Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About manxman1980

Recent Profile Visitors

5,436 profile views

manxman1980's Achievements


Mentor (12/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • Reacting Well
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges



  1. Good access to the M6? In Liverpool? Good luck with that!
  2. Having seen some photos from the protest I rather suspect that a venn diagram might show some significant overlaps between the groups.
  3. I presume that everyone complaining about the new terminal in Liverpool has heard of HS2? Now there is a monumental waste of money. Not only that but that project was born as a Labour Government idea, resurrected by the coalition government and heralded by successive Tory governments as part of the "Northern Powerhouse" and "levelling up". Now it looks likely that after spending billions it will connect two random stations in Birmingham and London. Our collection of MHK's are only learning from the UK Government.
  4. I did see a screengrab from Facebook which suggested that the reason they did not bring the dogs was because the Police intended to antagonise them and confiscate them. There was also a reported clash with a group of "rejoiners" who were holding a march on the same day. Reports suggest that at least one of the XL Bully people tried to pick a fight and called the "rejoiners" traitors 🙄. They maybe were not alone in that as an anti-ULEZ march also had a pop at the "rejoiners". Imagine living in London and having to put up with three protest marches in one day!
  5. As I understand it there are two way that content producers make money on YouTube. 1. Passive revenue from the adverts that YouTube inserts into videos and generally for products/services not necessarily related to the video being watched (although videos aimed at Children seem to carry more adverts for toys etc). 2. Sponsored content which normally includes the content provider doing a paid promotion. The ones I see the most often in this category are NordVPN, Audibly and SurfShark. The first one would appear to be entirely controlled by YouTube. The second seems to be controlled by the content producer although presumably if YouTube pulls the video then the sponsor won't pay.
  6. @The Phantom I agree that YouTube can be very draconian but I suspect that the de-monetising is not about increased advertising revenue and more to do with protecting their brand and not being seen to support certain content (those topics they have listed). I don't watch Brand's content nor have any intention of doing so. Do you know if YouTube pulls all adverts from the de-monetised content or do they still have ad's but don't pass on any money to the content maker? If they pull the adverts totally then I would see that as a way of them protecting the advertiser from being associated with certain content. If they continue the ads then I would be more inclined to agree with you that it is about them keeping the income. That said, however, I would imagine that is a safety net against an advertiser taking action against YouTube,
  7. I often see this claim. It is because they were the National Socialist Party and Hitler understood how to use propaganda. As leader of the party he played up the socialist element but only really played lip service to it. It was a means of obtaining the power he wanted. It appears that in the modern day people are once again focusing on the fact that socialist is in the parties name and completely ignoring what the actual parties leadership was interested in. It also suits the far right's narrative to claim that the Nazi party was far left as a way of distancing themselves from Nazi ideology.
  8. Which troll are you talking about? KH or @Cueey Lewis And The News?
  9. I didn't call you an incel. I said it sounded like their rhetoric. Interesting that your response focused on that and then "200+ when I stopped counting". 200+ what? STI's? Rejections? Sausages? You are clearly still living in the 90's/early 2000's and perhaps still "off yer 'ead".
  10. You are missing my point... If someone from DBC puts in a call to the lady who runs the legion and asks her to make a statement refuting what KH has said in her video then that will be seen as DBC putting pressure or bullying her to make that statement. Even if she now comes out on her own accord to deny making those claims there will be people who will think she has been forced into it by DBC. It seems people just choose to ignore facts. Several people have already stated that DBC don't provide grants to the legion and that is supported by the accounts. If that is the case, then someone is lying.
  11. If they did that then people like you and KH would be citing it as an example of yet more bullying...
  12. Sorry but this sounds very much like the Incel mindset. You seem to think that you have a right to ask any woman for sex and that they should say "yes". The 90's was also a time of "lad mags" and "ladettes" which, in my opinion, gave a false sense of empowerment to women. I take the view that it was a way for males to encourage woman to have sex freely by creating a culture which appeared to give the power to women. It didn't though because that culture was being driven by men. That is my take on it but perhaps some of the women on here could give their view. Why would it work well late in the evening? Perhaps because the women concerned were a bit drunk? Did they really have the capacity to give consent? Most children today are taught about consent at an early age often using tea as an example. No, they have not become adverse to sex. They are now more aware that they should have the right to say no or not have consent presumed. They also don't want creepy guys approaching them on a night out asking for sex. A lot of women today would find your approach sad and pathetic and would probably laugh at you and tell you to "go f**k yourself". They are coming up because women are increasingly realised that they were sexually assaulted by these men who abused their power, plied women with drinks and then had sex with them. Some may have been perfectly happy with that others upon reflection probably hated themselves for it at the time but did not feel there was an outlet where they could take the complaint. I actually know of one case where a woman was raped but refused to take it to the police because she had been drinking. She woke up to find the guy on top of her having sex with her. I do think that the 90's drinking culture is a thing of the past but that is not to say that the youth don't go out and drink and enjoy themselves. A night out at a club is now very expensive so young people won't have the money to go out on a "big sesh". Thankfully that 90's lads and ladette culture is now gone.
  13. @woolley it is the Tory Government who have been pushing the ULEZ zone and similar schemes around the country. They then blame the local councils especially if they are Labour. This has been happening in Greater Manchester where that scheme is now under review. The second link below is the most compelling evidence given the Tory majority in Westminster. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/the-truth-about-londons-ultra-low-emission-zone/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9816/
  • Create New...