Mogg

Just wandered back on to this thread and I'm hearing the theme from the Twilight Zone.

What is everyone on about?

Standing on the sidelines and reading some of these threads reminds me that perspective is the first casualty in politics- to a fascist, Anniebach would be a red under the bed and to a communist she’s a rabid right winger!

I stand by what I said grandad. I have read many of annies posts on many threads and stick by my opinion. There is more to life than politics. Thank goodness.

sorry folks, x posted there with trisher and lemon grove.

Grandad - I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by your post at 20.41pm today.

You refer to a post by Anniebach on 08.09.18 at 6.46pm that 'all union members during the Blair government years were male, single and childless". You go on to say:

"I kept a record of that post as I was so disgusted by it I seriously considered forwarding it to the Equalities Commission as without doubt it contravenes the Equalities Act 2010 in regard to incitement"

Incitement to what?

I recognise I'm adding to the way this nonsense continues, so I should make a cup of camomile tea instead of saying any more

Oh please!
Give it a rest Grandad43 Your many posts on this thread about Anniebach border on the obsessive.
Your own posts on this subject are far from kind/ fair/ accurate.
Get back to Mogg....or are you bored with him already.

Grandad1943 anniebachhas a consistent record on political threads of slagging of fthe Labour party and Corbyn. She claims to have a long history of membership and support for that party. But somehow she seems to have forgotten what the party stood for before Tony Blair.If I can give you some advice it isn't worth engaging. It's illogical bias without reason or justification. She may be a delightful, caring supportive person but on political threads she is just unreasonable.

Doodle Quote [ Annie is one of the nicest, kindest and most caring posters on GN and anyone who speaks ill of her has opinions that I don’t support. ]End Quote.

So Annie is one of the kindest most caring people on the forum, is she?

Well, judge this, Anniebach stated in the thread "Call Off The Dogs Corbyn" on the 08/09/18 @ 6:46pm that "all union members during the Blair government years were Male, single and childless"

I kept a record of that post as I was so disgusted by it I seriously considered forwarding it to the Equalities Commission as without doubt it contravenes the Equalities Act 2010 in regard to incitement.

However, I now leave it to others to judge if anniebach has a long-standing record of caring, kindness, fairness, accuracy and judgment in all her posts on this forum.

There have been many posts similar to the above by anniebach since the above date.

Doodle, you are 100% correct about Annie, she is one of the kindest and most caring posters on Gransnet, and many of us have benefited from her compassion.

I agree with everything else you’ve said Doodle, and I have to say again Gonegirl’s posts often make me laugh, she calls a spade a spade.

Oooh gonegirl I don’t swear and the f word never passes my lips but oh boy do I agree with your 17.32.57 post.

annie is one of the nicest, kindest and most caring posters on GN and anyone who speaks ill of her has opinions that I don’t support.

There are several posters on this thread and the many other political threads who think that if they post pages and pages of so called information they will convince us they are right and we are wrong. I’m not surprised if people can’t be bothered to read it all.

Monica, an excellent post at 17.54 echoing pretty much what I posted up thread.

Gonegirl love your feisty remarks.

You're very welcome Annie.?

M0nica, I too read JRM's remarks in exactly the same way as you. It was perhaps put rather badly, but I'm absolutely sure that he meant no disrespect or criticism to the people of Grenfell and has apologised profusely for any unintended offense or hurt.

Iam64, I wholeheartedly agree with your above post, you and I have often disagreed in regard to many subjects on this forum without it degrading to making personal comments against each other.

However, with anniebach she does readily make any forum conversation with her "personal" at the first instance available to her I find.

Her consistent reference to the Aberfan Disaster in threads often to make a political point against the Labour Party or the trade union movement I find also particularly unpleasant.

Now, let's get back to Jacob Reece Mogg and his untold judgments.

Grandad - I didn't single anyone out for seeking confrontation. I commented that Annie is capable of standing her ground.
You and I often disagree or develop a discussion, doesn't mean it deteriorates in the way this thread seems to have done

anniebach has deliberately mis-directed this thread and has, as is so often her way, used it as an opportunity to attack the Labour Party, even though the disaster to which she refers happened in 1966.

Earlier in this thread, she said:

"seems I am the only one on this thread who questions "What would I have done?", referring to the actions of the people caught up in the fire.

Having posed that question, it makes no sense to support Mogg's comment. Many of us said that in a very frightening situation, from inside the tower block (we saw the flames rising quickly up the side of the tower but they were inside and they had been told to stay there by the LFB). However, in his great wisdom, Mogg said, had he and Ferrari been in that situation, common sense would have led them to evacuate the building. But he wasn't in that situation and nobody can say with any certainty how they would have behaved. Many of them realised too late that they needed to get out but by that time the corridors and stairs were full of smoke and they had no breathing equipment.

Many of *anniebach"'s posts following that one were making political points:

"Will the Tory government make the survivors pay towards the removal of the tower, as a Labour government made the people of Aberfan pay towards the removal of the tips?"

"Makes one doubt about nationalising everything".

"I do not read Granddad's epistles - read one, you have read them all".

"He is an expert because he says he is. He is a staunch supporter of the Labour Party but not a member, because he said he wasn't".

"I am a socialist, not a Marxist, and can never support an anti-semetic leader".

These posts demonstrate an agenda to move the discussion away from Mogg's comments and towards yet another rant about the current Labour party.

And one final sarcastic shot was:

"and they are besties, so sweet" - with a "smiley" emoji.

Does that sound like someone who is upset and who needs people to rush to her defence on the grounds that she is being "bullied"?

Iam64, I certainly do not wish to seek online confrontation with anniebach. However, when that forum member becomes upset with something I post when at the same time that person states she never reads my posts I consider that as her seeking confrontation with me.

Further, even though I then apologise for upsetting her she then refuses that apology and accuses me of including her with involvement in the negligence with killed one hundred and forty-four very young persons.

Now, again, who is seeking confrontation with who?

Sorry Corbyn obviously! Auto correct again!

Could someone explain, preferably by means of a diagram how this post has gone from being a discussion about a comment by Rees-Mogg to a discussion about Jeremy Corbin?

I don't see myself as part of any 'little coterie' facilitating Anniebach as a victim. I suspect many others would object to being described in that way.
Annie is more than capable of standing her ground. I'm often puzzled by the lengths some go to in order to get into an online, rather tedious row with her. Anyway, that's enough on this particular subject from me.
Reece Frog anyone>

anniebach Quote [grandad43 I repeated what you posted to others for confirmation that I and others did or did not in anyway play a part in killing 144 people.] End Quote.

anniebach, please explain how "others" can confirm or not if you played any part in the killing of 144 people?

grandad43 I repeated what you posted to others for confirmation that I and others did or did not in anyway play a part in killing 144 people.

Now I will take Gonegirl’s advice, hope you will do the same .

Anniebach in regard to your post @17:37 today, I will repeat, you stated very disrespectfully that you never read any post contributed to the forum by myself.

It does no matter what the content of my original post was, as again in very disrespectfully replying to that post and my apology which followed, you demonstrated that in stating you never read my contributions that in reality "was not a fact".

Also in your above post you state, " have repeated what you posted to others and await their reply"

So, in that it very much would seem as if you are attempting to bring a bullying campaign against me in this thread. I will not comment on your action in that but leave it to the Judgment of others as the facts in your prosecutions are in the above.

When I heard what JRM said about Grenfell, i do think there has been an overreaction, he worded what he said very badly, but I took from his words that he was speaking about if such an event happened again people would use their commonsense and get out and ignore requests to stay put.

Now I am not a Conservative supporter, and certainly have little time for JRM, but I get fed up with the way people jump on every infelicitously worded remark by a politician, and twist it and give it the worse meaning they can.

Haven't all of us at some point said something that comes out backwards and leaves us saying words whose meaning is the complete opposite of what we actually meant? I know I have.