gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
You posted:
That suggested a degree of certainty that you now appear to be equivocating upon.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ted Heath
- Thread starter 2sheikhs
- Start date
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your contribution, which I will duly ignore completely.TBH Mate you should withdraw from all of it .... You come across as a right wing nutter with no tolerance for anything but Tory / Facist / Donald Trump type stuff and you don't seem to want to consider or accept anyone elses view.... Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but just my opinion
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
You've changed your tune..I'm not. I responded to it being a waste of money to investigate it. I think there are grounds for an investigation. As for the cos they have to approve that any investigation is warranted on the same evidence presented to police usually.
If there are multiple sources it allegations from different times it is right to investigate. There has been an admission there was enough to question him. If there wasn't they would say that. They didn't.
Right to investigate is quite a bit different from your earlier guilty **** verdict.
Genuinely, I am pleased you've toned it down a bit.
sir baconface
Well-Known Member
It would be very interesting to see how many of those calling him guilty and evil are Corbyn supporters.
Well, I'm a paid-up RWNJ and would say there's a reasonable possibility of guilt and an establishment cover-up. No more, no less. And I'd hate to think that if the grave claims you before being brought to justice, you get a completely free pass.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Well, I'm a paid-up RWNJ and would say there's a reasonable possibility of guilt and an establishment cover-up. No more, no less. And I'd hate to think that if the grave claims you before being brought to justice, you get a completely free pass.
As you put it, is a lot less condemning that some of the LWNJ's put it!
sir baconface
Well-Known Member
As you put it, is a lot less condemning that some of the LWNJ's put it!
He was one creepy bastard though...
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
I am going to find him guilty purely for shortening Edward to ted.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Are you old enough to remember? Seriously? I am 56 and although I vaguely remember him from back then, I don't remember him well enough to say he was creepy. He didn't seem it on Parkinson.He was one creepy bastard though...
A bit weird being single all your life? Yes.
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
If the police find evidence of guilt then his death should not protect him or his legacy and like Saville, his crimes should be reported and his victims listened to.
The fact police have gone this far suggests they are near to finding that evidence and party colleagues and friends demanding it all goes away because he is dead smacks of yet another attempt at a cover up imo.
The fact police have gone this far suggests they are near to finding that evidence and party colleagues and friends demanding it all goes away because he is dead smacks of yet another attempt at a cover up imo.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
That doesn't prove anything whatsoever, one way or the other. They'd say that whether they thought he was guilty or innocent.If the police find evidence of guilt then his death should not protect him or his legacy and like Saville, his crimes should be reported and his victims listened to.
The fact police have gone this far suggests they are near to finding that evidence and party colleagues and friends demanding it all goes away because he is dead smacks of yet another attempt at a cover up imo.