Richard Tice

As usual? No I’m not a keyboard warrior. Who have I ever attacked in the past?

You annoyed me with your ridiculous post. I lashed out.

However it was uncalled for and there is no need to be as personal, for that I apologise - I have changed the post.

However, you are wrong. Just plain wrong.

 

Changed your reply from abusive? Your used to abusing female posters on here aren't you?

 

I'm not sure who you're referring to if I'm honest. I'm left-wing myself though if you haven't noticed but it shouldn't really matter should it as long as I'm respectful? Are you always polite/respectful? I'm sure you are mate.
If you're really upset with people on here you could block them I suppose. Or maybe contact admin....or maybe have a break from the site. I dunno. Just saying. Regards.

 

Point to me where I abused a female poster.

I called out some posts I didn’t agree with. I didn’t abuse, nor did I feel any need to speak differently to a poster on here based on their gender.

And yes I changed the post because I recognised it was out of order.

 

These days you can't even falsely accuse a public figure of being a paedo without being questioned by the admin who might be liable for hosting defamatory content if they don't do something about it.

Its lefty PC gone mad nonsense, I tell you.

 

You can't claim there's a left wing bias and then claim admin are defensive of Starmer, or do you believe Starmer to be left wing?

 

Nothing like OTT exaggeration to try and make a point.

 

This is libel, admin really should remove this comment as it could bring the site into litigation.

Also it’s incredibly stupid.

 

Is this a serious post?

 

You have to hope not don’t you…

 

Coming on here and rabbiting on about cliques but then in the next breath always defending the same few people doing the same few actions. Very amusing.

 

Have you seen the thread titled 'Starmer', which runs to 17 pages? Plenty critical about Starmer on there. The remark in this thread though crosses a line. Apart from the fact that it is potentially defamatory - as another poster has pointed out - it is demonstrably untrue. Only last week we were reminded in the obituary for Andrew Norfolk that the distinguished journalist was hugely complimentary of Starmer's response to the child sexual abuse scandals during his time as DPP. Plenty of ammo for folks to have a go at Starmer about, but the remark made by the earlier poster is extremely serious and a blatant untruth.