British Politics spam thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
DMD said:
Poor toby sees yet another of his fantasies shattered. He never takes these things well.

There'll be weeping and wailing in his bed sit all day. <laugh>

Meanwhile, the NHS, etc struggle under the additional non-contributing strain supported by his lords and masters. You can see why it stings him so much.
Click to expand...

You realised I challenged that stat because Thames Water released that report. Now you're squirming, as per.
 
Anyone that believes the russian nukes have been kept maintained in a state of readiness is living in cloud cuckoo land.

They cost a fortune to maintain, and it's odds on most of the money allocated for that has been syphoned off.
I can't recall the exact figures, but it costs the US more to maintain their smaller arsenal than it Russia spends on it's armed forces in total.

The most dangerous place to be would be anywhere near where they're launched from.
 
pompeymeowth said:
Putey has his nukes as a last resort. I think he's going to test the water, with some tactical ones first.
Click to expand...

Doubt he's stupid enough to do that, but who knows. He's been trashing his country's population, arsenal, standing and economy for years.
 
Dopey said:
You realised I challenged that stat because Thames Water released that report. Now you're squirming, as per.
Click to expand...

They only 'released' the now outdated report after an FoI request. But that's **** all to do with anything other than your desperate stupidity and ignorance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diego
Oh aye, local inquiries are the way forward and no mistake. What on earth could go wrong with them marking their own homework?

You must log in or register to see media
 
  • Like
Reactions: QuarterMoonII and Diego
DMD said:
They only 'released' the now outdated report after an FoI request. But that's **** all to do with anything other than your desperate stupidity and ignorance.
Click to expand...

I pulled you up on it because it's nonsense. I doubt you even knew before I questioned it.
 
Dopey said:
I pulled you up on it because it's nonsense. I doubt you even knew before I questioned it.
Click to expand...

Erm, you never 'pulled me up' you just posted your usual gibberish.

However, as you are claiming to be a clued up expert, feel free to post your more accurate figures. If, as I suspect you will, you claim nobody knows, have a think about what that itself says.
 
pompeymeowth said:
Classic Sociopathic behaviour.

Low level self awareness and empathy.
Click to expand...

All these illegal immigrants are living off the grid in the most expensive city in the UK. And they're probably all on benefits. And working too. And taking all the housing. Thames Water knows.
 
Toby said:
All these illegal immigrants are living off the grid in the most expensive city in the UK. And they're probably all on benefits. And working too. And taking all the housing. Thames Water knows.
Click to expand...
So, it's all fine and dandy in London, yes? No strain on housing, hospitals, schools, prisons, welfare etc.?

I've been worrying about nothing. Bloody Thames Water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diego, Easter Road 1980, stopmeandslapme and 1 other person
DMD said:
Anyone that believes the russian nukes have been kept maintained in a state of readiness is living in cloud cuckoo land.

They cost a fortune to maintain, and it's odds on most of the money allocated for that has been syphoned off.
I can't recall the exact figures, but it costs the US more to maintain their smaller arsenal than it Russia spends on it's armed forces in total.

The most dangerous place to be would be anywhere near where they're launched from.
Click to expand...
That's privatisation for you.

Russia have developed 2 Nuclear capable ICBM, one described as having unlimited range and the Intermediate Range Nuclear Capable Oreshnik which they tested on Kiev in November

Even Iran have the capability to deliver Nukes if not the nukes themselves

Need to stop watching Hollywood's takes on Russia and take it seriously.
 
Toby said:
He was saying russia was too powerful and Ukraine need to give up, now he's agreeing with NATO. Poor Mindy is desperate.
Click to expand...
You've been saying Russia was going to take over Ukraine and Europe was next.

I've consistently said Russia had no intention of doing so and couldn't man an occupation, citing historic occupations and modern occupations that have failed.

I used Georgia as an example of their intentions.

You need to read what people say and not just listen to your feelings.
 
Mind The Duck said:
That's privatisation for you.

Russia have developed 2 Nuclear capable ICBM, one described as having unlimited range and the Intermediate Range Nuclear Capable Oreshnik which they tested on Kiev in November

Even Iran have the capability to deliver Nukes if not the nukes themselves

Need to stop watching Hollywood's takes on Russia and take it seriously.
Click to expand...

Some of the 'weapons' Russia tries to display are incapable of launching. Some of the other nations claiming nuclear capability can't get the sums right to make the inter-continental ones operable.
 
DMD said:
Some of the 'weapons' Russia tries to display are incapable of launching. Some of the other nations claiming nuclear capability can't get the sums right to make the inter-continental ones operable.
Click to expand...
And some are capable
 
Mind The Duck said:
And some are capable
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but they won't be sure which one, and firing them singularly is a sure fired way of having their own Country destroyed, as it would trigger an immediate response with no real way of being sure their own missile had any effect until it's too late.

There really isn't any meaningful way of firing a warning shot beyond chest puffing on manoeuvres.
 
DMD said:
Perhaps, but they won't be sure which one, and firing them singularly is a sure fired way of having their own Country destroyed, as it would trigger an immediate response with no real way of being sure their own missile had any effect until it's too late.

There really isn't any meaningful way of firing a warning shot beyond chest puffing on manoeuvres.
Click to expand...
Same can be said for trident. So is everyone bluffing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back