Max777's Forum Posts | Swinging Heaven

Join the most popular community of UK swingers now

Max777

Over 90 days ago

Straight Male, 70

0 miles · Tyne and Wear

Profile Follows

Meets Parties Stories

Forum

12 Mar 2015

Quote by deancannock
Yes Guls is more than capable ....but as can be seen he did believe that people personally attack him and his views....interesting to note that people had a go at BEN also calling them a pack....he has now left the site !!
Yaknow gulson now that the pack is behaving I am truly looking forward to your contributions.

it's a shame ben when peeps on here reduce discussion to personal attacks rather than expand on, or raise the level of analysis of a particular subject. if people would only wake up to whats going on, hidden in plain veiw all around them, they could take evasive action to minimise the risks they WILL be exposed to. regards and thank you.
You had to go a long way back to find that quote Dean, 26 August 2010 to be precise! And you accuse Toots of spending ages searching back!
As for Ben, he was very capable of having a go at others when he wanted to. Ben was very clever though, some of his more personal attacks were sent via private messages, hidden from the general forum readers.

11 Mar 2015

Quote by deancannock
its very easy to have said...I can see you have strong convictions driven by personal situations. Its not exactly raw as the miners strike finished 30 years ago, this month !! I am not exactly on my own in my dislike of thatcher !!
Instead.. am spoken down to, told my views are tainted, and I would be better not to post on the subject. This ofcause follows laughs, smiles, snorts, and sniggers at comments.
People wonder why so few new people join the forum these days.....people wonder why people like Mids ( who in my view my a regular and good contributor ) are driven away. Guls the other day was told everything he wrote was rubbish and he shouldn't bother posting !! Yes..thats right though disagreeing with his opinions, I was one that said he had every right to post whatever he wanted, so long as within the rules of the site. People need to learn to have respect for others views, and can easily comment without being condescending.
If I wish to contribute to a thread and I have a view.....I will.

You really do make it up as you go along, don't you Dean. Where was Gulson told that everything he posted was rubbish and that he shouldn't bother posting?

8 Mar 2015

Quote by deancannock

Another bit of proof about what she knew has been released. Dispite all attempts not to release. More to follow !!!

C'mon Dean. Surely you don't believe anything in the Daily Mail? After all, it's the paper that tells more lies than any other!
"MAX....why do you always feel the need to make things political ??? That's where the tunnel is. You posted a link from 2005....from Daily Mail ( the paper that lies more than any other)"
Yes Max I was as surprised as you that such a strong Tory paper as the Mail was publishing this. It seems even they now want to distance themselves from anything to do with Thatcher....
But hey just for you.....does this link make it easier for you !!! ( I can list
more if required )

TO BE HONEST Dean, I really couldn't give a fig for any of your links. You have been bleating about others being condescending and patronising towards you when your dismissal of me providing a link to the Daily Mail in the other thread couldn't have been any more patronising and condescending and yet you quote the the Daily Mail when it suits your purpose.
Experience has taught me it's pointless debating with a hypocrite.
So please explain the use of the word condescending when I state a fact that ( other than the now closed down NOTW ) the daily mail has issued more apologies for wrongful reporting than any other newspaper. Like or not...that's a fact. When something is reported in the Mail...and no other newspaper...I think it would be true to say...most will take with a pinch of salt. In this instance I clicked on the first link available, as you can see plenty more. I can understand you don't like the content Max !! Mrs Thatcher knew of his child sexual exploits, was warned about giving him a peerage, but she choose to ignore it, and do it anyway !! As say....more to follow as more documents are released. I am telling you now, this will be a bigger sex scandal than the Jimmy Saville expose, when all the information is in the public domain.
Dean, here's your paragraph in full. Are you seriously trying to say that that is not patronising and condescending?
deancannock wrote:
MAX....why do you always feel the need to make things political ??? That's where the tunnel is. You posted a link from 2005....from Daily Mail ( the paper that lies more than any other )....my link was from International Business times..a well respected independent publication...dated 19th January 2015 !!!
So it's OK for you to rubbish other people when you believe you have the moral high ground yet you whinge when you believe others are doing the same to you. You are also prepared to quote newspapers when it suits your purpose yet you rubbish the same newspaper when others quote it.
As I have said, it's pointless debating with a hypocrite so I won't be responding to any more of your attempts at provocation.

8 Mar 2015

Quote by deancannock

Another bit of proof about what she knew has been released. Dispite all attempts not to release. More to follow !!!

C'mon Dean. Surely you don't believe anything in the Daily Mail? After all, it's the paper that tells more lies than any other!
"MAX....why do you always feel the need to make things political ??? That's where the tunnel is. You posted a link from 2005....from Daily Mail ( the paper that lies more than any other)"
Yes Max I was as surprised as you that such a strong Tory paper as the Mail was publishing this. It seems even they now want to distance themselves from anything to do with Thatcher....
But hey just for you.....does this link make it easier for you !!! ( I can list
more if required )

TO BE HONEST Dean, I really couldn't give a fig for any of your links. You have been bleating about others being condescending and patronising towards you when your dismissal of me providing a link to the Daily Mail in the other thread couldn't have been any more patronising and condescending and yet you quote the the Daily Mail when it suits your purpose.
Experience has taught me it's pointless debating with a hypocrite.

8 Mar 2015

Quote by deancannock

Another bit of proof about what she knew has been released. Dispite all attempts not to release. More to follow !!!

C'mon Dean. Surely you don't believe anything in the Daily Mail? After all, it's the paper that tells more lies than any other!
"MAX....why do you always feel the need to make things political ??? That's where the tunnel is. You posted a link from 2005....from Daily Mail ( the paper that lies more than any other)"

8 Feb 2015

Quote by Rogue_Trader
I think you'll find that inciting both racial and homophobic hatred are criminal offences. There is a limit to free speach.

You added one word to your original statement which has changed the discussion Max.
If you will I can offer two examples of sexism;
"I don't believe men should be members of the Womens Institute"
blatant sexism and discriminatory, but not illegal.
Whereas;
"Men should be castrated and their nads hung in public for wanting to join the Womens Institute"
Hatred...and maybe illegal, if carried out would certainly be so.
No, I'm merely pointing out that there is a limit to free speach. I wonder how far anyone would get now campaigning on behalf of legalising . By your assertion, they should be free to do so.

8 Feb 2015

Quote by Rogue_Trader
So are you advocating that anyone or any group should be able to campaign for whatever issue they want, however illegal? So it's OK to promote homophobia, racism , sexism?

I think you will find its quite alright to campaign for all of them Max and they openly are, practicing discrimination or abuse in the name of them is totally another thing.
I think you'll find its not. Stand on a soapbox and campaign for any of the issues mentioned,not forgetting and you will soon be having your collar felt.
I think you will find their are organisations within the church that advocate against women bishops, that is sexism. Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in Homosexuality and advocate such, that it is homophobia, the BNP/EDL campaign...well we don't need to state what that want.
There are folks that wish to bring back capital punishment, in my eyes that is the advocacy of state managed murder, and murder is illegal when I last looked. Does that mean that because its illegal they shouldnt be allowed to?
I think you'll find that inciting both racial and homophobic hatred are criminal offences. There is a limit to free speach.

8 Feb 2015

Quote by Rogue_Trader
So are you advocating that anyone or any group should be able to campaign for whatever issue they want, however illegal? So it's OK to promote homophobia, racism , sexism?

I think you will find its quite alright to campaign for all of them Max and they openly are, practicing discrimination or abuse in the name of them is totally another thing.
I think you'll find its not. Stand on a soapbox and campaign for any of the issues mentioned,not forgetting and you will soon be having your collar felt.

8 Feb 2015

Quote by Rogue_Trader
I am suggesting G, that Thatcher held sway on internal affairs and let us lesser mortals hear what she and her ilk thought was worthy of us. Therefore with what has come to light, which is questionable, she was complicit.
Max, freedom of speech, just because you dont like what some groups campaign for doesn't mean that their voices should be muted. That approach is a very slippery slope. Should they engage in any illegal acts then of course throw the book at them, but not for writing about them or engagement in campaigning! But since that was the 70's things were very different back then ala Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter et al.
If thats the case then maybe all copies of Anais Nin's "The Delta of Venus" should be burnt and everyone who has ever read it castigated in public, along with Nabokov's " " or "My Secret Life, diary of an Edwardian Gentleman" and maybe even the Bible.

So are you advocating that anyone or any group should be able to campaign for whatever issue they want, however illegal? So it's OK to promote homophobia, racism , sexism?
It may have been the 70's but was illegal even then. I'm sure had Saville, Glitter et al made their predilections public, there would have been a massive public backlash and revulsion back then.

8 Feb 2015

Quote by Rogue_Trader
Toots
The NCCL was a campaigner for civil liberties and therefore supported anyones right to free speech. Back in the 70's there was a lot of movement for repressive and draconian laws to be repealed and I can see how some groups would hijack legitimate causes like illegality of being a practicing homosexual for their own nefarious ends. Which is basically what PIE did. NCCL had over a 1000 affiliate groups, of which it was easy to gain. You paid your £15 and gained your affiliate status. Should we ban the BNP? EDL? or maybe the Socialist parties? religious parties?
So long as the group had committed no crime then we have to defend their right to be heard. If we don't agree with it then we fight their cause, not ban the group!
Max
You are quite correct their affiliate was removed in 1983, I should have done my homework correctly and chosen my choice of words better (must of been the red wine) To whit; whilst being a member of an executive committee does not mean that one agrees with all decisions. Being a democratic group sees motions carried that sometimes one doesnt agree with.
I should have said that Dromey defeated their motion to be heard within 8 weeks of his taking the chairmanship. So I dont see him supporting them at all.
Back on topic though, coverups by all governments are rife. We only get to hear what they (Government) want us to hear. This is either to suit them staying in power or for control.
It is a journalists duty to expose these coverups so we the people can make informed decisions about which bunch of idiots to put in power.
So yes, I believe Thatcher was complicit, but then they all are to a lesser or greater degree.

All we have is Domey's word after the event. You really can't compare what the PIE stood for against the likes of the EDL or religious groups. What the PIE stood for was equally as vile then as it is now and Domey being on the executive must have known what it stood for. If he was so against them and defeated their motion why was the PIE able to continue to be affiliated to the NCCL for the duration of Domey's chairmanship and for another 4 years thereafter?

I think the above article hits the nail squarely on the head

8 Feb 2015

Quote by Rogue_Trader
Harriet Harman was legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties ( now Liberty) and her husband chaired the NCCL in the 70's. Patricia Hewitt who was later a cabinet minister was its general secretary. The Information Exchange was affiliated to the NCCL. In 1996 the NCCL issued a press release calling for the lowering of the age of consent to 14.
Is GNV talking rubbish?

It's over 40 years ago Max, so in dean's little world of left wing fantasy, it doesn't exist :lol2:
Yeah you both are, as you are distorting the truth and the timeline.
PIE was affiliated in February 1976, prior to Dromey being elected to chairman, as soon as he was he had them thrown out, that was in April 1976...8 weeks after. As he never supported their agenda.
The NCCL's press release was about dropping the age of consent for consenting minors. At the time and still is illegal for anyone to have sex under the age of 16. So 2 x 15 year olds are commiting an offence should they do so. The press release was asking for the consent to be dropped to 14 years of age IF both practioners were the same age! Thereby decriminalising something which we know goes on. There was no move by the NCCL to advocate PIE's twisted logic and view.
Harriet Harman joined NCCL in 1978, 2 years after the PIE fiasco. How does that make her a supporter?
Dromey was never a supporter and defeated their membership.
PIE was not kicked out of the NCCL until 1983, 7 years after the appointment of Dromey as Chairman ( although he had been on the executive since 1970) and 5 after the appointment of Harman. The press release was not about dropping the age of consent for minors, it was about dropping the age of consent to 14, with special provisions where the partners are close in age or where the consent of a child over the age of 10 could be proved. It also included a call to legalise .
Patricia Hewitt's name was on the press release.
You need to be sure of your facts before you accuse others of distorting the truth.
PS God knows what's happened to the quotes in this post!

7 Feb 2015

Quote by deancannock
@dean
and PIE? Hariett Harman, Jack Dromey, Patricia Hewitt et al calling for sex with 12 year olds to be made legal?
Or is it one rule for Labourites and another for Conservatives in your little wonderworld of Tom Watson, the caped Westminster crusader

please show where any politician of any colour has asked for sex with 12 years olds to made legal....you really are talking total rubbish GNV.
Harriet Harman was legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties ( now Liberty) and her husband chaired the NCCL in the 70's. Patricia Hewitt who was later a cabinet minister was its general secretary. The Information Exchange was affiliated to the NCCL. In 1976 the NCCL issued a press release calling for the lowering of the age of consent to 14.

Is GNV talking rubbish?

6 Feb 2015

So provide some evidence to support your claim!

6 Feb 2015

Quote by deancannock
Read back through the thread. I've already answered that question previously.

Gone back through all 6 pages....I can plenty of times you have sought to distract from that question...but no where that you have answered it !! Nearest you came is when you said as Mrs Thatcher was dead she can't be found guilty. I'm sorry but she can....if documents arise that show she knew and choose to do nothing and ignore, then she is guilty. Jimmy Saville is dead.....but I can't see to many people calling him innocent. Cyril Smith is dead....but can't see many people calling him innocent.
Simple enough question....If it is found by a totally independent enquiry, now headed up up, by a judge from new Zealand, with no links to nay party or any other British establishment, that a ring operated within Westminster ...will you openly condemn the people involved, and anyone involved with a cover up ??
If it is proven that a ring operated in Westminster them I'm sure everyone will condemn those involved. The issue here however, is that you are accusing Thatcher of personally covering up such a thing. as I have said before, you want to believe this is true because of your hatred for Thatcher. I have previously answered you that I would rather wait and see the outcome an enquiry before publicly condemning anyone.
You still haven't answered as to why he wasn't prosecuted in 1978 when it was Labour in power.
And please, if you're going to quote me, have the courtesy to quote me in full. That way you don't misrepresent my words.
To answer your question..see I do !!! The reason he wasn't prosecuted was because there was not enough evidence at the time and the police issued a caution . At no time was this brought to the attention of the government at that time !! In 1980 there was enough evidence, and it was brought to the attention of the government, as he had risen to a position, which it felt could compromise secret information. Did you really need me to tell you that as its information easily found !!
Any yes I am saying I believe Mrs Thatcher knew of a Westminster ring and she choose to keep quiet, so as to protect her friends, and because some of those people involved, were in her cabinet.
Please note.. I said same sort of things about Jimmy Saville as it was starting to break, and people on here said what rubbish. It really doesn't take much to see the weight of information and read between the lines.
I will await the enquiry, which as I said, I now fully respect and trust....and IF a cover up is found I await your unreserved CONDEMNATION...with anticipation !!!
Equally as clearly stated I will unreservedly apologise IF no wrong doing is found !!!
Dean,do you make it up as you go along? You are correct in saying that their wasn't enough evidence to convict Hayman in 1978 but there was no further evidence available in 1980 when it was supposedly brought to the Governments attention. Do you really think that the DPP would not have brought the details of his arrest to the powers that be in 1978?
As for your assertion that by 1980 he had risen to a position where it felt he could compromise secret information, he retired from public life in 1974! I'm aware that the Guardian has stated that he worked for MI6 after that date but it would appear that there is no evidence to support that claim.

6 Feb 2015

Quote by deancannock
Read back through the thread. I've already answered that question previously.

Gone back through all 6 pages....I can plenty of times you have sought to distract from that question...but no where that you have answered it !! Nearest you came is when you said as Mrs Thatcher was dead she can't be found guilty. I'm sorry but she can....if documents arise that show she knew and choose to do nothing and ignore, then she is guilty. Jimmy Saville is dead.....but I can't see to many people calling him innocent. Cyril Smith is dead....but can't see many people calling him innocent.
Simple enough question....If it is found by a totally independent enquiry, now headed up up, by a judge from new Zealand, with no links to nay party or any other British establishment, that a ring operated within Westminster ...will you openly condemn the people involved, and anyone involved with a cover up ??
If it is proven that a ring operated in Westminster them I'm sure everyone will condemn those involved. The issue here however, is that you are accusing Thatcher of personally covering up such a thing. as I have said before, you want to believe this is true because of your hatred for Thatcher. I have previously answered you that I would rather wait and see the outcome an enquiry before publicly condemning anyone.
You still haven't answered as to why he wasn't prosecuted in 1978 when it was Labour in power.
And please, if you're going to quote me, have the courtesy to quote me in full. That way you don't misrepresent my words.

5 Feb 2015

Read back through the thread. I've already answered that question previously.

5 Feb 2015

Ah,so you're reading into it what you want to read. Says it all!

5 Feb 2015

Are you sure you can read? Where have I quoted and where in the Telegraph article does it say that there was a cover up in 1980/81?

5 Feb 2015

Did you read the other article? There is no mention of Thatcher being adamant not to release Hayman's name in it. Is what you quoted a Guardian journalist's spin?
The Telegraph article actually publishes a handwritten memo from Thatcher to Sir Michael Havers in which she wrote 'So that there be no doubt, I leave to your judgment whether or not you are interviewed on media or TV about the Hayman matter.” this memo is dated 20 March 1981. Does that sound like a cover up?
Who was in power when Hayman was first arrested in 1978?

5 Feb 2015

Actually Dean, you've not provided evidence in handwriting. You've provided a link to a Guardian article in which the newspaper applies its spin to the story.
Take a look at this link. Same story different newspaper

If you bother to read the link, you will see the following paragraph
'The new information appeared to undermine claims that the decision not to prosecute Hayman was part of an Establishment conspiracy to cover up child abuse'
So, which one is correct?
Even if Thatcher was part of a cover up, was she merely continuing a cover up began by the previous Labour Government? Hayman was first arrested in 1978 before Thatcher came to power.
You accuse others of being blind but you really want to believe that it is true due to your deep hatred for Thatcher. I wonder why The BBC hasn't picked up on this article?

20 Jan 2015

Quote by herts_darlings1
And the majority of this has what to do with innocent people being murdered?

Sometimes threads go off topic. This one did when Gulson put his usual spin on the tragic events in Paris.

19 Jan 2015

Quote by Toots
Back on subject (just about) there is nothing wrong with doubting some of what you say, I applaud those that question but at the same time and for me personally those with blinkered minds who think everything is exactly as it appears are simply kidding themselves and I know that to be true cos the Illuminati (not quite the Bavarian order) via Zeitgeist and similar have sent a message *smiling* NWO in the fullest sense is but a generation away.

If that's directed at me Toots, I'm far from blinkered and certainly don't accept everything at face value however that's a world away from the fantasy world that Gulson and his ilk inhabit in which EVERTHING is a conspiracy.

18 Jan 2015

Yes , that's you in your little world of conspiracy theories. Have fun, I'll stay one of the sheeple.

18 Jan 2015

Quote by gulsonroad30664
Now I don't always agree....no let me correct that..lol...I rarely agree with what Gulson has to say. But I will always defend his right to say it. I have never seen him be offensive to others, or openly ridicule others views.
And here was me thinking this was a thread about defending The Freedom Of Speech !!!
Carry posting Gulson...rubbish or not, it at the least makes us think !!

I have to admit I have never read it but I'm more inclined to believe the majority of commentators who state the the magazine satired all religions, including Jews.
.
Perhaps you should research a little before casting stones on the comments of others, Gulsons post was far from anti-semetic but instead based on some amount of fact.

I was well aware of that allegation.
Maybe it's Gulson that should research his claims?

yeah, maurice sine and nicholas sarkosy come to mind. read and research a bit more max or you will end up believing stanley kubricks film "apollo moon landings"
You do the research Gulson instead of being selective to suit your purposes. You're just plain wrong. End of! But hey, what do facts matter in your world of conspiracy theories?

18 Jan 2015

Quote by Toots
Now I don't always agree....no let me correct that..lol...I rarely agree with what Gulson has to say. But I will always defend his right to say it. I have never seen him be offensive to others, or openly ridicule others views.
And here was me thinking this was a thread about defending The Freedom Of Speech !!!
Carry posting Gulson...rubbish or not, it at the least makes us think !!

I have to admit I have never read it but I'm more inclined to believe the majority of commentators who state the the magazine satired all religions, including Jews.
.
Perhaps you should research a little before casting stones on the comments of others, Gulsons post was far from anti-semetic but instead based on some amount of fact.

I was well aware of that allegation.
Maybe it's Gulson that should research his claims?

18 Jan 2015

Quote by deancannock
Now I don't always agree....no let me correct that..lol...I rarely agree with what Gulson has to say. But I will always defend his right to say it. I have never seen him be offensive to others, or openly ridicule others views.
And here was me thinking this was a thread about defending The Freedom Of Speech !!!
Carry posting Gulson...rubbish or not, it at the least makes us think !!

Freedom of speech also allows me to comment on others' posts,
If you'd actually read Gulson's first post in this thread, you'll see that he says Charlie Hebdo was " not a purveyor of free speach so much as an insult to whorever it chooses but not Israel or Judaism" I can't see where he's defending free speach with that comment. To me it smacks more of anti semetism rather than the defence of free speach.
Now I'm sure Gulson is a regular reader of the magazine to be able to make such an observation. I have to admit I have never read it but I'm more inclined to believe the majority of commentators who state the the magazine satired all religions, including Jews.
Oh and I believe that Gulson has on more than one occasion, called anyone who doesn't agree with his views as 'sheeple' I find that very offensive.
.

15 Jan 2015

Quote by gulsonroad30664
not long now max. glad to see you back chasing me

Don't worry, I'm not chasing you. The rubbish you spout grew tiresome a long time ago.

15 Jan 2015

Quote by gulsonroad30664
Actually gullsonroad, perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to condemn the murderers and those who assisted them?
You don't have to, just a thought. After all you are free to do and say as you please.

i condemn all murderers and all those who assist them !
i condemn all those who restrict free speech !
i condemn all those who lie to control us as well !
i condemn especially, all those compromised politicians who lie us into wars ! keep your senses sharpened and wait and see.
How long do we have to wait Gulson?
Same old, same old!

23 Nov 2014

Quote by Trevaunance
Max, the way I see it is that the SNP are/will wipe the floor with Labour up there. Which means that the electorate don't agree with Labour atm. So why would the SNP then allign themselves with Labour?
If I helped to vote out Labour and then ended up in a coalition with them I think it would get right up my sporan!
Yes I know the Lib Dems have done it, and we have all seen the backlash. Surely the SNP would be fully aware of that too?

As I said, an SNP/Labour coalition is very unlikely but Sturgeon has already said she may work with Labour on a policy by policy basis. That could put her in a trendous position of power and doubtless Labour will have to pay the price for her support.

22 Nov 2014

Seems we think broadly similar, Trev. One point that I would differ from you though is that Sturgeon is very definitely left of centre and whilst the SNP may not forge a formal coalition with Labour, they may well work with them to stop a Tory or Tory UKIP Government and also extracting much of what the SNPs want from Westminster.
Interesting times!