Still in nappies.

[The Colonel]

I should add to the above - not one of them can prove I am a Nazi - because I'm not.

There is no evidence. I trust you will be taking as much effort to get it from them?

If not, you'll have questions to answer yourself.

[Rebman]

I should add to the above - not one of them can prove I am a Nazi - because I'm not.

There is no evidence. I trust you will be taking as much effort to get it from them?

If not, you'll have questions to answer yourself.

As for evidence, one only has to read some of your own posts:-

I have, and will, be bigotted towards religion.

Religion should not be respected nor tolerated for its bad reasons.
It must be destroyed.

When asked how long it would be before the British Government started burning the Bible, you wrote:-

Hopefully not too long.

As horrid as it sounds from someone of my rank, and a politics graduate, I believe Britain needs military governance for at least ten years (starting now).

The military does need to intervene more in politics to prevent an Islamic takeover. There are 1.8 million muslims here and 80% want Sharia Law.
Solution? Bring in the army to restore order.

I will willingly command the Westminster section and gladly gun down any Islamist who gets too close.
The "Rivers of Blood" speech WILL become a reality. In fact, it already has. But the blood will not be British blood next time around.

You claim to be centre-left Labour. I am certain that the Labour Party would disown you (with your totalitarian views) instantly, as a far right agitator if they read the above.

Enoch Powell was instantly disowned by the Conservative party for his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, and you have gone a lot further than he ever went, so you definitely wouldn’t be welcome in the Tory Party.

I suspect that even the BNP would wince at what you have to say, so that only leaves the fascists, i.e. ‘Nazi like’ like organisations. I am sure they would welcome you with open arms.

Therefore you have provided your own evidence for being ‘Nazi like’.

[The Colonel]

You are yet another person who has no concept of what a Nazi is.

An anti-religious stance is not automatically a Nazi stance.

As for rivers of blood - what do you call the 52 dead on 7/7 at the hands of extremists who have been naturalised here? Seems like you are supporting them to me. This is exactly what religion produces - hate, violence and death.

Your analysis is shockingly primary school level.

Go and learn what Nazism is, then try again.

[The Colonel]

In addition - I have no totalitarian views. George Orwell was a Labour member and perhaps the greatest anti-totalitarian writer.

Your bais clouds your eyes.

Thus, any government appointed by Her Majesty, The Queen is constitutional and rests upon Royal Prerogative. I have always stated that a military led government (NOT dictatorship) is required to sort out this country's problems.

If appointed by the Queen, this government would be legal, and while subject to her authority (as the military swears allegiance to her) no dictatorship could ever result. The Queen could further use her Prerogative powers to dismiss the government, or refuse Royal Assent to Acts or other measures. Thus, the authority of the government would be limited by the Queen - and good thing too.

A military led government does not imply an abuse of Human Rights. Indeed, faced with an Islamist government or a military government - which would you rather?

Do you think the military would be hanging people for adultery? Sex outside marriage? Homosexuality? Absolutely not. The purpose of the military is to protect the nations citizens and preserve the existing order. Democracy would be suspended - but it would be restored.

What you don't realise is that all this is all perfectly legal. This ability for the military to act is enshined in the Defence of the Realm Acts (1914-1918), the Emergency Powers Acts (1920-1964) and the Civil Contingencies Act (2004).

I despise Nazism, deplore Communism, and I hate murderous Islamic governments. I think you'll find I'm the one acting against totalitarianism (I also suggest you look up the definition) not supporting it.

If you'd rather live under the Sharia - then go and do so. I don't want to, and the majority of this country don't want to. Therefore, who will protect the order, democracy and rights other than the force of the military?

I don't want to see a murderous dictatorship installed in this country - but it will be if British people don't wake up. Yourself included.

(The BNP by the way are christian, thus, not for my liking on religious grounds, nor for my liking on racial grounds). I do not agree with them. Full Stop.

Get your head out of your behind and see relaity.

[Guest]

how daft...

[Rebman]

Thus, any government appointed by Her Majesty, The Queen is constitutional and rests upon Royal Prerogative. I have always stated that a military led government (NOT dictatorship) is required to sort out this country's problems.

Her Majesty would not appoint any government without a General Election to give legitimacy to that government. If you think otherwise, you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Therefore a military led government would first have to be elected. Appointment of an unelected military led government by the Monarch would result in a constitutional crisis, but that is neither here nor there, as it is never going to happen.

If appointed by the Queen, this government would be legal, and while subject to her authority (as the military swears allegiance to her) no dictatorship could ever result. The Queen could further use her Prerogative powers to dismiss the government, or refuse Royal Assent to Acts or other measures. Thus, the authority of the government would be limited by the Queen - and good thing too.

You really are living in cloud cuckoo land. Apart from it being unconstitutional, do you seriously expect that Her Majesty would ever do such a thing?

A military led government does not imply an abuse of Human Rights. Indeed, faced with an Islamist government or a military government - which would you rather?

As the chances of there being a duly elected Islamic government in the UK in the foreseeable future are ZERO, the rest of what you say is total rubbish. Merely out of curiosity, what exactly would a military led government do to “sort out this country's problems”?

Do you think the military would be hanging people for adultery? Sex outside marriage? Homosexuality? Absolutely not. The purpose of the military is to protect the nations citizens and preserve the existing order. Democracy would be suspended - but it would be restored.

So how (for instance) would a hypothetical, unelected military led government protect the nation’s citizens from Islamic militant terrorists?

What you don't realise is that all this is all perfectly legal. This ability for the military to act is enshined in the Defence of the Realm Acts (1914-1918), the Emergency Powers Acts (1920-1964) and the Civil Contingencies Act (2004).

The Defence of the Realm Acts (1914-1918) applied only during the First World War, and were applied by an elected parliament. The Emergency Powers Act (1920) was repealed and replaced by the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), which does not make provision for the suspension of a democratically elected parliament.

If you'd rather live under the Sharia - then go and do so. I don't want to, and the majority of this country don't want to. Therefore, who will protect the order, democracy and rights other than the force of the military?

I don't want to see a murderous dictatorship installed in this country - but it will be if British people don't wake up. Yourself included.

As there is no chance of the UK coming under Sharia law in the foreseeable future, what you say is total rubbish. How do you propose that your hypothetical military led government would destroy religion, as you have stated? Do you seriously think that you would get the backing of Her Majesty in such a move, as by all accounts she is a deeply religious person? You haven’t been writing to Her Majesty imploring her to dissolve parliament and invite the military to form a government, have you? There are probably quite a few nutters like you around who write to Her Majesty, and many have yet to be sectioned.

I suppose it is too much to enquire as to whether you have ‘invented’ any convincing evidence against McMum yet, as it hasn’t eluded my notice that the above topic does not belong here, and should be addressed in another forum. You wouldn’t be trying to divert attention away from your malignant activities on this thread by any chance would you?

[The Colonel]

The Prime Minister need not be elected, nor indeed the Cabinet.

If Labour wins the next election, but GB looses his seat, he still remains leader of the Party, would be created a Peer, and would rule from the Lords.

Her Majesty was going to appoint Lord Louis Mountbatten after a coup to get rid of Wilson in the 70's - so do I think Her Majesty would do so - yes I do!

Is it unconstitutional? - No. All power comes from the Crown.

[The Colonel]

And as for destroying religion - where exactly did I state that was an aim of the military government?

I didn't.

[The Colonel]

I'm letting this thread die now as I'm concentrating my efforts elsewhere.

---- END ----

[Rebman]

Her Majesty was going to appoint Lord Louis Mountbatten after a coup to get rid of Wilson in the 70's - so do I think Her Majesty would do so - yes I do!

Which epsilon minus tabloid did you get that from? Then I suppose that just about defines your intellectual level.

Is it unconstitutional? - No. All power comes from the Crown.

Not since Charles I.

And as for destroying religion - where exactly did I state that was an aim of the military government?

You have often stated that it is one of your aims. What would Her Majesty think if she read some of your disgustingly insulting posts about Christianity? She may even take away your ‘imaginary’ CBE.

I'm letting this thread die now as I'm concentrating my efforts elsewhere.

---- END ----

Typical cowardly act from someone who can’t justify his actions, and who is a liar and a bully. Remember if you ever return to a nappy thread, I will be keeping an eye out for you and be ready to remind people what a liar and bully you really are.

[The Colonel]

Just for you:

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=156077&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

If I was guilty of anything as you suppose, then I'd hardly show you.

You will also note, that the person "thread monitor" had all their posts removed - he/she was the one accusing me - and he/she got the boot.

I did not - I was telling the truth.

Admin knew it.

[Rebman]

So if you were telling the truth about McMum, I ask you yet again, where is your evidence?

As for that particular thread, the one thing that sticks out a mile is that you were in there disrupting it as soon as McMum posted a perfectly innocent message. You repeated your assertion that McMum was a ‘proven’ pervert, despite the fact that you have no proof whatsoever. You then accused most of the guests (and some members) who posted there of being McMum. So all that that thread tells us is that you are a paranoid liar, who cannot leave nappy threads alone. This is precisely why I referred to you as Colonel Nappy Thread.

I cannot comment on why admin chose to give ‘thread monitor’ the boot (assuming they did), as his/her posts have been removed, although the snippets that remain as quotes in your posts seem to show that he/she realised exactly what you were up to. No doubt you went squealing to admin to shut him/her up as you often do.

[The Colonel]

So if you were telling the truth about McMum, I ask you yet again, where is your evidence?

As for that particular thread, the one thing that sticks out a mile is that you were in there disrupting it as soon as McMum posted a perfectly innocent message. You repeated your assertion that McMum was a ‘proven’ pervert, despite the fact that you have no proof whatsoever. You then accused most of the guests (and some members) who posted there of being McMum. So all that that thread tells us is that you are a paranoid liar, who cannot leave nappy threads alone. This is precisely why I referred to you as Colonel Nappy Thread.

I cannot comment on why admin chose to give ‘thread monitor’ the boot (assuming they did), as his/her posts have been removed, although the snippets that remain as quotes in your posts seem to show that he/she realised exactly what you were up to. No doubt you went squealing to admin to shut him/her up as you often do.

The latter part is rubbish - Admin went for the real trouble maker (and it was McMum).

[Rebman]

The latter part is rubbish - Admin went for the real trouble maker (and it was McMum).

You are talking a load of lying nonsense as usual. If admin got rid of anyone, it was Thread Monitor (and even that is speculation). McMum’s last post was on (or about) October 19th, when she stated that she would only post again if there was something specific to answer, and that she would not be replying to you again. Thread Monitor’s posts continued until October 30th and then ended abruptly. If you were so sure that admin had banned McMum, why did you continue to call all guests, who criticised you, McMum. It all goes to show that you are lying yet again, and that you are a pathological liar.

Yet again you claim that McMum was the real troublemaker, but you have still not come up with one iota of viable evidence to back up your assertion. Most posters on that thread (and this) believe that YOU were the real troublemaker, and there is a lot of evidence that they were correct about you, i.e. libelling, lying, making invented accusations without evidence, posting false McMum posts, trying to use false McMum posts as evidence when you knew that they were false, claiming that McMum was a proven MSbP sufferer who forced her son to wear nappies without any medical need, claiming that McMum had been jailed, claiming that McMum’s son had been taken into care, claiming that McMum didn’t have a son (thus contradicting yourself), shall I go on?

[The Colonel]

The latter part is rubbish - Admin went for the real trouble maker (and it was McMum).

You are talking a load of lying nonsense as usual. If admin got rid of anyone, it was Thread Monitor (and even that is speculation). McMum’s last post was on (or about) October 19th, when she stated that she would only post again if there was something specific to answer, and that she would not be replying to you again. Thread Monitor’s posts continued until October 30th and then ended abruptly. If you were so sure that admin had banned McMum, why did you continue to call all guests, who criticised you, McMum. It all goes to show that you are lying yet again, and that you are a pathological liar.

Yet again you claim that McMum was the real troublemaker, but you have still not come up with one iota of viable evidence to back up your assertion. Most posters on that thread (and this) believe that YOU were the real troublemaker, and there is a lot of evidence that they were correct about you, i.e. libelling, lying, making invented accusations without evidence, posting false McMum posts, trying to use false McMum posts as evidence when you knew that they were false, claiming that McMum was a proven MSbP sufferer who forced her son to wear nappies without any medical need, claiming that McMum had been jailed, claiming that McMum’s son had been taken into care, claiming that McMum didn’t have a son (thus contradicting yourself), shall I go on?

McMum is a troll.

Trolls are McMum.

McMum = Troll

Troll = McMum

You are a troll. So you are McMum.

So slow.