribió:

Did someone mention Brexit?

This about sums it up:

http://s1.b3ta.com/host/creative/55979/1496840759/TheresaMayBrexitPlan.jpg



I don't think that's far wrong. Not lose, but destabilise, and blame
everything on the weird mandate that'll come from this election.

Even sillier than you usually manage. There will be no weird mandate,
you watch.

It's difficult to explain the 'dementia tax' in any other way.

Its the only sensible approach. Why should the relos end up with a
much larger inheritance when the state pays for the domiciliary care etc ?

[...]

The sensible approach which has been prevalent in this country for 3/4
of a century is that we pay tax and we get the welfare state. So you may
have to tax inheritance, but do it evenly and fairly and then provide
decent care and help for the old and families caring for the old.

The dementia tax is a total travesty and a back-tracking which says
stuff you, pay for your own care. Winner takes it all, **** off.

We will see plenty more of that kind of **** from the Tories if they get
any kind of 'mandate'.

TW

"TimW" wrote in message
news
On 08/06/17 07:34, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 08/06/2017 03:13, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo
. com, bm
escribió:

Did someone mention Brexit?

This about sums it up:

http://s1.b3ta.com/host/creative/55979/1496840759/TheresaMayBrexitPlan.jpg



I don't think that's far wrong. Not lose, but destabilise, and blame
everything on the weird mandate that'll come from this election.

Even sillier than you usually manage. There will be no weird mandate,
you watch.

It's difficult to explain the 'dementia tax' in any other way.

Its the only sensible approach. Why should the relos end up with a
much larger inheritance when the state pays for the domiciliary care etc
?

The sensible approach which has been prevalent in this country for 3/4 of
a century is that we pay tax and we get the welfare state.

Nope. Its never going to be feasible for any welfare state to
be able to provide the best result for those who want the most
luxurious approach of 2 full time carers in the home for those who
prefer to end their life in their own home instead of a care home.

So you may have to tax inheritance,

No may have to about it with that level of end of life care.

but do it evenly and fairly

Not even possible. Those who are careful with their money
and who make their own provision for what might happen
or even what is almost certain to happen will always end
up being slugged more than those who **** all their
income against the wall on whatever they choose to
do that on as soon as that income shows up.

and then provide decent care and help for the old and families caring for
the old.

More waffle. Are 2 full time carers for someone like pam
'decent care and help' or does it make more sense for
the state to provide what is more affordable and have
those who want that higher level of care pay for that
themselves when they have the assets that can pay for that ?

Its never going to feasible for any socialist system to
pay for the most luxurious care in your own home
for all those who prefer to end their life like that.

The dementia tax

Its flagrantly dishonest to call it that.

is a total travesty

Only for a rabid socialist.

and a back-tracking which says stuff you, pay for your own care. Winner
takes it all, **** off.

More flagrant dishonesty.

We will see plenty more of that kind of **** from the Tories if they get
any kind of 'mandate'.

Thanks for that completely superfluous
proof of where your prejudices/biases lie.

On 08/06/2017 07:34, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 08/06/2017 03:13, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo
. com, bm
escribió:

Did someone mention Brexit?

This about sums it up:

http://s1.b3ta.com/host/creative/55979/1496840759/TheresaMayBrexitPlan.jpg



I don't think that's far wrong. Not lose, but destabilise, and blame
everything on the weird mandate that'll come from this election.

Even sillier than you usually manage. There will be no weird mandate,
you watch.


We will.

It's difficult to explain the 'dementia tax' in any other way.

Its the only sensible approach. Why should the relos end up with a
much larger inheritance when the state pays for the domiciliary care etc ?


I'd agree in (small) part. But that's not my point. Why would she
destabilise her campaign by announcing a policy that would distance her
core support?

--
Cheers, Rob

"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 08/06/2017 07:34, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 08/06/2017 03:13, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo . com,
bm
escribió:

Did someone mention Brexit?

This about sums it up:

http://s1.b3ta.com/host/creative/55979/1496840759/TheresaMayBrexitPlan.jpg


I don't think that's far wrong. Not lose, but destabilise, and blame
everything on the weird mandate that'll come from this election.

Even sillier than you usually manage. There will be no weird mandate, you
watch.


We will.

It's difficult to explain the 'dementia tax' in any other way.

Its the only sensible approach. Why should the relos end up with a
much larger inheritance when the state pays for the domiciliary care etc
?

I'd agree in (small) part. But that's not my point. Why would she
destabilise her campaign by announcing a policy that would distance her
core support?

Because she decided that its more democratic to say what she planned to do ?

Tad radical, I realise.

On 08/06/2017 07:34, Rod Speed wrote:


It's difficult to explain the 'dementia tax' in any other way.

Its the only sensible approach. Why should the relos end up with a
much larger inheritance when the state pays for the domiciliary care etc ?


Nothing wrong with that but actually state this is going to happen
during an election campaign rather than wait until after the result has
been announced.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

alan_m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It's difficult to explain the 'dementia tax' in any other way.

Its the only sensible approach. Why should the relos end up with a
much larger inheritance when the state pays for the domiciliary care etc
?

Nothing wrong with that but actually state this is going to happen during
an election campaign rather than wait until after the result has been
announced.

So you arent into the partys saying what they will do
if they end up as the govt so the voters get to vote on
what they prefer and would rather they say nothing
about any of that and just do it after they get elected ?

Nothing even remotely like a decent democracy IMO.

On 10/06/2017 08:19, alan_m wrote:
On 08/06/2017 07:34, Rod Speed wrote:


It's difficult to explain the 'dementia tax' in any other way.

Its the only sensible approach. Why should the relos end up with a
much larger inheritance when the state pays for the domiciliary care
etc ?


Nothing wrong with that but actually state this is going to happen
during an election campaign rather than wait until after the result has
been announced.



The reality is that ATM you pay until you only have £22.5 left.
The new "tax" took that limit to £100k.
Now of course it will stay at £22.5 and people will be worse off as a
result.

En el artículo , RJH
escribió:

I don't think that's far wrong. Not lose, but destabilise, and blame
everything on the weird mandate that'll come from this election. It's
difficult to explain the 'dementia tax' in any other way.

I agree. The pic is meant to be humorous but is also close to the
truth. May cynically called this election expecting to win a landslide,
increasing the Tories' majority which would have given her a mandate to
force through all sorts of unpopular legislation as well as claiming she
had a strong mandate to do what she liked at the Brexit negotiating
table.

Instead, she's going to end up with egg on her face, a reduced majority
(she'll still get back in). Bang goes her mandate for unpopular polices
and a vastly weakened negotiating position at Brexit. We'll have a lame
duck PM and a weak govt for the foreseeable. The pound will plummet and
the Euro-vampires will be licking their chops.

Nothing good is gong to come of this. It's bad for Britain and bad for
everyone.

I'll be tactically voting:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...jun/02/tactica
l-voting-guide-how-to-make-your-vote-count-in-the-2017-election

or http://tinyurl.com/yckuecng

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

Mike Tomlinson wrote
RJH wrote

I don't think that's far wrong. Not lose, but destabilise, and blame
everything on the weird mandate that'll come from this election.
It's difficult to explain the 'dementia tax' in any other way.

I agree. The pic is meant to be humorous but is also close to the
truth. May cynically called this election expecting to win a landslide,
increasing the Tories' majority which would have given her a mandate to
force through all sorts of unpopular legislation as well as claiming she
had a strong mandate to do what she liked at the Brexit negotiating table.

Instead, she's going to end up with egg on her face, a reduced majority

We'll see, and even if she does, bet she still does what she said she will
do.

(she'll still get back in). Bang goes her mandate for unpopular polices

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

and a vastly weakened negotiating position at Brexit.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

We'll have a lame duck PM

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

and a weak govt for the foreseeable.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

The pound will plummet

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

and the Euro-vampires will be licking their chops.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

Nothing good is gong to come of this.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

It's bad for Britain and bad for everyone.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

I'll be tactically voting:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/02/tactical-voting-guide-how-to-make-your-vote-count-in-the-2017-election

or http://tinyurl.com/yckuecng

And your vote will be completely irrelevant, as always.

On 08/06/2017 10:18, Rod Speed wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote
RJH wrote

I don't think that's far wrong. Not lose, but destabilise, and blame
everything on the weird mandate that'll come from this election.
It's difficult to explain the 'dementia tax' in any other way.

I agree. The pic is meant to be humorous but is also close to the
truth. May cynically called this election expecting to win a landslide,
increasing the Tories' majority which would have given her a mandate to
force through all sorts of unpopular legislation as well as claiming she
had a strong mandate to do what she liked at the Brexit negotiating
table.

Instead, she's going to end up with egg on her face, a reduced majority

We'll see, and even if she does, bet she still does what she said she
will do.

(she'll still get back in). Bang goes her mandate for unpopular polices

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

and a vastly weakened negotiating position at Brexit.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

We'll have a lame duck PM

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

and a weak govt for the foreseeable.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

The pound will plummet

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

and the Euro-vampires will be licking their chops.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

Nothing good is gong to come of this.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

It's bad for Britain and bad for everyone.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

I'll be tactically voting:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/02/tactical-voting-guide-how-to-make-your-vote-count-in-the-2017-election


or http://tinyurl.com/yckuecng

And your vote will be completely irrelevant, as always.

I haven't seen this here for a while, so here goes (from 2003...)

Rod Speed FAQ
30/04/2003


Who or What is Rod Speed?
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet.

Why is Rod Speed worth a FAQ?

You need to brush up on your NetSpeak. Rod most certainly isn't
worth a FUQ in anybody's opinion except his own.

Rod certainly posts a lot. Why is that?

It relates back to the point about boosting his own self esteem by
what amounts to effectively having a wank in public. Rod's
personality, as exemplified by his posts, means he is practically
unemployable which means he sits around at home all day festering away
and getting worse and worse. This means he posts more and more try
and boost the old failing self esteem. Being unemployed also means he
as a lot of time on his hands to post in he first place.

But maybe Rod really is a very clever and knowledgable person?

Clever? His posts wouldn't support that theory. As far as being
knowledgable, well, Rod has posted to various aus newsgroups including
invest, comms, and politics. He has posted to all as a self professed
expert" and flames any and all who disagree with him. Logically,
here's no way any single individual could be more than a jack of all
trades across such a wide spread of subject matter.

But maybe Rod really is an expert in some areas?

Possibly. However, his "bedside manner" prevents him from being
taken seriously by most normal people. Also, he has damaged his
credibility in areas where he might know what he's on about by
shooting his self in the foot in areas where he does not. For
example, in the case of subject matter such as politics, even a view
held by Albert Einstein cannot be little more than an opinion and to
vociferously denigrate an opposing opinion is simply small mindedness
and bigotry, the kind of which Einstein himself fought against his
whole life.

What is Rod Speed's main modus operandi?

Simple! He shoots off a half brained opinion in response to any other
post and touts that opinion as fact. When challenged, he responds
with vociferous and rabid denigration. He has an instantly
recognisable set of schoolboy put downs limited pretty much to the
following: "Pathetic, Puerile, Little Boy, try harder, trivial, more
lies, gutless wonder, ******, etc etc". The fact that Rod has been
unable to come up with any new insults says a lot about his outlook
and intelligence.

But why do so many people respond to Rod in turn?

It has to do with effrontery and a lack of logic. Most people who
post have some basis of reason for what they write and when Rod
retorts with his usual denigration and derision they respond
emotionally rather than logically. It's like a teacher in a class
room who has a misbehaving pupil. The teacher challenges the pupil to
explain himself and the student responds with "**** off, Big Nose!"
Even thought the teacher has a fairly normal proboscis, he gets a dent
in his self-esteem and might resort to an emotional repsonse like
"yeah? well your dick wouldn't fill a pop rivet, punk", which merely
invites some oneupmanship from the naughty pupil. Of course, the
teacher should not have justified the initial comment with a
response, especially in front of the class. The correct response was
"please report to the headmaster's office right NOW!"

What is a "RodBot"?

Some respondents in aus.invest built a "vritual Rod" which was
indiscernable from the "real" Rod. Net users could enter an opinion
or even a fact and the RoDBot would tell them they were pathetic lying
schoolboys who should be able to do better or some equally pithy Rod
Speedism.

Are you saying that Rod Speed is a Troll?

You got it!

What is the best way to handle Rod Speed?

KillFile!

On 08/06/2017 10:18, Rod Speed wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote
RJH wrote

I don't think that's far wrong. Not lose, but destabilise, and blame
everything on the weird mandate that'll come from this election.
It's difficult to explain the 'dementia tax' in any other way.

I agree. The pic is meant to be humorous but is also close to the
truth. May cynically called this election expecting to win a landslide,
increasing the Tories' majority which would have given her a mandate to
force through all sorts of unpopular legislation as well as claiming she
had a strong mandate to do what she liked at the Brexit negotiating
table.

Instead, she's going to end up with egg on her face, a reduced majority

Unfortunately that also means that the anti-Euro swivel eyed loons will
have a disproportionate amount of influence after this election.

Things must be bad when they have to wheel Boris out at the last minute.

We'll see, and even if she does, bet she still does what she said she
will do.

Prepare for disaster when May's "No deal is better than a bad deal"
mantra where "bad" is interpreted by hardline Eurosceptics to mean
"any". She may well not be Prime Minister if she doesn't get at least as
many Tory seats in the new parliament as she had in the last one...

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , RJH
escribió:

I don't think that's far wrong. Not lose, but destabilise, and blame
everything on the weird mandate that'll come from this election. It's
difficult to explain the 'dementia tax' in any other way.

I agree. The pic is meant to be humorous but is also close to the
truth. May cynically called this election expecting to win a landslide,
increasing the Tories' majority which would have given her a mandate to
force through all sorts of unpopular legislation as well as claiming she
had a strong mandate to do what she liked at the Brexit negotiating
table.

Instead, she's going to end up with egg on her face, a reduced majority
(she'll still get back in). Bang goes her mandate for unpopular polices
and a vastly weakened negotiating position at Brexit. We'll have a lame
duck PM and a weak govt for the foreseeable. The pound will plummet and
the Euro-vampires will be licking their chops.

Nothing good is gong to come of this. It's bad for Britain and bad for
everyone.

I'll be tactically voting:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...jun/02/tactica
l-voting-guide-how-to-make-your-vote-count-in-the-2017-election

or http://tinyurl.com/yckuecng

OH Henny Penny,and the sky will fall in.

On 08/06/2017 03:13, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo . com, bm
escribió:

Did someone mention Brexit?

This about sums it up:

http://s1.b3ta.com/host/creative/55979/1496840759/TheresaMayBrexitPlan.jpg

I'll be glad when this ****ing election is over and we can get back to TV
cabinets and kitties.

Fingers crossed it all works out for her then. She's certainly done
everything in her power to bring that about.

In article ,
GMM wrote:
Fingers crossed it all works out for her then. She's certainly done
everything in her power to bring that about.

You jest? I've not heard anywhere that she's had a good campaign and
Corbyn a bad one.

My guess is she'll get back in, but with nothing like the big majority she
was hoping for. And that is entirely down to a bad campaign.

Only other party that had a bad campaign is UKIP. Without Farage, they are
nothing. At least one bit of good news.

--
*No husband has ever been shot while doing the dishes *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 08/06/17 10:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
GMM wrote:
Fingers crossed it all works out for her then. She's certainly done
everything in her power to bring that about.

You jest? I've not heard anywhere that she's had a good campaign and
Corbyn a bad one.

I think he meant she's done everything in her power to lose on purpose.

My guess is she'll get back in, but with nothing like the big majority she
was hoping for. And that is entirely down to a bad campaign.

We hope that she fails to get the 'mandate' she asked for, but if she
has a majority of only one she will still claim victory and a mandate.

Can we dare to hope for a hung parliament?


Only other party that had a bad campaign is UKIP. Without Farage, they are
nothing. At least one bit of good news.

It has been a constant ray of sunshine, the UKIP farce.

TW

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
GMM wrote:
Fingers crossed it all works out for her then. She's certainly done
everything in her power to bring that about.

You jest? I've not heard anywhere that she's had a good campaign and
Corbyn a bad one.

My guess is she'll get back in, but with nothing like the big majority
she was hoping for. And that is entirely down to a bad campaign.

Nope, if that is what happens, it will just as often be due to large
numbers deciding the result was inevitable and not bothering to vote.

Only other party that had a bad campaign is UKIP.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Without Farage, they are nothing.

Once BRexit is happening, they are completely irrelevant.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
GMM wrote:
Fingers crossed it all works out for her then. She's certainly done
everything in her power to bring that about.

You jest? I've not heard anywhere that she's had a good campaign and
Corbyn a bad one.

My guess is she'll get back in, but with nothing like the big majority she
was hoping for. And that is entirely down to a bad campaign.

Only other party that had a bad campaign is UKIP. Without Farage, they are
nothing. At least one bit of good news.


Corbyn's campaign was a brilliant effort in promising all the things
that people want but can't afford to have without bankrupting the
country. Lots of suckers fell for it! It;s just as believable as a
Nigerian phishing letter.

in 1597264 20170609 090747 Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
GMM wrote:
Fingers crossed it all works out for her then. She's certainly done
everything in her power to bring that about.

You jest? I've not heard anywhere that she's had a good campaign and
Corbyn a bad one.

My guess is she'll get back in, but with nothing like the big majority she
was hoping for. And that is entirely down to a bad campaign.

Only other party that had a bad campaign is UKIP. Without Farage, they are
nothing. At least one bit of good news.


Corbyn's campaign was a brilliant effort in promising all the things
that people want but can't afford to have without bankrupting the
country. Lots of suckers fell for it! It;s just as believable as a
Nigerian phishing letter.

He was up against May's manifesto which promised all the things
that nobody wanted (except Dacre and Murdoch).
I'm sure she was trying to lose, and she almost failed at that!

On 08/06/2017 10:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
GMM wrote:
Fingers crossed it all works out for her then. She's certainly done
everything in her power to bring that about.

You jest? I've not heard anywhere that she's had a good campaign and
Corbyn a bad one.

My guess is she'll get back in, but with nothing like the big majority she
was hoping for. And that is entirely down to a bad campaign.

Only other party that had a bad campaign is UKIP. Without Farage, they are
nothing. At least one bit of good news.

Sorry Dave, I was referring to Mike Tomlinson's post, which included
this graphic:

http://s1.b3ta.com/host/creative/559...BrexitPlan.jpg

I found myself particularly supporting point 3, which I should have made
clearer....

En el artículo , GMM
escribió:

Sorry Dave, I was referring to Mike Tomlinson's post, which included
this graphic:

http://s1.b3ta.com/host/creative/559...BrexitPlan.jpg

http://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/46786/1496990505/MayResign.jpg

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo . com, bm
escribió:

Did someone mention Brexit?

This about sums it up:

http://s1.b3ta.com/host/creative/55979/1496840759/TheresaMayBrexitPlan.jpg

I'll be glad when this ****ing election is over and we can get back to TV
cabinets and kitties.

You might just be right, Mike

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:09:36 AM UTC+1, bm wrote:

Did someone mention Brexit? Jezza thinks it's a new cereal.

See? I CAN do it, not one mention of sound engineers.

I told you on 23JAN16 that you would have a year of "The Rapture" and you didn't even get that!

Oh dear, sour grapes?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"bm" wrote in message
web.com...
Our Corbyn who art in heaven, if you have ANY sense of decency, **** up
tomorrow big time.
If our future is in your hands we are truly ****ed and to a standstill.
Your kingdom might come, eventually.
Praise a lord.
John McDonnell give us our daily bread and utter more tripe, the lord make
us truly thankful.
Forgive Diane Abbott her sins and spout even more crap tomorrow.
Praise a lord.
Deliver us from the evil of Trident so that any Tom/Dick/Harry might crap
upon us and give us peace.
May Sir Keir Starmer, shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European
Union get some sense ****ed into him, and a smile.
Praise a lord.
May the (hopefully) shadow cabinet tell the truth and admit they all think
Corbyn is a **** and are not doing it for the money and may the GBP not
get taken in by all this ********.

Did someone mention Brexit? Jezza thinks it's a new cereal.

See? I CAN do it, not one mention of sound engineers.