I said: Then you said: This is a thread about banks owning governments, which some people call conspiracy theory. If you then come on to the thread and say 'this conspiracy theory type stuff' you must know what the thread is about or you wouldn't be in a position to label it as 'conspiracy theory type stuff' in the first place. By coming on the thread and saying that you 'are' engaging with my opinions. You then say I am baiting, but it is 'you' that has come on to this thread making bizarre comments. I am lost for words. I am genuinely glad to hear it and I was a little concerned. Well, I disagree. I think it is you who is paranoid. Going by the soundness of your previous logic I wouldn't be at all surprised to see you back soon. I am not being sarcastic in the slightest. This post is slightly less unhinged than Beck's post, but not by much.

I have thought long and hard before compiling my response to those disgusting comments. You said: I then said: You then said: I then said: You have not responded. The whole context of this thread is about a NWO and if it could work. I made clear comments, in response to one of your posts, that if we couldn't get along in the U.K. it wouldn't be a good idea going any bigger. You then seize on a couple of comments in your post, where you broadly illustrated anomalies in national laws, and claim that I am supportive of those comments. You then say I should be on the 'Sex Offenders Register'. How can anyone come up with stuff like that? Absolutely insane is all I can say. To sum up, you have still not answered why my response to all of what you said in that post should simply be based on the last two lines of what you said. If you would care to explain yourself I will be happy to assist you futher. I have reported your comments, as they are vile, disgusting and clearly not representative of anything I have said. You are clearly not 'right' at all, especially obsessing about marriage between 10 year olds. P.S. A tip if I may, writing in bright colours doesn't make you any more authentic.

Thanks. I reiterate, I have full respect for the site team and don't know what happened. Just trying to play Devil's Advocate.

I have no idea what happened. He always seemed ok to me, but I can't claim to have read all his posts. Rather than a return to posting under moderation wouldn't it be better to talk it over with him - maybe this did happen - and see what the problem is? If I got banned, for any reason, I wouldn't see the sense in coming back if I was going to get banned again. I would want to understand exactly why and see if a clear compromise could be found. Who would want to come back to posting under moderation? Anyone?

I trust you and you undoubtedly know more than me. My thinking was they have guidelines where they are supposed to treat you fairly, examine all the facts and make sensible judgements. If you got a negative outcome, 'then' went to County Court with your identical complaint and got a positive outcome from the County Court Judge that's pretty damning on the F.O.S. isn't it? Why can't you sue them for breaking their own guidelines? From what i've heard there are some very clear cases of professional negligence. In any event, if enough people went to County Court and got positive outcomes it would clearly be grounds for Judicial Review. That may well be better than individual lawsuits anyway.

Quite, respect to the site team. I am longing to see how this all pans out. My views are well known, but the game must be concluded.

You need to have this thread moved over to the DCA forums. I have put in a request that it is moved for you. Furthermore, I would suggest you need to be more specific about this letter and your situation.

I believe the site team are still undecided on an official way to proceed.

I quite agree.

As I thought, you won't answer the question.

I think you need to be imprisoned for disagreeing with me you tinfoil hatted fiend. Liberate his moggy!!! No singing on this thread.

I'm sorry to hear of your household woes. No one is obliged to post on threads. If you think banks don't own governments, then I would suggest you think again. If we disagree, then we disagree. Don't be so paranoid.

Sounds like criminal extortion to me...

If you think you have grounds to take a failed F.O.S. case to County Court and get a judgement, then that's what you should do. Then, you can question what to do next. I don't think it is impossible to launch court action against the F.O.S. as an individual. Anyhow, all irrelevant, we need people to go to the F.O.S. and get a negative outcome; then go to the Independent Assessor and get a negative otucome; then got to County Court and get a positive outcome; then say 'hang on a minute something is very wrong here' and assess further options. That's what everyone has to do. Obviously one should try and get some advice from the site team about a County Court case if they are unsure. Even if it transpires that we are unable to progress against the F.O.S. as individuals, it will still enable us to push for a Judical Review. We just need to log some woeful F.O.S. decisions that have been reversed in a County Court. Let's stop moaning, rightfully, and get on with it. It's a no brainer that this will work for us.

I can't comment on your specific case, but if you think you have grounds to take it to County Court and get a judgement, then that's what you should do. Then, you can question what to do next. I don't think it is impossible to launch court action against the F.O.S. as an individual. Anyhow, all irrelevant, we need people to go to the F.O.S. and get a negative outcome; then go to the Independent Assessor and get a negative otucome; then got to County Court and get a positive outcome; then say 'hang on a minute something is very wrong here' and assess further options. That's what everyone has to do. Obviously one should try and get some advice from the site team about a County Court case if they are unsure. I will start a separate thread highlighting this approach. It's a no brainer that this will work for us.

I demand a full 'CAG Enquiry'!

Well who is this guy? I thought you were talking about industry figures making comments in the mass media. Wires crossed, no problem. Oh, where did I specifically say that? He could easily have been recruited at any time after he was sacked. Conspiracies don't exist you fool! :lol: No kidding! For brainless sheeple that would certainly be a pssibility. It would need to be very well coordinated and supported by all the dissenting sites. It would indeed be terribly hard to achieve. However, if the will is there...

You are entitled to your opinion. If you read the thread properly you will see that I have said it isn't just based on his reluctance to support peaceful, public protest. If I am right, then it certainly isn't insulting in the sense you are making out. Let's just agree to disagree. It serves no purpose to go round in circles. Everyone is free to make up their 'own mind'.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I would tend to agree about some of the posts somewhat. I disagree with that. Where did 'fighting to the death' come into any of this? You are welcome to keep getting more bored and annoyed if that is what you seek. Don't let me stop you...

An excellent analysis. All contributions are welcome, both positive and negative.

I am very happy to talk you through all of this one step at a time. First things first, are you saying that my response to all of what you said should simply be based on the last two lines of what you said? If not, then why are you focusing on the last two lines of what you said in relation to my response? Please, answer me this question and I will happy to assist you further.

Sounds a good plan, even though i'd find a way to fluff it. Me and printers don't mix well.

Maybe he is seeing to the ladies? Happy Birthday Milk Tray Man.

Brown or Mandelson?

Terrible news. I will think a prayer for Babybear tonight.