Just for you Whitespittle...

[Whitespirit66]

he quite bizarrely and childishly labelled me a 'chav luvva'.

Sorry, I meant to say "racist chav luvva". Keep dithering.

Please explain your reasoning (if any) for calling me a chav luvva.

 

[noseall]

he quite bizarrely and childishly labelled me a 'chav luvva'.

Sorry, I meant to say "racist chav luvva". Keep dithering.

Please explain your reasoning (if any) for calling me a chav luvva.

Peadophile ring.
Grooming gang.
I suggest you back pedal (page 1 of this thread I think) and get editing boyo.....

* The biggest and overriding difference is that the case linked by the op was rightly prosecuted and the offenders jailed. However, in the cases I highlighted, all of the authorities tried to sweep a massive pedo ring under the carpet - mainly because they don't want to admit that multiculturalism is a failed project, but also because the religion involved is always a special case

Read more: http://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/just-for-you-whitespittle.441900/#ixzz3lpxB7uyM

Keep dithering boyo.

 

[noseall]

he quite bizarrely and childishly labelled me a 'chav luvva'.

Sorry, I meant to say "racist chav luvva". Keep dithering.

Please explain your reasoning (if any) for calling me a chav luvva.

Apparently I don't need one. Your thwanker mates don't seem to have to explain themselves. Does it bother you? Are you a chav luvva?

 

[Whitespirit66]

I've just read an interesting article here.
It outlines a lot of the stuff that Whitespittle is frothing at the mouth about as well as a few other interesting details.

So you're using an article from Channel 4 to back up your non-argument. That article's not going to be heavily biased then, is it.



Desperate, Nosey, desperate. Further back in this thread, you even quoted the Daily Mail. Even though in the past you said, QUOTE "Do you think rags like the Mail would sell copies if they printed banal stories and neglected to fluff them up with seductive and provocative diatribe that is fodder for the gullible masses?"

So now you're using left biased TV channels and a newspaper that you admit distorts it's stories to back up your non-argument You're calling Mail readers gullible one minute, then using them as a source to back up your spite-riven posts. Doesn't that make you one of the "gullible masses" as well, Nosey? As I said, desperate. Very desperate.

 

[Whitespirit66]

he quite bizarrely and childishly labelled me a 'chav luvva'.

Sorry, I meant to say "racist chav luvva". Keep dithering.

Please explain your reasoning (if any) for calling me a chav luvva.

Apparently I don't need one. Your thwanker mates don't seem to have to explain themselves. Does it bother you? Are you a chav luvva?

Come on nosey. At least have the courage of your convictions and explain why you call me a "chav luvva".

Surely you have a reason?

 

[Deleted member 63160]

The report also went on to say that it is likely the Asians targeted the white girls because...... Ceop says: “The comparative levels of freedom that white British children enjoy in comparison to some other ethnicities may make them more vulnerable to exploitation.

To clarify this point.... The Asians don't deliberately target whites, just kids that are allowed to stay out later? Thats a relief.
Plus they assault older children than the 7 sicko whites did. Good old mussers... only fiddle with the over tens. Yet more good news.

 

[noseall]

I've just read an interesting article here.
It outlines a lot of the stuff that Whitespittle is frothing at the mouth about as well as a few other interesting details.

So you're using an article from Channel 4 to back up your non-argument. That article's not going to be heavily biased then, is it.



Desperate, Nosey, desperate. Further back in this thread, you even quoted the Daily Mail. Even though in the past you said, QUOTE "Do you think rags like the Mail would sell copies if they printed banal stories and neglected to fluff them up with seductive and provocative diatribe that is fodder for the gullible masses?"

So now you're using left biased TV channels and a newspaper that you admit distorts it's stories to back up your non-argument As I said, desperate.

Google each and see what you get chav luvva boy.
Afraid to? Of course you are.

 

[noseall]

To clarify this point.... The Asians don't deliberately target whites, just kids that are allowed to stay out later? Thats a relief.
Plus they assault older children than the 7 sicko whites did. Good old mussers... only fiddle with the over tens. Yet more good news.

None of it is good news Mitch.
Interesting comparison though.

 

[Deleted member 63160]

To clarify this point.... The Asians don't deliberately target whites, just kids that are allowed to stay out later? Thats a relief.
Plus they assault older children than the 7 sicko whites did. Good old mussers... only fiddle with the over tens. Yet more good news.

None of it is good news Mitch.
Interesting comparison though.

That's a fair comment and I'm genuinely pleased to hear it, sorry for the sarcasm. I truely believe though that these problems are much more prevalent among muslims hence my concern/opinion.

 

[noseall]

I've just read an interesting article here.
It outlines a lot of the stuff that Whitespittle is frothing at the mouth about as well as a few other interesting details.

So you're using an article from Channel 4 to back up your non-argument. That article's not going to be heavily biased then, is it.

Are you saying that CEOP is wrong or the reporting of the CEOP findings are biased and inaccurate?
I can find other sources if you wish. Look for yourself or just carry on dithering and posting lies.

 

[Whitespirit66]

I've just read an interesting article here.
It outlines a lot of the stuff that Whitespittle is frothing at the mouth about as well as a few other interesting details.

So you're using an article from Channel 4 to back up your non-argument. That article's not going to be heavily biased then, is it.



Desperate, Nosey, desperate. Further back in this thread, you even quoted the Daily Mail. Even though in the past you said, QUOTE "Do you think rags like the Mail would sell copies if they printed banal stories and neglected to fluff them up with seductive and provocative diatribe that is fodder for the gullible masses?"

So now you're using left biased TV channels and a newspaper that you admit distorts it's stories to back up your non-argument As I said, desperate.

Google each and see what you get chav luvva boy.
Afraid to? Of course you are.

I know what a chav is. And I think a "luvva" is actually lover, when converted from your baby talk. But which chavs am I suppose to be loving?

Please explain exactly what you mean, and how this applies to me.

Come on nosey, we're all waiting.

 

[noseall]

To clarify this point.... The Asians don't deliberately target whites, just kids that are allowed to stay out later? Thats a relief.
Plus they assault older children than the 7 sicko whites did. Good old mussers... only fiddle with the over tens. Yet more good news.

None of it is good news Mitch.
Interesting comparison though.

That's a fair comment and I'm genuinely pleased to hear it, sorry for the sarcasm. I truely believe though that these problems are much more prevalent among muslims hence my concern/opinion.

Grooming vulnerable teenagers yes. Although not exclusively Asian. The sickening baby stuff and actually grooming pregnant mothers is exclusively the domain of our white boys. White spittle must be proud.

 

[noseall]

I've just read an interesting article here.
It outlines a lot of the stuff that Whitespittle is frothing at the mouth about as well as a few other interesting details.

So you're using an article from Channel 4 to back up your non-argument. That article's not going to be heavily biased then, is it.



Desperate, Nosey, desperate. Further back in this thread, you even quoted the Daily Mail. Even though in the past you said, QUOTE "Do you think rags like the Mail would sell copies if they printed banal stories and neglected to fluff them up with seductive and provocative diatribe that is fodder for the gullible masses?"

So now you're using left biased TV channels and a newspaper that you admit distorts it's stories to back up your non-argument As I said, desperate.

Google each and see what you get chav luvva boy.
Afraid to? Of course you are.

I know what a chav is. And I think a "luvva" is actually lover, when converted from your baby talk. But which chavs am I suppose to be loving?

Please explain exactly what you mean, and how this applies to me.

Come on nosey, we're all waiting.

I've told you, just my opinion. Ho hum.

 

[Whitespirit66]

I've just read an interesting article here.
It outlines a lot of the stuff that Whitespittle is frothing at the mouth about as well as a few other interesting details.

So you're using an article from Channel 4 to back up your non-argument. That article's not going to be heavily biased then, is it.

Are you saying that CEOP is wrong or the reporting of the CEOP findings are biased and inaccurate?
I can find other sources if you wish. Look for yourself or just carry on dithering and posting lies.

I've just read an interesting article here.
It outlines a lot of the stuff that Whitespittle is frothing at the mouth about as well as a few other interesting details.

So you're using an article from Channel 4 to back up your non-argument. That article's not going to be heavily biased then, is it.

Are you saying that CEOP is wrong or the reporting of the CEOP findings are biased and inaccurate?
I can find other sources if you wish. Look for yourself or just carry on dithering and posting lies.

I'm saying I have no confidence in an incompetent, government agency. Or a left biased broadcaster, but I can see why you need these biased sources to prop up your failing arguments.

"Ceop failures leave children at risk, former employees say"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30203112

"Lack of staff' to blame for CEOP failures over paedophile doctor Myles Bradbury"
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-12-01/ceop-failures-over-paedophile-doctor-could-be-repeated/


"Myles Bradbury: CEOP 'failed to alert abuse doctor to police"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-29240758

 

[noseall]

By the way Froth Chops, have you edited your posts yet?