egafd.com

I -hypothetically- say:

"Bill Roach with his dodgy character was responsible for taking young girls for illegal sex sessions based on the completely wrong premise i.e. to get them acting jobs and make them famous."


David Johnson said:

"Blair with his dodgy dossier was responsible for taking this country into an illegal war that turned out to be based on a completely wrong premise i.e. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction."

Notice that the two statements are very similar. Only the subject matter has changed.

David Johnson thinks a similar comment about the Iraq war is just stating his opinion. If this is true, would my hypothetical statement about Bill Roache be seen the same way? Would I not have to make a swift retraction or face action for libel?

David justifies his comment by saying some lawyers and the UN all have the same view that the Iraq war was illegal. I could then justify my comment on Bill Roache by saying the police and some lawyers have a similar view that he had illegal sex with young girls.

I think that both statements are wrong and both excuses don't wash. I think if someone HAD said such a statement about Bill Roache before any trial and verdict had taken place, David would be one jumping down their throat. And I would too. As would anyone on this forum if someone said something similar about you.

This isn't about anyone's views on the war, but how David's statement is worded. David makes a false claim that the war was illegal and when I pull him up on it, rather than say he made a mistake and rewrite it, he defends it and makes excuses for it.

It's about fairness and honesty. Regardless of all our political views, we should try to be honest and fair with each other. If we can do that, the name calling and bickering is all by the bye.

I finish by offering my hand out to David. If he admits he was wrong over the Iraq war statement and apologises for his nasty implications regarding Hillsborough, I will let bygones be bygones. We can all move on and return to normal.

Noooo, it's fun watching you two former allies scrapping it out. Bit like Hylda Baker and Jimmy Jewel or Mike and Bernie Winters... I will let you decide who is who.

I'd have to google those names, Essex Lad. Are they unfunny people from those olden times?

No, they were very funny people. She knows, y'know, choochie face.

Mike and Bernie Winters Funny? In what parallel universe? When, early in their career, they were appearing in variety in Glasgow before a very hostile crowd, their act began with only one of them on stage with Bernie coming on a little later. ' Oh no' shouted someone in the audience, 'There's two of them.'

Oh well.

I offered a hand and it was rebuffed.

I take no pleasure in having my suspicions about this man's pride getting in the way of proper discourse proven for you all to see - and I mean that with all sincerity.

I can only say that, despite those doubts, I thought it was fair to give him another chance to come clean so we could forget about it and move on like adults.

I tried. That's all I can do.

Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, the Buddha, Jesus Christ, that thick lad who sat at the back of the class in 3Z and thought he was intelligent, have nothing on you, Slater. In many ways you are a combination of the best qualities of them all.

Clearly I am not worthy of you and never can be but it was kind of you to offer me absolution for my sins.

Can I pop round for a blessing at your gaff a week Tuesday?

In the meantime you can do some more work on your analogy comparing that bloke on Coronation Street who got charged with under age sex and the legality of the Iraq War.

It was a killer argument for which I could never have a response for no matter how long I lived.

Next week I look forward to your comparison between Freddie Starr eating his hamster and the invasion of Afghanistan.

And now I get sarcasm.

See how he tries to pull the wool over peoples' eyes yet again, saying I was 'comparing' a bloke of Coronation St to the Iraq war when I did no such thing. It was a comparison of wording to show the sentences should be taken as statements of fact rather than opinion, not a comparison of the acts themselves. People need to be wary of David's tactics. Again........he'll slither and slide just to avoid admitting he was wrong. Just more evidence of his dishonesty.

And to top it off, he puts Martin Luther King in the same category as 'that thick kid at the back of the class'. A civil rights activist with a Ph.D. who's done as much as anyone to make the world a better place and he gets lumped in with a school bonehead who doesn't know his arse from his elbow. And all for what? Because he's angry at me even after I reached out a hand of friendship.

His ego holds no bounds and has made him lose his way.

Sam. Advice. Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one and some stink. Don't waste your time arguing with someone who is always right...in his opinion.