Lol team England racing says hi.

Watch the Netflix documentary Icarus if you have time. It's good.

not nearly equivalent imo

gimme a shout when we aren't allowed to take our flag to the olympics bc they caught someone from MI5 breaking into the testing lab and fiddling with samples

Yes, many athletes across many disciplines are drug cheats, probably including some or all of the Sky cycling team.

But no, this is not the same or as bad as state-sponsored cheating.

Yes.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...ules-1.3433551

That makes at least three of us itt (57 was too).

This is quite uncontroversial.

Of course it isn't, same way killing hundreds of your own citizens on your own soil isn't equivalent to killing a few of your own citizens on someone else's soil.

--

I'll have a look Heh.

Drivel. Since 2006, Russian law has explicitly permitted the assassination on foreign soil of anyone who 'slanders' Vladimir Putin. Basically that means anyone Putin doesn't like, because the Russian government isn't a government, it's merely an organised crime syndicate, as Marina Litvinenko has said. (You do know who she is, and what happened to her husband, don't you? He's buried in Highgate Cemetery, a few hundred yards from where I now sit.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6188658.stm

On the other hand, since 1956, when Eden requested the assassination of Nasser and was rebuffed, it has been established that neither the Security Service nor the Secret Intelligence Service of the United Kingdom will accept orders to kill in peacetime. The Crown prerogative under which the Security Service operates will not permit officers of the service to commit or condone any crime higher than breaking and entering. If they did, they would be on their own, and legally liable, and civil servants don't like being in that position so they're unlikely to go there.

Lee Clegg shot up a car full of joyriders, think he got 4 years then returned back to the army and promoted. That pic is a mural in the army barracks. The girl is his victim, Karen Reilly. No pic of Martin McPeake.

http://www.1in12.com/publications/ar...es98/clegg.htm

And here's the active denial.

Just so that i am clear, can you quote the exact passage in that article where it states that 'the ECHR determined that the claimed violation had not occurred.'?

Can you let 57 On Red in on that secret. If i'm reading his post #9996 correctly he seems to believe that the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service of the United Kingdom have not committed any crime higher than breaking and entering since 1956.

What leads you to believe i've never heard of Marina Litvinenko or what happened to her husband?

I agree with you in that the Russian government is not much more than a crime syndicate, which by the way is a crime syndicate that the tories are in bed with.

Now that is real drivel, you can't possibly believe that can you?

He may well be right in saying that the secret services haven't bumped anyone off on the direct orders of politicians.

That's isn't to say, of course, that they haven't made their own decisions at times, assuming it to be in the interest of national security or that it would receive tacit approval from the MoD.

in what way are the tories 'in bed with' putin's govt

are you referring to donations to the tories by russian emigres, or something else

No you take a good look at your self. You ranty hyperbolic waste of word pixels.

1. Bolded is a ridiculous claim a total misrepresentation of anything I have said. I have not got within a million miles in anyway of saying we should not talk about the hooded men. Seriously WTF?

2. Has not posted about Heggarty? Are you for ****ing real?

Maybe I have other things to do other than posting on 2+2. Look at my posting history, how many posts have I made since that Heggarty post. Maybe 4 or 5 including this one. Sorry I did not respond in the appropriate time frame, but I dont spend my life on 2+2 and when posting I dont have to have a lazer focus on issues raised itt.

The argument has gone whoooosh over your head because you are so emotionally dogmatic on this issue is not that we should not post on the hooded men, just that other issues might be more interesting to posters who cant post infinite posts on infinite topics.

Given that posting on this topic means engaging with you and your totally irrational posting, makes discussing such issues even less attractive.

So utterly regret trying to have a good faith conversation with martymclolol.

This link doesn't back up your claim at all. In fact the ruling specifically says that what was done to them "amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment". The new ruling was specifically about whether new evidence means that the claimed violation amounted to torture under the provisions of the ECHR, or was merely inhuman and degrading. There was not and has never been any argument that the violation never occurred at all.

As has been widely discussed in the media, a woman named Lubov Chernuknin, wife of a former minister in Putin's Govt paid Boris Johnston 160k to play tennis with her. Prior to the current spat, Boris was quite comfortable with Putin's Russia [this is ofc post Litvinenko who was at that point (2 weeks ago) merely an image burned onto the retina of every man woman and child in the west and wheeled out when politically convenient to do so]

Mark Steel is typically fantastic on this in the indy, and a great video on the site also
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8257446.html

Boris Johnson also proved his toughness on Putin by insisting we should carry out air strikes to assist him in Syria. Following a trip to Paris he wrote: “Many French people think the time has come to do a deal with their new friends the Russians, and I think they are broadly right… We should set aside our Cold War mindset.”

ah, too funny.

but wait, I'm

you said you wanted 'meaty' evidence, then when provided this by the other guy you spat feathers about it being too long ago, that you dont know much about NI etc.

Once again trying to bully the forum with insensitive and quite nasty responses.

Try reading.

The long ago and meaty evidence were about two separate incidents. So yea a big lol you.

Try being remotely intellectually honest one time.

My response to martymclolol was entirely commensurate with his gargantuan mis representation of what I said.

Sorry OAFK but I never meant to misrepresent anything you said. I'll try again, you said we shouldn't bother talking about the latest ruling. Hope that's better now.

I did mention the crickets again though

I know you have a grudge against the English, but do you have to mention the cricket on a day like this?

Nope.

Still a big misrepresentation.

Anyway, you have proven Joes point 100000%.

Ok so I haven't read a few hundred words from you on why the latest ruling is irrelevant and definitely isn't a hot topic worth discussion.

Ffs mate cmon.

Just making **** up at this point.

Basically you cant read posts without projecting a horrible, emotive interpretation on them.

Im done with this.