Verbal

So who on here is stupid enough to think that anything is going to happen on 29 March? Oh, and BTW, excellent trolling by Bercow just now. 3rd attempt at getting the withdrawal agreement passed has just taken a massive constitutional hit.

I think it's going great! If you want to demonstrate the strength of feeling behind the Leave Means Leave spaffocracy, seeing ten people trudge through a field does exactly that. If they could chant 'fu ck business' as they traipse through all those industrial estates their message will have got across brilliantly.

And as Tender threatened, it's all kicking off. The Brexit Betrayal March has started with literally tens of protesters. Well, ten. Like the rest of the remoaner elite, I'm petrified.

I was going to post a response to Tender's nonsense but this, plus Shylock's and Jefffey's points cover all the bases. I can only assume there are two stages of withdrawal from the modern world - the turning-up-for-work one and the turning-off-the-mind one. Because it's all so desperately feeble and getting feebler by the day - going over the oldest of ground (eg is it even possible at this point that even a Jihadist doesn't understand what the £39bn is about?). And it IS the rejection of the modern world that's at the heart of this kind of jihadism - the unintelligible technology, the countable brown people running things, the new ideas, etc. It's no wonder that we are left with the worst of all paradoxes: that the people who run this modern world, and are virtually all remoaners, are expected to meekly implement the 1950s by a coddled baby boomer generation who had everything, will lose nothing, and still expect the world to turn around them. As Donald of Orange would say: SAD.

Oh dear. Another of your full-nappy tantrums.

It would. We could possibly then see Labour transformed from the ghost of a party brought to an historic low by incompetents, Jew hater and Putinists, and into something worth electing again.

That'll be a consequence, for sure, but you don't expect the cult to understand this, do you?

Gadzooks! Thou art a cad!

Fantastic. The Jihadists have fu cked Brexit.

Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6 who, with the CIA's George Tenet, gave enthusiastic endorsement to the dodgy dossier? No, of course not - who on earth would question his expertise? Or to put it another, how much of an utter tw at would you have to be to say that the expertise of Dearlove of all people should not be questioned? And while on the subject of expertise - isn't that something that you, as a fully paid up Jihadist, are supposed to disapprove of?

1. Nothing will happen on 29 March. Nada. We will not have exited. 2. The Brexit process will go on for a further 5-10 years, while we 'implement' a trade deal we don't have so that we limp into what's now called Common Market 2.0. That's if we end up leaving at all. Happy to help.

Truly one of the stupidest posts I've ever seen on here. First, I doubt very much you have any grounds for claiming the 95% figure. You've just made it up to suit your argument. But more to the point, how does 'Yid army' chants to blame for: "Spurs are on their way to Auschwitz, Hitler's going to gas them again." and "Same old Tottenham, all need gassing...Get in the showers."

One of my jobs used to be stopping people committing suicide. But that was easy compared with this because they only tried to do it one at a time.

Oh what joy. A Jihadi John prediction. What could possibly go wrong?

Says the 'moderate' Euro-voting kipper who endorses Jew-hating conspiracy theories, doesn't 'like' 'the Arabs' and gets offended at the opinions of brown people. Besides, what exactly is the moderate wing of an extremist party? If you're it, then - as ever - you've put a bomb under your own argument. Except they ARE your party in Euro elections because of your swivel-eyed urge to stick it to the evil EU (although you've never once been able to say how the EU have impacted your life in any negative way). And tell me again how any elections to parliament Farage has won? Well there is always that.

Quite. Yet again, Wes Tender puts a bomb under his own argument. The fact that someone can have that much variety of experience and still come out with that conspiracy-driven nonsense makes him an even worse bigot. Our Wes will deny being a kipper by the way. He gets away with it because he will tell you how he voted in general elections (Tory) but omit how he voted in EU elections (kipper).

Christ that video is funny - and so cringeworthy you can't watch it anywhere but from behind a sofa. And that's quite aside from its being utter bullsh it, of course.

Just so you know, badger, we did go through this at inordinate length a few pages ago. And the problem is that Al-tenderi has become so lost in his cult that he can only give the most Panglossian gloss on anything one of his heroes says. The context for Mogg's remark is a question-and-answer exchange about how long it has to be for his hero to be proved wrong. He gave it a 50-year timescale. Saying 'over the next 50 years' is to employ the usual weasel words that amount to saying Brexiters cannot be proved wrong in our lifetimes. Anyone who accepts that as a legitimate response is, frankly, out of their tiny minds.

I didn't vote for Corbyn. I voted for my constituency MP, who is brilliant, like a lot of MPs who've resigned from Corbyn's cabinet. If I were in Corbyn's constituency, I wouldn't vote for an antisemitic 'friend' of terrorists, wreath bearer for a Munich killer, and supporter of brutal despots like Assad, Putin and Maduro. Would you? But why don't you leave aside your demented trolling for a second and tell us what you actually think of the incidents described in my post above. Give us, for once, an actual opinion that you've worked out all by yourself. Do you approve of Angela Rayner, one of Corbyn's own shadow cabinet ministers, being threatened with rape and murder? To the point where she's now had panic alarms fitted in her house? It's hard to guess your answer to this because you seem so uninterested in anything, no matter how appalling, if it doesn't involve than proclaiming boundless adulation of St Jezza. So go on - give us a clue. Promise we won't bite.

It is annoying. If the answer to a question is 'yes', 'no', 'very' or 'not at all', then it's a bad question. Or more precisely a closed question. Open questions - in the form of 'tell me about...' almost always elicit more interesting answers. The kind of closed questioning you see in club PR interviews betrays either a lack of confidence in the players to express themselves well or a simple lack of interest. Valery is an articulate young man. He doesn't need this annoying prompting.

And the deep dive into the sewers continues... Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, who committed the clearly capital offence of saying something vaguely positive about Blair, has been issued with a death threat by a man who identified himself as a Corbynista. He's been arrested. Meanwhile, the Labour's director of governance, Thomas Gardiner has apparently resigned following disclosures in the Observer at the weekend that the paperwork for pending Jew-hating cases was shared privately with Corbyn's team. And (the Jewish) Rachel Riley has been shouted down as 'dangerous and stupid' by a character in Corbyn's office who appears to be the daughter of someone else in Corbyn's office. (If they think Riley stupid they clearly haven't watched Countdown...) All in the last 24 hours. But just in case the temptation to think all of Labour is a basket case, this is a remarkable story: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/arts/design/hackney-london-public-housing.html?action=click&module=Editors%20Picks&pgtype=Homepage#commentsContainer There's hope yet - so long as Corbyn and the baying mob he adores are ditched soon.

Honestly, it's beyond bizarre now. Should someone do an intervention?

Well I'm not having any of this. Fu ck off the pair of you.

No, it's clearly racist. Compare the comments by the Anti-Muslamics on here regarding Shamima Begum with those about Jihadi Jack. I think you'll find that white, male, partly Canadian Jack gets a free ride while the evil brown schoolgirl attracts all the venom. I hate Jihadists as much as anyone. Not least because a very good friend of mine - a Hindu - was kidnapped by one of them and spent six brutalising months in South Waziristan. I know what these people are like. They are vain, beyond stupid, and above all think they have a god-given right to cause untold damage to people and things, while maintaining their sanctimonious righteousness. Question them on scriptural matters and they know sweet fu ck all. Almost all of them have criminal backgrounds, and have discovered that their violent bullying can be sanctified by the simple expedient of being hyper-violent in the name of the cult. I don't know what crimes Shamima Begum has committed. I bet she's committed a fair few that would make anyone's blood boil. Ditto, times ten, I suspect, for Jihadi Jack (his loyalty, in all likelihood, would have been tested - and I dread to think what that means). But the supposed difference between 'us and them' - Jihadists and believers in democratic, liberal, Magna Carta values of free speech and the rule of law - is that we're supposed to know that our personal feelings cannot ever be allowed to determine the legal fate of people accused of even the most heinous of crimes. That's my objection to the ludicrous little baying mob on here. As for legal remedies, personally I'd rather the fate of those accused of crimes under the banner of ISIS be tried in the Hague, at the International Criminal Court. The Court has the ability to cross-reference large numbers of witness statements and evidence that a simple criminal case in the UK may not be able to do, especially now that the legal system has been thoroughly Graylinged. But the larger point is that ISIS is an international criminal enterprise - including the attempt genocide of the Yazidis - which should be treated the same way as the ethnic-cleansing killers of Tutsis, Rohingya and Bosnian and Kosovan Muslims.

No he didn't. It was a clear and obvious inference that could be drawn from your comments. And please look up the word 'inference'. Wasp-chewing bigots love to say 'I didn't exactly say that!' when it is not clearly said but is clearly implied. Readers of your comments are entitled to draw reasoned inferences. You and the other racist Islamophobes on here, notably Lighthouse (who's been called out by a number of posters on here, not just me, all to no avail), seem incapable of seeing the problem as a legal one rather than one that edges into a peevish and base desire to enact revenge on a teenager. The legitimacy of western liberal democratic values - British ones - depend hugely on the idea of the rule of law. By the way, what in the hell is wrong with Tom Holland's post?!