Cliff Edge anyone?

im sorry where on earth on this thread have I been talking about holidays, are you sure you are on the correct thread ana otherwise one might suspect you were talking about another thread.

Oh hello Rigby, couldn't resist could you?

Perhaps you think referring to cancer sufferers as 'wimpy' is fine do you?

rig hello, I had no idea that the two snipers were following this thread.

ofgs grow up ww

Context is everything ana as well you know - cut the faux outrage

Context indeed.

ww I think the cancer remark was your worst yet.
Posters often read threads ( or bits of threads ) without commenting....it's not obligatory to do so after all.

Further to that ww .....you do not know which Gransnetters have just recieved bad news about cancer.Very, very, poor taste on your part.

rar nothing you say has any interest to me at all I'm afraid.

What was said was in a particular context, if you are not bright enough to understand that then I am afraid it is your problem.

I rarely have the least inclination to comment on any of your threads nor ana I simply wish you would do me the same favour. This thread has been running for quite some time and at no time have you taken the opportunity to discuss a single post with an intelligent or cogent remark.

But as soon as you were able to show appalled faux anger in you go with all guns blazing. The pair if you need to get a life.

this conversation as far as I am concerned is at an end.

Maybe for you, it is at an end, but I hope that anyone who reads your post will now know the measure of you ww and what you are prepared to say to further your hatred of Brexit and anyone who voted for it.Faux outrage? NO... real outrage.

Very glad your awful post has been deleted!

You do faux outrage so very well both of you - you're very particular and selective who you use it against though are you not?

I have been looking further at the HoL powers and the 2years Parliamentary term.

Their power was reduced by the 1949 Parliamentary Act when they could then delay a bill for 1 year over 2 parliamentary sessions.

Apparently there are some lawyers who debate whether the 1949 Act is valid, but it never appears to have been tested.

So it may be argued that for the government to use the Parliamentary Act any bill needs to have been rejected by the HoL 3 times not twice.

If you could be really boring rig you can look back on all the threads and will find that I am considered a soft target particularly by ana although one usually follows the other. But never with anything intelligent to say only snippy criticism.

Rersecution complex whitewave? ...sigh...

<sigh>

A soft target? ( hollow laugh.)
ww I would not mind any amount of political unpleasantness ( and there is plenty of that) but you just went too far.
Now all that you offer is personal remarks, and certainly not intelligent ones.
All posters are welcome to read threads without contributing, so I shall continue to read but not always comment on every thread.
I will take no notice of Rigbys offerings ( as they are stirring the pot.)

Oh I am cut to the very quick

I must have stolen your spoons

"For the nuclear industry, rapid departure from Euratom without a clear replacement spells disaster. Scientists have warned that British power stations may not be able to source nuclear fuel if it cannot be legally transported across borders. The shipment of medical isotopes used in scans and cancer treatment is also said to be jeopardised. European workers on shared research projects, such as experimental fusion reactors, face an equally uncertain future without Euratom’s separate guarantees of freedom of movement.

Some critics have claimed that abrupt exit means that by 2025 “you could be doing your writing by candlelight on a typewriter” as the future of Britain’s nuclear industry hangs in the balance. Calmer voices argue that arranging new rules to ensure safety and govern shipments should not be that hard; just that it is likely to take much longer than the 20 months remaining.

But the cost of any short-term chaos is hard to justify given that nobody ever complained about the minor compromises imposed by Euratom on British sovereignty in the first place. Instead, it provides an embarrassing example of the unintended consequences of the prime minister’s hard red line on dealing with the ECJ – something even a former special adviser to the Brexit secretary has described as dangerously “absolutist”."

The importance of Euratom appears to have been forgotten.

Just to let you know that I'm one of the wimpy cancer suffers. I'm still fighting, still optimistic that despite the carnage of Brexit, I and my fellow wimpy sufferers will continue to receive treatment and the care we've had so far. But I really wish you hadn't used me and all the the other cancer patients as weapons in your war of words. We've really got enough of a battle on our hands with out whitewave giving us a thrashing.

I am also a cancer sufferer. I used it in a absolutely specific way to highlight the danger of leaving Euratom.
This really should be put to bed as HQ will zap it

ww was not giving you a thrashing - she was being clearly ironic and was pounced on by others willing to make a deal out of it that it wasn't - they have form for this.

I mean ironic in the use of the word 'wimpy' as clearly people with cancer are not this at all.

Of course i wasnt!!! Good heavens i had no idea that anyone would take it as being anything other than scathing for the danger of losing Euratom.

I have as much to lose as every other cancer sufferer on GN.
Please believe that my intention was nothing other than honerable!!