Mrs Roops

Simply don't log in. The account will terminate in due course.

Let us know how that works. If a punter is so triggered to publically announce that he/she is blocking someone then you are announcing that the blocked person does not exist and is dead to you. That's fine but in doing so you do not then conduct a running campaign commenting on and addressing that person. Either that person is dead to you or not. I've cancelled your short list of blocked punters. You really are an appalling hypocrite. You bitch about "grasses" yet you are not adverse to "grass" yourself. You show a tantrum about being coolered over Rule 13 issues yet complain about accusations about yourself being left unchecked. If you weren't so myopic you would know all the relevant parties received similar sanctions, one of whom is currently off-site for six months as the violation was so blatant. Perhaps the most egregious example of your double standards is your hissy fit over not getting your way on your request to remove a punter that you did not like on the basis that he returned to the site under a new name. You seem to forget that you left The Corner under a cloud and returned under a new name. You asked if byegones be byegones because you were a changed person who no longer wished to become involved in arguments and only wanted to use the site for which it was designed which, contrary to what you said elsewhere, is not simply to abuse each other. My response was to be accommodating and if you recall, helped you deal with British idioms. I suggest you either use the site correctly or bugger off and take your lies, cowardice and hypocrisy elsewhere.

Getaway, I've never met you.

You're a good man, Ape Simple...but good.

Its complicated, the site is owned by a syndicate known as A9-4B, the shareholders of which are a matter of public record. The fact that the names are redacted from the public record in compliance with Euro legislation covering the workings of ICANN & IANA are of course, neither here nor there. I trust this clears up any confusion and uncertainty.

None, it doesn't affect me.

Yesterday I suggested that we all move on as arguments are just going around in circles. Since then half a dozen noncing inferences have been made by several players. On the whole, discourse has been repetitive and unimaginative. Most of you are middle-aged yet you all are acting like temperamental hypersensitive divas. Cut it out now please.

Withers has a thing against the Welsh ever since he lost the shirt off his back to a couple of illiterate Valley Shadwells.

Do you remember being appointed sole admin of a bitch 'n' moan site where you introduced yourself with a "howdy" pep talk? Full of liberal claptrap you pompously announced the establishment of one rule which was, "there are no rules". So tell me, Wizz - a couple of months later, the site's proprietor returned to his creation which he had spent years developing and nurturing. What did the site resemble the most? 1/ A smoking crater, reminiscent of The Somme circa 1916 2/ The current state of the Titanic 3/ The World Trade Centre 9/11 ?

Well, a good proportion of those "likes" are from punters who have a history of not exactly being fans of mine and I fully expect them to return to nit-picking and condemnation everytime I post. I have no issue with newbies shaking up the "status quo" (whatever that means) but Pete clearly had another agenda which was to use The Corner as a platform to voice a predilection which, if left unchecked, would very quickly turn the site into a modern Paedophile Information Exchange with all sorts of weirdos signing up to swap stories and share fantasies. It's not as if Pete didn't have opportunities to mend his ways either. I gave a gentle reminder that we did not want to stray in Kieth Lard territory and two days ago I gave an unequivocal warning not to find ways to around my directive. His immediate response was to carry on via the PM facility so I had to remove him. Judging by your deflection I'm confident that Pete did PM you with his latest noncing fantasy, what I don't know is what your reaction was. I understand why you might wish to be loyal but you need to recalibrate your moral compass when judging others and the bigger picture. --o0o-- On a more general note, can we now get back to using the site for what it was intended for? Pete is now history and there is little point in everyone going around in circles. What's done is done. That includes punters who have taken the drama as an excuse to re-open old wounds.

As I intimated before, when Pete stopped posting for the sake of it he was a decent wordsmith. That said, I think he was a lonely fantasist who styled himself as some sort of Mick Travis anti-hero. More seriously, there was a disturbing undercurrent in his postings almost from the outset, hence my earlier cease and desist directive. I would be surprised if Pete only PM'd one punter with his noncing fantasies, so @Erroreptile404, did he copy you in and if so, did you encourage or admonish him as you seem to be defending the sick little fuck.

May's election campaign was a disaster as was the negotiating strategy with the EU. The moment the UK caved into Merkel's demand to compartmentalise the divorce bill from the trade deal we were up the proverbial creek. However as we have seen, elements of the Remain camp are still arguing a debate that was put to bed on the day of the referendum result. Their stance and actions only emboldened the EU negotiators.

One of the few cases where I've cremated a live one. You're not in the cooler.

Shame, Pete knew how to write but his judgement was...unsound.

@Roadkill, you need to invite me in to the PM thread.

The Corner's servers are located in N.America, the site is British administered. This is not the first time you have attempted to veer the discourse to what I previously described as Keith Lard territory. Whilst you may think certain comments do not break any rules, the site's owners and administrators do not want unwelcome scrutiny. We do not want any conversation that describes, suggests, or implies sexual contact with a minor whether self-deprecating or not. This is the only warning you'll receive. Do not attempt to explore ways to circumvent this directive as we'll err on the side of caution and remove you from the site.

After the EU Referendum result was counted, there was no end of talking-head Remainer politicos giving the usual "the referendum result must be respected" followed by the inevitable "BUT" and then, "no-one understood the ramifications" or variations of that theme. Naturally, the talking-head Remainer did understand because he/she would trot out an argument as to why there should be a second referendum/ peoples' vote/ confirmatory vote. Why not dispense with general elections as well, as the many issues and ramifications involved are way too complicated?

Yes, I am losing patience - with all parties. I will also make an observation that its almost unheard of for a newbie with less than a month's site experience to tell another that he no longer has a place on this website. I would suggest that older hands stay out of this as this is essentially a dick-waving contest between the new intake. If they want to squabble over who has supremacy in the cabbage patch then they should do it on the Open Corner and not infect all the main board threads. Finally, I will say that the American reminds me of Lt Steve Hauk and his take on humour in "Good Morning Vietnam" and yet he seems to be holding his own against the pack, one or two of whom wouldn't normally venture out alone... If I'm dragged into this again, then I fear rivers of blood will flow...

Jason J Hunter describes himself as an "international trade negotiator" of "the highest level" who has represented "such parties as the government of Hong Hong". Hmm, I'm sure he does a fine job as well. Anyway, forget arguments about the erosion of national sovereignty and democratic accountability, lets look at his take on the UK's trade position with the EU. The UK buys more from the EU than it buys from us. Essentially that means Germany, France & Italy. There are other EU states but they seem more interested in being propped up by our money. The EU accounts for 40% of UK world trade. That's 40% in a stagnant mature market that has recorded the lowest growth of all the world's economic areas. The rest of the world accounts for the remaining 60% of UK foreign trade. That's 60% represents tremendous growth potential as the rest of the world includes emerging markets. As a member of the EU, the UK is prohibited by law to negotiate unilateral trade deals. The EU is about protectionism. To give just one example; in the event the UK leaving the EU on hard Brexit terms without a trade deal then we will incur a 10% WTO tariff on Irish beef but will not have to pay a 40% EU imposed import tariff on beef from outside the EU. Also, our exports and imports will be considerably cheaper with countries outside the EU where the UK has negotiated trade deals.

...and yet I still have all my own teeth.

Whaddya expect when the promised SUV turned out to be a 2WD soft roader?

After the referendum result, Project Fear became Project Smear. Pro-Brexit voters were vilified in such a way that it was used as a justification to dishonour the referendum mandate. We were told that voters didn't understand the implications of a Hard Brexit. I've no idea who said it first.

I really don't want this this ridiculous internecine warfare between you and pitchfork brigade to migrate to all the site threads.

For a start it was made very clear by both camps of the EU Referendum debate that leaving the EU meant leaving the Customs Union and the Single Market, in fact it was a core tenet of the Remainer's "Project Fear". After the referendum, elements of the losing side would talk about "respecting the voters wishes" then adding, "but they didn't vote for a hard Brexit". It is just another variation of weasel-worded justification for not respecting a clearly given mandate. I would say its very black and white. I would also say that Remainers undermined the UK's negotiating position with the EU and that MP's and civil servants who have been subverting the democratic wishes of the electorate are not fit for office.

Simple. Seventy-five Tory MP's did indeed vote against May's deal - as did 238 Labour MP's, though for entirely different reasons. The 75 Tory rebels voted against the deal as it would have kept the UK in the Customs Union and the Single Market via an open-ended N.Irish backstop. The UK would have remained in the EU in all but name. The PLP (bar 3 Labour rebels) also voted against the deal (even though it was what most had campaigned for) as they wanted the government to lose another vote and have more ammunition in calling for a general election. Back in March, Labour were slightly ahead in the polls but their constant flip-flopping tactics backfired on them hence their reverse-ferret on going to the voters. My point was that the Supreme court was straying into territory that was not their concern. I also said that this would set a dangerous precedent for further political chicanery via the medium of the Judiciary. It's now been reported that pro-Brexit Tory MP, Daniel Kawczynski is "in discussion" with m'learned friends with a view to overturn the Benn Act. I don't know about you, but I prefer the political manoeuvrings and squabbling to take place in parliament rather than the law courts. Parliament's House of Commons should reign supreme because they alone are accountable to the people.