What a witless bunch of incompetents

Post by **spot** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 12:55 am

I refer, for the sake of clarity, to the entire House of Saud.

I note the death this week of "at least 717 people" "injured in a stampede near the holy city of Mecca", after which the Saudi Minister of Health is reported as saying "this is God's will" while blaming the dead for "not following instructions" - the actual trigger being the closing of two roads so that wealthier patrons could more conveniently reach a palace. In cars, not on foot, though these indolent aristocrats presumably still think they've pilgrimed.

The House of Saud could not organize a piss-up in a brewery. And if their hired staff are equally inept, whose fault is that.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:43 am

Perhaps Allah is trying to tell them something?

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:09 am

Fourpart, maybe you could be correct. However, would these people listen ?

What a state to be in - fanaticism gone mad !

Post by **spot** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:22 am

G#Gill;1486832 wrote: Fourpart, maybe you could be correct.
On the contrary, he isn't. He predicates his statement on the truth of Monotheism, and Monotheism is bunk. There is no Theo, there never was a Theo, Theo is an imaginary construct of inegalitarian power systems designed by ruling elites for the subjection of the masses, and that applies more especially to Christianity and Islam than to any other such system. The Mormons, by contrast, are utterly inoffensive though even more credulous, unpoetic and delusional.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:24 am

It was intended as TiC.

Post by **spot** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:27 am

It is, I would suggest, a dangerous topic about which to joke. The more you accept the brainwashed vocabulary the harder it is to discuss reality. The reality is the corrupt, inegalitarian and inept governance of Saudi Arabia.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:30 am

The death toll is now as much as 2000 HERE

It has a horrific record for fatalities over many years, you would have thought they could get it right after all those years.HERE

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:58 am

I heard Iran was going to sue Saudi Arabia over this. Somehow that made me happy. Might have been the irony.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 1:00 pm

Saint_;1486934 wrote: I heard Iran was going to sue Saudi Arabia over this. Somehow that made me happy. Might have been the irony.

I'm not sure what's ironic.

Americans have this thing about Iran. Can we explore what we have as an agreed mutual truth, just out of interest?

We agree that the Shah was imposed on Iran after a US/UK-managed coup in 1953, presumably. It's extremely well documented, I can't imagine many people would say it was untrue.

Might we agree that the anti-Shah Iranian clerical exiles, centred in Paris, would never have had an enthusiastic welcome after the Shah's fall had the Shah not been such an entire despot? Else why else would the Iranian public have turned out a million-strong to welcome Khomeini at the airport on his return. The clerical backlash against 25 years of CIA-trained SAVAK-induced terror was predictable? Are we agreeing there?

You feel no sympathy for Iran under the Shah?

We can go further into the present if you want, I just wondered whether we have any factual differences up until the Revolution.

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:57 am

Hmm.

Yemen conflict: Wedding attack death toll rises to 130 - BBC News

Let's have a think.

ISIS have air superiority over Yemen? Nope.

The North Koreans? Nope.

Iran?

Nope.

You sort of run out of contenders until you remember the US-trained Saudis who've been expending missiles over Yemen like it was going out of fashion for the last few months. If you're rich, Saudi, wear a cowboy hat and want to fling an F-15 or a Tornado around otherwise empty skies while blowing up civilians at absolutely no risk whatever to your own skin, Yemen's the place to be.

Oh - maybe it was the Yemenis did it to themselves.

Except their air force was entirely destroyed around Easter by the gentlemen in the ten gallon hats.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 10:31 am

I'm certainly not going to get all 'dewy-eyed' over that blood-soaked despot Khomeini! Iran became quite liberal under the Shah, even if he was somewhat a pro-western autocrat. Iran was pretty 'hard line' under the Ayatollah. Let's not forget all the Iranian sponsored terrorists during his tenure.

Lockerbie seems to ring a bell....

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 10:36 am

Smaug;1486972 wrote: I'm certainly not going to get all 'dewy-eyed' over that blood-soaked despot Khomeini! Iran became quite liberal under the Shah, even if he was somewhat a pro-western autocrat. Iran was pretty 'hard line' under the Ayatollah. Let's not forget all the Iranian sponsored terrorists during his tenure.

Lockerbie seems to ring a bell....You can't blame Lockerbie on Iran and Libya both, you know.

May we dissect "Iran became quite liberal under the Shah", please? This is quite liberal in what sense? "Became", in what sense? You have, I take it, actually heard of SAVAK, yes? Might we discuss quite liberal in that context, to begin with? Will you start, or shall I.

Just to remind you, Iran had a functioning elected liberal democracy before the US/UK coup of 1953 and the Shah's importation as a Western satrap. "Became" suggests it wasn't. It was. What makes you think it wasn't?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 10:59 am

As you have supplied something of an insight to me (Savak-I had no idea of either their existence, or the horrific record

they have), let me supply you with a little background to Khomeini. Lockerbie aside ( I think you might be right about it being Libya behind it); Khomeini was certainly no angel (Rushdie-Satanic verses), hostage taking, terrorist sponsorship, rabid anti-western sentiment (though there are times we deserve it!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini

I'm not disptuting that the Shah was a 'pro-western import', BTW!

It proves my point (refugee thread) that the west shouldn't meddle in cultures it doesn't fully understand, that's for sure!

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 11:09 am

Smaug;1486976 wrote: As you have supplied something of an insight to me (Savak-I had no idea of either their existence, or the horrific record

they have), let me supply you with a little background to Khomeini. Lockerbie aside ( I think you might be right about it being Libya behind it); Khomeini was certainly no angel (Rushdie-Satanic verses), hostage taking, terrorist sponsorship, rabid anti-western sentiment (though there are times we deserve it!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini

I'm not disptuting that the Shah was a 'pro-western import', BTW!

It proves my point (refugee thread) that the west shouldn't meddle in cultures it doesn't fully understand, that's for sure!

So, if we could back up as far as "I just wondered whether we have any factual differences up until the Revolution", do we actually have any factual differences up until the Revolution at all?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 11:16 am

Probably not, on the facts so far. Until you mentioned them, I'd never heard of Savak. That puts things in a somewhat different light, TBH.

Did you have prior knowledge about Savak? Or did Wiki surprise you too?

I know it surprised/shocked me!

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 11:25 am

Smaug;1486982 wrote: Did you have prior knowledge about Savak? Or did Wiki surprise you too?

I know it surprised/shocked me!

I've occasionally mentioned the Shah and his facilitating of the rape of Iran by his American backers for most of the forum's lifetime.

Do you feel the return of the clerics in 1979 was popular in Tehran? The Shah lost power and fled to Western protection as a result of their pressure, nobody else can claim to have toppled him.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 11:29 am

Judging by the actions of Savak, I would say the Clerics' return WAS popular, especially in comparison to what preceded it.

"One story's good, until another's told"... Indeed!

Post by **spot** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 1:47 am

Let's step a little further into 1979.

The clerics had popular support for ousting the Shah and his terror police, the citizens of Tehran were to a large extent in ecstasy. You only need to watch video of the immense crowds to see it.

The Shah had been America's hand-picked thug. America, in consequence and for other reasons - I could list a dozen, if you like - was The Great Satan as far as the clerics were concerned. The UK, the other country which staged the 1953 coup against the liberal democratic government of Iran, was The Lesser Satan.

The staff of the US embassy were taken hostage and held for a year. A rescue attempt by the US military went tits-up, the US had egg on its face to the extent that the Carter Administration went into hibernation and never emerged. You could usefully read the one-screen summary at the beginning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_S ... acy_theory for a flavour of the times.

Staying in 1979 and not straying beyond there for the moment, do you suppose the Western media were, on balance, cleric-friendly or US-UK-Shah-friendly? And if the clerics and hostage-takers were vilified by the press, do you suppose your initial attitude to the clerics might have been biased by that reporting?

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 6:29 am

Are suggesting that the media might have lent some bias to the way people viewed the events?

That never happens.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:11 am

ANY media tends to put 'spin' on a story, usually encouraged by government, making it little better than propaganda. On reflection, it does look like the Ayatollah was the lesser of the evils, though I would maintain that he was not what we would call a nice character. Anyone issuing life-long fatwas encouraging Muslims to murder someone for speaking their mind (negatively) about Islam proves that point.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:22 am

When I called Khomeini a 'blood-soaked despot', I think it was an accurate description. Check the links below, and see if you agree.

Khomeini regime committed gross human rights abuses, finds tribunal | World news | The Guardian

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -Iran.html

20 thousand, 30 thousand murdered; what's a few thousand dfference, eh?

The Middle East has a habit of producing such unsavoury characters, does it not?

Post by **spot** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:56 am

Smaug;1487032 wrote: When I called Khomeini a 'blood-soaked despot', I think it was an accurate description. Check the links below, and see if you agree.

Khomeini regime committed gross human rights abuses, finds tribunal | World news | The Guardian

Khomeini fatwa 'led to killing of 30,000 in Iran' - Telegraph

20 thousand, 30 thousand murdered; what's a few thousand dfference, eh?

The Middle East has a habit of producing such unsavoury characters, does it not?

You seem not to recognize the difference between a functioning state and one that's been destabilized to the point where over a million deaths have occurred and there's no legal framework left at all. Your figures - let's accept them as accurate, call it 50,000 over 25 years, it makes little odds - show an average of 2,000 deaths of Iranian citizens a year attributable to the Iranian government. About that? And you're not prepared to compare that with a 100,000 a year death rate of citizens in Libya, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Syria, directly attributable to the *lack* of a functional state government caused by external destabilization?

I agree they have a dark side to them - which government hasn't - but I maintain that Gaddafi and Saddam and the Ayatollah and the al Bashirs provided far and away the best government of their respective countries that was possible. In the case of the Ayatollah you have the Shah's brutal administration to compare it to. In the case of Saddam you only have to look at modern-day Iraq, in the case of the Taliban you need only look at modern-day disfunctional corrupt heroin-capital-of-the-universe Afghanistan.

None of these people come remotely close to George W Bush if you're looking for unsavoury characters.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 11:18 am

spot;1487035 wrote: You seem not to recognize the difference between a functioning state and one that's been destabilized to the point where over a million deaths have occurred and there's no legal framework left at all. Your figures - let's accept them as accurate, call it 50,000 over 25 years, it makes little odds - show an average of 2,000 deaths of Iranian citizens a year attributable to the Iranian government. About that? And you're not prepared to compare that with a 100,000 a year death rate of citizens in Libya, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Syria, directly attributable to the *lack* of a functional state government caused by external destabilization?

I agree they have a dark side to them - which government hasn't - but I maintain that Gaddafi and Saddam and the Ayatollah and the al Bashirs provided far and away the best government of their respective countries that was possible. In the case of the Ayatollah you have the Shah's brutal administration to compare it to. In the case of Saddam you only have to look at modern-day Iraq, in the case of the Taliban you need only look at modern-day disfunctional corrupt heroin-capital-of-the-universe Afghanistan.

None of these people come remotely close to George W Bush if you're looking for unsavoury characters.

Jet back, matey! If you back-read other theads on similar topics (regime change related, for instance), I think you'll find that it's ME that says 'sure, dictators are bad, but the alternatives are often worse', and mentions western-attributable 'power-vacuums', such as Iraq/Libya, so you needn't start accusing me of not understanding the difference between a functioning, and a non-functioning state! It's only a matter of degrees as to which government was worse.

Have a look at this.

The chap concerned was a 14 YEAR-OLD BOY when this happened....

Articles: The 1988 Iran massacre: crimes against humanity

That's my point though,-they're ALL disgusting, self-serving, bloody-handed monsters, Bush/Blair included, and none of them is praise-worthy in any way, shape or form,IMO. Mass-murderers all!

Right, I'm off to get the supper now, see you later!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:05 am

spot;1486974 wrote: You can't blame Lockerbie on Iran and Libya both, you know.

May we dissect "Iran became quite liberal under the Shah", please? This is quite liberal in what sense? "Became", in what sense? You have, I take it, actually heard of SAVAK, yes? Might we discuss quite liberal in that context, to begin with? Will you start, or shall I.

Just to remind you, Iran had a functioning elected liberal democracy before the US/UK coup of 1953 and the Shah's importation as a Western satrap. "Became" suggests it wasn't. It was. What makes you think it wasn't?

They made the mistake of wanting to nationalise the oilfields and turf out the american and british oil companies. Industry and empire hand in glove and never mind the long term consquences without the need for oil no one in the west would be the least bit interested in the middle east.

Post by **spot** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:12 am

gmc;1487055 wrote: They made the mistake of wanting to nationalise the oilfields and turf out the american and british oil companies.That's an interesting use of the word "mistake". It was, perhaps, not Iran's own natural resource or raw material? The exercise of gunboat diplomacy is laudable? Hand over your assets without a fuss or we'll torture your children? Where exactly is this "mistake" focused?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:36 pm

gmc;1487055 wrote: They made the mistake of wanting to nationalise the oilfields and turf out the american and british oil companies. Industry and empire hand in glove and never mind the long term consquences without the need for oil no one in the west would be the least bit interested in the middle east.
Perhaps the trend of seriously looking to alternative power sources is starting to unsettle the Middle Eastern countries as they may be starting to get a bit concerned at their long term economic future.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:00 am

FourPart;1487072 wrote: Perhaps the trend of seriously looking to alternative power sources is starting to unsettle the Middle Eastern countries as they may be starting to get a bit concerned at their long term economic future.

Could be, FourPart. I've been thinking about that aspect for a while now. Imagine the curtailed income due to reduced demand, if we only used oil as a lubricant! One very good reason to avoid nuclear proliferation in the Middle East....

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Oct 02, 2015 7:00 am

Smaug;1487079 wrote: Could be, FourPart. I've been thinking about that aspect for a while now. Imagine the curtailed income due to reduced demand, if we only used oil as a lubricant! One very good reason to avoid nuclear proliferation in the Middle East....

Crude Oil contains a lot of "stuff" and if you want only the lubricant qualities, you must deal with all the other parts, somehow.

Lubricants are a by-product of the extraction of the energy producing contents. We can make far better lubricants from non-petro materials.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:29 pm

FourPart;1487072 wrote: Perhaps the trend of seriously looking to alternative power sources is starting to unsettle the Middle Eastern countries as they may be starting to get a bit concerned at their long term economic future.

The oil is far more valuable as a raw material than as a fuel, it's about time markets started to realize.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:30 am

spot;1487094 wrote: The oil is far more valuable as a raw material than as a fuel, it's about time markets started to realize.
As with plastics, for instance. Another bane to the environment.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:41 am

FourPart;1487141 wrote: As with plastics, for instance. Another bane to the environment.
If you can pressure-mold with an alternative to long-chain hydrocarbons, sonny, the world's your Rolex.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:51 am

There are alternatives out there. It's just the incentive to develop them that is lacking while it's too easy to use the simple option, despite its ecological effects. Vegetable oil, for example would be a simple solution to fossil fuel, both as a fuel or as a lubricant. Natural starches can be also made to fabricate bio-degradable plastics. There are also natural proteins available. As to the potential of these, just take a spider, and the strength of its silk - far stronger, by far, than any of our petro-chemical products have ever come close to.

Necessity has always been the Mother of Invention, and for centuries, oil has been relatively plentiful so the necessity was never really there. Now that it's running out, the necessity is becoming more urgent & only in the past couple of decades the alternative solutions have been rocketing. Still in their infancy, but rapidly growing towards adulthood.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:57 am

This may be a subtle trap I can't recognize but I'll rush in regardless - in what way is a pressure-molded product less of "Another bane to the environment" if the polymer is made of vegetable oil rather than oilwell hydrocarbons? Do please go into detail if you think that might help put your point across.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:03 am

It's not the process that's the problem. It's the material. Plastics made with Vegetable Oils tend to be more eco-friendly. Not always, I grant you, but better than oil.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:09 am

FourPart;1487152 wrote: Plastics made with Vegetable Oils tend to be more eco-friendly. Not always, I grant you, but better than oil.

How? Why? I don't believe it for one second, but you give no detail or reason to explain why you think it's true, you merely assert.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:17 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_plastic

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:01 am

What you say may well be relevant to carrier bags, they have an extremely high surface area to the volume of material to degrade. It's a very specific instance. It doesn't have much relevance to a pressure-molded component. A pressure-molded component is, by comparison, a lump of plastic. I doubt it can be persuaded to biodegrade.

Starting from the Wiki page you linked to, which lists all current types of biodegradable polymers, I've copy/pasted all the sections relating to applications where the polymer might be biodegradable - you'll see it's all about thin films...1... it remains difficult to know precisely in which specific object PBS is actually used. First in the packaging field, PBS could be processed into films, bags, or boxes, for both food and cosmetic packagings. Other applications of PBS could be found as disposable products such as tableware or medical articles. In agriculture, PBS finds interest in the fabrication of mulching films or delayed release materials for pesticide and fertilizer. PBS is also promise to find market shares in fishery (for fishing nets), forestery, civil engineering or other fields in which recovery and recycling of materials after use is problematic.[8] In the medical field, PBS could be used as biodegradable drug encapsulation systems,[9] and is also investigated for implants.

2... Pure PLLA foams undergo selective hydrolysis when placed in an environment of Dulbecco’s modiï¬ed Eagle's medium (DMEM) supplemented with fetal bovine serum (FBS) (a solution mimicking body fluid). After 30 days of submersion in DMEM+FBS, a PLLA scaffold lost about 20% of its weight.

3... There are potential applications for PHA produced by micro-organisms[1] within the medical and pharmaceutical industries, primarily due to their biodegradability. Fixation and orthopaedic applications have included sutures, suture fasteners, meniscus repair devices, rivets, tacks, staples, screws (including interference screws), bone plates and bone plating systems, surgical mesh, repair patches, slings, cardiovascular patches, orthopedic pins (including bone.lling augmentation material), adhesion barriers, stents, guided tissue repair/regeneration devices, articular cartilage repair devices, nerve guides, tendon repair devices, atrial septal defect repair devices, pericardial patches, bulking and filling agents, vein valves, bone marrow scaffolds, meniscus regeneration devices, ligament and tendon grafts, ocular cell implants, spinal fusion cages, skin substitutes, dural substitutes, bone graft substitutes, bone dowels, wound dressings, and hemostats.

4... The erosion and degradation of a polymer describe how the polymer physically loses mass (degrades). The two common erosion mechanisms are surface and bulk erosion. Polyanhydrides are surface eroding polymers. Surface eroding polymers do not allow water to penetrate into the material. They erode layer by layer, like a lollipop.

5... Polyvinyl alcohol PVA, used exclusively as films PVA is nontoxic. It biodegrades slowly, but solutions containing up to 5% PVA are nontoxic to fish.

6... "Cellulose esters like cellulose acetate and nitrocellulose and their derivatives (celluloid)." - in other words, wood-pulp and the nitrated dertivatives which are famously unstable, like guncotton and flash-paper.

7... PCL, a hobbyist prototyping plastic which melts at 60 degrees. "Firmicutes and proteobacteria can degrade PCL.[5] Penicillium sp. strain 26-1 can degrade high density PCL; though not as quickly as thermotolerant Aspergillus sp. strain ST-01. Species of clostridium can degrade PCL under anaerobic conditions."

And that's the entire list of biodegradable polymers in the article. I can't see many - or any - of those being suitable for pressure-molded products. Plastic bags, maybe. They're specialist products for small niches. They don't make cogs or wheels or body panels or doors or windows or furniture or the million other things that plastics are used for. I suggest the reason for this is that people don't want the damn things to biodegrade once they've bought them, whether they're a computer part or a train seat or a seal on a space shuttle.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:59 am

Ok - specific to pressure moulding...

Injection Molding Biopolymers: How to Process Renewable Resins : Plastics Technology

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:12 am

I know more now than I did before reading it, certainly. That was an interesting article.

It also pointed to the Biodegradable Products Institute which has a lot more background. I particularly liked Biodegradable Products Institute - Biodegradation Myths

Biopolymer is a word with two sides. One is the "made from vegetable oil" bit - the fact that it was grown rather than mined. The other is the "this degrades nicely" bit. Few of the former currently fit also into the latter. Those that do, as your article points out, like PVAlcohol, are more degradable as thin sheets. Nothing is degradable in landfill.

It strikes me that obsoleting landfill, and recycling plastics, is a far greater priority than choosing its original feedstock to be sustainable. At the moment. I have no idea what happens fifty years down the line. I don't think anyone does.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:34 am

To return to our sheep...

The Saudi-led air coalition targeting Shia Houthi rebels in Yemen has mistakenly hit a pro-government position, killing at least 20 troops, security officials and witnesses say. At least another 20 people are thought to have been injured. The strike occurred between the southern Taiz and Lahj provinces, which have seen fierce clashes recently.

"They thought the Houthis were still there," a pro-government security official told The Associated Press.

Yemen conflict: Saudi-led strike 'hits wrong troops' - BBC News

Don't these yee-haw cowboy aristocrats also fly civil airliners of some description while their surrogate phalli are being recharged?

I shall book with an alternative carrier.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sun Oct 18, 2015 3:51 am

spot;1487673 wrote: To return to our sheep...

The Saudi-led air coalition targeting Shia Houthi rebels in Yemen has mistakenly hit a pro-government position, killing at least 20 troops, security officials and witnesses say. At least another 20 people are thought to have been injured. The strike occurred between the southern Taiz and Lahj provinces, which have seen fierce clashes recently.

"They thought the Houthis were still there," a pro-government security official told The Associated Press.

Yemen conflict: Saudi-led strike 'hits wrong troops' - BBC News

Don't these yee-haw cowboy aristocrats also fly civil airliners of some description while their surrogate phalli are being recharged?

I shall book with an alternative carrier.

I can't say as I blame you, Spot! Why put money in the pocket of such lax idiots?

Post by **spot** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:01 am

And for those still wondering about the Saudi official "at least 717 people", the new-this-week official Saudi-released fatality count has now reached 2,110. Perhaps the chap designated to count bodies has been given some extra fingers.

These are all the same crushed corpses lying in the road we're talking about, it's just the the red-faced incompetent who was first pushed in front of the world's news cameras couldn't bring himself to say "2,110". He's had to wait for the interest to die down first.

Hajj deaths 'almost triple' official Saudi toll - BBC News

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:59 am

That's a huge jump from 717 deaths. I think he must have had help; its an awful lot of extra fingers to grow.....Unless he's using toes too!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:25 pm

Some of the reported 'missing citizens' might be camping out in Calais.............or elswhere.

Post by **spot** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:08 pm

Some of them are British citizens, too.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 3:12 pm

ISIS recruits ?

Post by **spot** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:07 am

I really don't see why you should traduce victims of incompetence this way.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 5:16 am

spot;1487852 wrote: I really don't see why you should traduce victims of incompetence this way.

Was it incompetence in 75,79,87,89,90,94,97,98,01,03,04,05,06 and 2015 ?

Post by **spot** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:29 am

Undoubtedly, yes. See my original post, under "brewery".

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:42 am

Maybe they've not got enough fingers cos they've got a record for shoplifting.