hypochondriac

I know you've already given your slightly trolling verdict on everyone who voted to leave but if your going to have a discussion in bad faith then is it really worth continuing?

I know perfectly well what it is and the clear flaws in the agreement which I'm sure you would agree with do you not? I'd also rather you didn't lump me in with some nebulous group called brexiteers. I'm my own person and I agree with some things said by those who voted remain and other things with people who voted for brexit but I'm not defined by one vote.

Voting for Theresa's deal that wasn't really brexit isn't frustrating the process, it's rejecting a ridiculous deal whatever side of this you are on. The people who divised it aren't silly- they must have known what the reaction would be when they came up with it. It's not particularly surprising that many people feel that they deliberately came up with something that wouldn't get through parliament in order to frustrate the process and ultimately cancel brexit altogether.

Of course it isn't. We may vote to return to the EU in the future. I hope not but if there were another referendum in a decade or so and rejoin won then I'd accept it. That's democracy. I can't think of a precedent in this country where the public have voted and the decision simply wasn't implemented by those charged with implementing it. Imagine if during the original referendum in the 70s if MPs decided they knew better and decided not to join despite the result.

I compared an election and the referendum because they are both examples of democratic votes we have in this country. The point is that we don't start kicking up a fuss about lying or suggesting we shouldn't have an election simply because a party gets in that we don't like. With regards to the rest of your post, I refer you to my previous answers. Those frustrating the process and those delivering a "deal" that clearly would not pass parliament are now the ones saying we should cancel the whole thing because its taking too long.

But you've had the incompetent Theresa and other remainer types fecking it up for three years. Clearly the tactic of many in Parliament has been to frustrate the entire process and delay any type of leaving. These same people are now the ones saying we should have another referendum or leave because the process has gone on for too long.

A convicted domestic violence commiting Yorkshireman but you like him so he's probably not really guilty. Cuddly old Sir Geoff is just a funny character rather than a convicted criminal. Not like some of those awful lads in Maidstone.

Exactly. Shouting rape apologist and all sorts of disgusting slurs at anyone who even suggested the conviction of Ched Evans was not the slam dunk he was suggesting it was. Even went so far as to suggest the new witnesses in the appeal were bribed by the defence- an incredibly serious accusation based on zero evidence. Yet soggy gets hauled off to jail for allegedly bashing his wife's face in and suddenly he's all empathetic with Boycott and mistrusting of the justice system.

She probably deserved a bit of a slap eh soggy?

Because in any future referendum, either side could happily tell multiple lies, safe in the knowledge that if they lost they can immediately call for another referendum as the result is invalid due to the lies they were telling. Again I ask, would you be calling for another referendum on this basis had the result been reversed?

We don't get to change our mind about a party and prime minister and then force them out before they have had their term in office. Having another referendum before the original result is implemented is like voting a Labour government in and then barring the door to number 10 and kicking them out on day one. Let's also be honest, there's been loads of people in government and in parliament more widely who have deliberately been manufacturing this exact situation with the expectation that everyone will give up and cancel brexit. Hoards of them have never had any intention of actually leaving the EU. What do you reckon all those clandestine meetings in Brussels have been about?

He's not trying to rerun the case. This isn't a courtroom it's a forum. Why is Ched Evans in your own words still a "rapist" despite no conviction, yet Boycott not a domestic abuser despite being found guilty? You can't answer.

Hold on. You can't have one side lose a referendum and then use their own lies during the campaign as one of the justifications for another referendum. If remain won would you be calling for another referendum on that basis?

You didn't need concrete evidence that Ched Evans was a rapist before you referred to him as such after his verdict had been overturned. Why the double standard? Also ffs egg has already said he's not casting judgement either way, he's simply pushing back on your ludicrous comments that Boycott maybe isn't guilty despite losing an appeal in a court of law because you personally have doubts, a standard you haven't applied in previous cases when others pointed out doubts in a case. Hypocrisy thy name is soggy.

Is Ched Evans 100% a rapist?

Yes he reckons she lied for money odd that the believe all victims mantra becomes decidedly wobbly when it's about a crime that he has been accused of. I think the rules are if its a sexual assault case then it's definitely guilty regardless of what the court says and if it's a domestic violence case then it's at least enough doubt to suggest innocence despite a conviction. That's how it works isn't it?

I was collecting for charity outside the stadium a couple of years ago. He stopped, asked me what the charity was for and then put £50 in my bucket. He's a legend in my eyes for that alone.

Absolutely unreal that self-appointed experts are speculating on if this woman is lying based on how messed up her face is. I'm amazed that this is soggy's stance, I would never have predicted he would go on this line of thinking before this thread started.

So why in your mind was the Ched Evans conviction beyond doubt and anyone who questioned the verdict were rape apologists yet you questioning a conviction which was never overturned doesn't make you an apologist for domestic violence? It seems you are the self-appointed arbiter of what verdicts can be questioned (despite losing an appeal) and which are beyond reproach (despite being overturned.) Really makes you think...

Sickening. Not surprising though when attitudes like soggy displays is still in wider society.

3-5 times doesn't really lessen the offence does it!

Is it worth reading those long paragraphs from soggy? I haven't yet but I guess it's him trying to justify the unjustifiable.

The thing is I really don't know the details of the boycott case so I can't say for certain either way. It's just absolutely hilarious that he'd take boycotts word for it yet continue to call Ched Evans a rapist. I'm more convinced he is a troll every time he posts.

Just read this reply and then go and read soggy's responses in the Ched Evans case. I had a chuckle.

Already been debunked. Fake news.