Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

GB News


kent_white

Recommended Posts

  • Members
16 hours ago, Sweep said:

Nah... Farage with Bravermans as deputy is the wet dream for the Gammons. Probably a high profile job for Priti Patel and JRM, for maximum moistness

You'll soon be in my 'favourites' list if you carry on sweetie pie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
15 hours ago, Ani said:

It did strike me last night that Farage does think this is a possible outcome. He has always been linked with Trump, who is really using a political party rather than being a party member. 
 

If you look at the polls the Reform Party are taking as many Tory votes as anyone. A Tory party led by Farage would arguably have more chance of winning an election that any other given current MP. 

It certainly would but we all know it won't happen. Too many wet wokes in todays small 'c' socially democratic conservative Party to allow it to get through. If it were to happen, a night of the long knives would have to follow almost immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
25 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

He's at it again with his annoying facts.

Quite something that a channel can just pump lies into folks homes and then they switch off regulated channels for not telling them what they want to hear.

In other news, are those union flag Christmas decorations? Stay classy.

 

Why is it a racist lie,  Why not just a lie?

Edited by royal white
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Members
4 hours ago, Casino said:

Vile

I'm having a box of Kleenex delivered to your place.

FFS, what a delicate doily.

You stay on the woke channels pal. That big bad world out there is too much for you gentler types.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
4 hours ago, bolty58 said:

I'm having a box of Kleenex delivered to your place.

FFS, what a delicate doily.

You stay on the woke channels pal. That big bad world out there is too much for you gentler types.

Do you think harry and Meghan contributed to Charles' cancer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
24 minutes ago, Zico said:

Do you think harry and Meghan contributed to Charles' cancer?

Not sure they can contribute to anything at the moment. Coffers getting down since Joe Public cottoned on to their scheming dishonesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
1 hour ago, Zico said:

Do you think harry and Meghan contributed to Charles' cancer?

My initial thoughts, like everyone's is bollocks. 

So I had a quick look.

https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2019/07/what-is-the-relationship-between-stress-and-cancer#:~:text=So far%2C research has stopped,inflammation is likely to blame.

So in essence, too much stress can "contribute".

However, presumably the role of a senior royal is quite stressful in general, so linking one specific aspect to it is disingenuous.

Parry is a bit of a bell end too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

My initial thoughts, like everyone's is bollocks. 

So I had a quick look.

https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2019/07/what-is-the-relationship-between-stress-and-cancer#:~:text=So far%2C research has stopped,inflammation is likely to blame.

So in essence, too much stress can "contribute".

However, presumably the role of a senior royal is quite stressful in general, so linking one specific aspect to it is disingenuous.

Parry is a bit of a bell end too.

I think you're doing Parry a massive dis-service there.

He's a full-on bellend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
57 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

My initial thoughts, like everyone's is bollocks. 

So I had a quick look.

https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2019/07/what-is-the-relationship-between-stress-and-cancer#:~:text=So far%2C research has stopped,inflammation is likely to blame.

So in essence, too much stress can "contribute".

However, presumably the role of a senior royal is quite stressful in general, so linking one specific aspect to it is disingenuous.

Parry is a bit of a bell end too.

aye, the aim there is to plant seeds and get people hating harry and meghan

the twat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
4 minutes ago, Zico said:

aye, the aim there is to plant seeds and get people hating harry and meghan

the twat

I think they've done that themselves, and don't need any assistance.

A huge swing from where they were not that long ago.

Shame, but that's life I suppose.

Far more concerned about the whites fitting in all these game now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

My initial thoughts, like everyone's is bollocks. 

So I had a quick look.

https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2019/07/what-is-the-relationship-between-stress-and-cancer#:~:text=So far%2C research has stopped,inflammation is likely to blame.

So in essence, too much stress can "contribute".

However, presumably the role of a senior royal is quite stressful in general, so linking one specific aspect to it is disingenuous.

Parry is a bit of a bell end too.

This is a massive area of debate and it hasn't been settled definitively one way or another. As it stands - there is a lot of speculation, but no direct evidence that correlation implies causation. 

For example. You would expect people diagnosed with cancer to be suffering from higher levels of stress than people not diagnosed with cancer. 

You'd also expect people with a familial genetic risk of cancer (ie people who have had a close family member develop specific types of cancer) to have a higher level of stress, both because they have lived through the stress of a family member developing the condition and because of the worry that they might develop it themselves.

The final point is that there are hundreds of types of cancer. The hypothesis is that some of these are more likely to have an inflammatory component to their pathophysiology than others. So it would very much depend on which type of cancer it was. And even then there would be a lot of doubt. 

What has been unequivocally proven by scientists in a lab is that Parry is indeed a bell end! 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
22 minutes ago, kent_white said:

This is a massive area of debate and it hasn't been settled definitively one way or another. As it stands - there is a lot of speculation, but no direct evidence that correlation implies causation. 

For example. You would expect people diagnosed with cancer to be suffering from higher levels of stress than people not diagnosed with cancer. 

You'd also expect people with a familial genetic risk of cancer (ie people who have had a close family member develop specific types of cancer) to have a higher level of stress, both because they have lived through the stress of a family member developing the condition and because of the worry that they might develop it themselves.

The final point is that there are hundreds of types of cancer. The hypothesis is that some of these are more likely to have an inflammatory component to their pathophysiology than others. So it would very much depend on which type of cancer it was. And even then there would be a lot of doubt. 

What has been unequivocally proven by scientists in a lab is that Parry is indeed a bell end! 😁

I don't think much would convince any of us that this is anything other than bollocks mate.

I can't fucking stand those two lying bastards but trying to hang this on them is plain stupid IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

I don't think much would convince any of us that this is anything other than bollocks mate.

I can't fucking stand those two lying bastards but trying to hang this on them is plain stupid IMO.

Yeah I'm not a fan of them either....! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 minute ago, kent_white said:

Yeah I'm not a fan of them either....! 

Back to the King, I'd be more inclined to be suspicious of the mung beans and 'herbal remedies'. Get some meat down yer FFS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bolty58 said:

Back to the King, I'd be more inclined to be suspicious of the mung beans and 'herbal remedies'. Get some meat down yer FFS.

I saw a brilliant video of him a couple of months back. Bumping into some mountain bikers with GoPro on their helmets while he was out for a walk near Balmoral I think.

Stood and chatted to them happily for a good couple of minutes without a care in the world. Always seems like a lovely bloke to me. 

I like the fact he's always advocated for green issues. Shown more leadership than successive prime ministers - that's for sure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kent_white said:

I saw a brilliant video of him a couple of months back. Bumping into some mountain bikers with GoPro on their helmets while he was out for a walk near Balmoral I think.

Stood and chatted to them happily for a good couple of minutes without a care in the world. Always seems like a lovely bloke to me. 

I like the fact he's always advocated for green issues. Shown more leadership than successive prime ministers - that's for sure!

https://youtu.be/q97gUrw3ib4?si=Tt1RnPsPTOwISYlZ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
1 hour ago, kent_white said:

This is a massive area of debate and it hasn't been settled definitively one way or another. As it stands - there is a lot of speculation, but no direct evidence that correlation implies causation. 

For example. You would expect people diagnosed with cancer to be suffering from higher levels of stress than people not diagnosed with cancer. 

You'd also expect people with a familial genetic risk of cancer (ie people who have had a close family member develop specific types of cancer) to have a higher level of stress, both because they have lived through the stress of a family member developing the condition and because of the worry that they might develop it themselves.

The final point is that there are hundreds of types of cancer. The hypothesis is that some of these are more likely to have an inflammatory component to their pathophysiology than others. So it would very much depend on which type of cancer it was. And even then there would be a lot of doubt. 

What has been unequivocally proven by scientists in a lab is that Parry is indeed a bell end! 😁

Don't need a lab to confirm it!

He's a bit of a climate change denier too.

Like most he says things folk will agree with and stuff they won't.

He just gets a bit shouty though which makes him a bell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.