Bob The Badger Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, jono said: It’s why the left never gets power - because it talks to itself in a bubble, doesn’t adapt to changing times. Labour took power and held onto it under Blair by doing exactly what you just said they never did when they adopted Clause 4. These things go in cycles. The US looks like it's crazy right but it's actually moving further to the left and it's scaring the Republicans to death which is why they're packing the courts with 30-something right wing judges with little experience. Labour were an utter trainwreck under Corbyn and the Brexit fiasco sealed their fate. But if you think the traditional Labour heartlands won't swing back after Brexit is in the rear view mirror and with Starmer at the helm you're in utter denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuffLuff Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 1 hour ago, bigbadbob said: That's different though isn't it Well why don’t we look into it and see The Vaughan Gething Case- The accusation: Snapped eating chips Reasoning: On his permitted exercise for the day and his child needed something to eat. Claims everything he did was in the rules within the Welsh lockdown rules. Verdict: There’s no evidence to suggest he did anything wrong. Certainly didn’t drive anybody with symptoms across the country or anything so I think we are ok to agree that this one is solved? Not guilty, go and enjoy your chips. The Stephen Kinnock Case Accusation: Went to visit parent on said parents birthday Reasoning: A short and simple. Took ‘necessary’ items to his dad, maintained distance and didn’t stay long. Verdict: Not the smartest move to post this ok twitter, but considering he didn’t drive anybody with symptoms, maintained a social distance or driving to test eye sight then i think he’s ok here surely? Got a good shoeing on twitter, a reminder of responsibilities by the twitter plod and I imagine a bit of a roasting in private. Not guilty but take it on the chin! The Tahir Ali case Accusation: Attended funeral with over ‘100 people’ Reasoning: No reason given, but he went as an observer. Quick couple of things to observe though. One this quote, “West Midlands Police confirmed it was called to Sutton New Hall Cemetery following reports of a large crowd of people. On arrival, officers found approximately 15 people socially-distanced into family groups, therefore no action was taken," (from bbc report). This is more than allowed but the police decided no further action was necessary. The other is Ali response, in that he apologised and said he wanted to help set clear guidance on funerals attendance. I think this helped me understand the complexities and position he was put in and how he was looking to change it. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/police-called-up-100-mourners-18028561.amp Verdict: Not ideal this. I think the problem was only considered once the funeral took place and he didn’t deny anything and said he wanted to do something about it. Too much context involved for it to be a simple case. The Kevan Jones Case Accusation: Attended birthday of a 100 year old war veteran Reasoning: The Party was moved indoors at the last minute due to the weather, all precautions were put in place to allow a small crowd into a sports hall. Read more here: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/kevan-jones-mp-defends-decision-18323036.amp Verdict: Similar to the Ali case he was put in a position. Maybe not the best action possible was taken but there was an attempt to keep within regulations and protect everyone involved. Not guilty KEY DIFFERENCES: As far I can tell, none of these people were ill or were with people were ill, they didn’t move the coronavirus from one place to another so had no potential to spread the disease, none of them tested their eye sight by driving 60 miles, none of them looked to cover up what they did, none of them were in meetings that decided what lockdown in the uk should be (actually, maybe gething could in Wales but he was eating chips!), none of them held press conferences in the rose garden at no.10 (won’t open that can of worms). Anymore? Similarities:...They were outside? There you go everyone I went and actually looked into what I did a post about. To all those who have been writing utter nonsense on here, about these MPs or trying to change the debate, I did the work you should be doing before posting you lazy bunch of self righteous, tedious bunch of bleeps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said: Labour took power and held onto it under Blair by doing exactly what you just said they never did when they adopted Clause 4. These things go in cycles. The US looks like it's crazy right but it's actually moving further to the left and it's scaring the Republicans to death which is why they're packing the courts with 30-something right wing judges with little experience. Labour were an utter trainwreck under Corbyn and the Brexit fiasco sealed their fate. But if you think the traditional Labour heartlands won't swing back after Brexit is in the rear view mirror and with Starmer at the helm you're in utter denial. Ahhh yes, except the left in my perception isn’t really Blair is it. He was a kind of left wing, centre right, loathed by the left that I refer to. I think you’re right though, a Starmer Labour Party will win votes back Especially post Covid... there will be fertile ground. .. and because it is Likely to be centrist and has ears.. unlike Corbyns echo chamber farce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Ram Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 11 minutes ago, TuffLuff said: Well why don’t we look into it and see The Vaughan Gething Case- The accusation: Snapped eating chips Reasoning: On his permitted exercise for the day and his child needed something to eat. Claims everything he did was in the rules within the Welsh lockdown rules. Verdict: There’s no evidence to suggest he did anything wrong. Certainly didn’t drive anybody with symptoms across the country or anything so I think we are ok to agree that this one is solved? Not guilty, go and enjoy your chips. The Stephen Kinnock Case Accusation: Went to visit parent on said parents birthday Reasoning: A short and simple. Took ‘necessary’ items to his dad, maintained distance and didn’t stay long. Verdict: Not the smartest move to post this ok twitter, but considering he didn’t drive anybody with symptoms, maintained a social distance or driving to test eye sight then i think he’s ok here surely? Got a good shoeing on twitter, a reminder of responsibilities by the twitter plod and I imagine a bit of a roasting in private. Not guilty but take it on the chin! The Tahir Ali case Accusation: Attended funeral with over ‘100 people’ Reasoning: No reason given, but he went as an observer. Quick couple of things to observe though. One this quote, “West Midlands Police confirmed it was called to Sutton New Hall Cemetery following reports of a large crowd of people. On arrival, officers found approximately 15 people socially-distanced into family groups, therefore no action was taken," (from bbc report). This is more than allowed but the police decided no further action was necessary. The other is Ali response, in that he apologised and said he wanted to help set clear guidance on funerals attendance. I think this helped me understand the complexities and position he was put in and how he was looking to change it. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/police-called-up-100-mourners-18028561.amp Verdict: Not ideal this. I think the problem was only considered once the funeral took place and he didn’t deny anything and said he wanted to do something about it. Too much context involved for it to be a simple case. The Kevan Jones Case Accusation: Attended birthday of a 100 year old war veteran Reasoning: The Party was moved indoors at the last minute due to the weather, all precautions were put in place to allow a small crowd into a sports hall. Read more here: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/kevan-jones-mp-defends-decision-18323036.amp Verdict: Similar to the Ali case he was put in a position. Maybe not the best action possible was taken but there was an attempt to keep within regulations and protect everyone involved. Not guilty KEY DIFFERENCES: As far I can tell, none of these people were ill or were with people were ill, they didn’t move the coronavirus from one place to another so had no potential to spread the disease, none of them tested their eye sight by driving 60 miles, none of them looked to cover up what they did, none of them were in meetings that decided what lockdown in the uk should be (actually, maybe gething could in Wales but he was eating chips!), none of them held press conferences in the rose garden at no.10 (won’t open that can of worms). Anymore? Similarities:...They were outside? There you go everyone I went and actually looked into what I did a post about. To all those who have been writing utter nonsense on here, about these MPs or trying to change the debate, I did the work you should be doing before posting you lazy bunch of self righteous, tedious bunch of bleeps. They were probably worse ‘super spreaders’ probably infected hundreds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 50 minutes ago, TuffLuff said: Well why don’t we look into it and see The Vaughan Gething Case- The accusation: Snapped eating chips Reasoning: On his permitted exercise for the day and his child needed something to eat. Claims everything he did was in the rules within the Welsh lockdown rules. Verdict: There’s no evidence to suggest he did anything wrong. Certainly didn’t drive anybody with symptoms across the country or anything so I think we are ok to agree that this one is solved? Not guilty, go and enjoy your chips. The Stephen Kinnock Case Accusation: Went to visit parent on said parents birthday Reasoning: A short and simple. Took ‘necessary’ items to his dad, maintained distance and didn’t stay long. Verdict: Not the smartest move to post this ok twitter, but considering he didn’t drive anybody with symptoms, maintained a social distance or driving to test eye sight then i think he’s ok here surely? Got a good shoeing on twitter, a reminder of responsibilities by the twitter plod and I imagine a bit of a roasting in private. Not guilty but take it on the chin! The Tahir Ali case Accusation: Attended funeral with over ‘100 people’ Reasoning: No reason given, but he went as an observer. Quick couple of things to observe though. One this quote, “West Midlands Police confirmed it was called to Sutton New Hall Cemetery following reports of a large crowd of people. On arrival, officers found approximately 15 people socially-distanced into family groups, therefore no action was taken," (from bbc report). This is more than allowed but the police decided no further action was necessary. The other is Ali response, in that he apologised and said he wanted to help set clear guidance on funerals attendance. I think this helped me understand the complexities and position he was put in and how he was looking to change it. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/police-called-up-100-mourners-18028561.amp Verdict: Not ideal this. I think the problem was only considered once the funeral took place and he didn’t deny anything and said he wanted to do something about it. Too much context involved for it to be a simple case. The Kevan Jones Case Accusation: Attended birthday of a 100 year old war veteran Reasoning: The Party was moved indoors at the last minute due to the weather, all precautions were put in place to allow a small crowd into a sports hall. Read more here: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/kevan-jones-mp-defends-decision-18323036.amp Verdict: Similar to the Ali case he was put in a position. Maybe not the best action possible was taken but there was an attempt to keep within regulations and protect everyone involved. Not guilty KEY DIFFERENCES: As far I can tell, none of these people were ill or were with people were ill, they didn’t move the coronavirus from one place to another so had no potential to spread the disease, none of them tested their eye sight by driving 60 miles, none of them looked to cover up what they did, none of them were in meetings that decided what lockdown in the uk should be (actually, maybe gething could in Wales but he was eating chips!), none of them held press conferences in the rose garden at no.10 (won’t open that can of worms). Anymore? Similarities:...They were outside? There you go everyone I went and actually looked into what I did a post about. To all those who have been writing utter nonsense on here, about these MPs or trying to change the debate, I did the work you should be doing before posting you lazy bunch of self righteous, tedious bunch of bleeps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 I am slightly concerned. I have been coming on to this forum for 6 years and it is increasingly being suggested that we should only deal in facts. I never signed up for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuffLuff Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 1 minute ago, i-Ram said: I am slightly concerned. I have been coming on to this forum for 6 years and it is increasingly being suggested that we should only deal in facts. I never signed up for that. There’s memes too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyp Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 34 minutes ago, i-Ram said: I am slightly concerned. I have been coming on to this forum for 6 years and it is increasingly being suggested that we should only deal in facts. I never signed up for that. Will you settle for conjecture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 5 minutes ago, jimmyp said: Will you settle for conjecture? I will settle Jimmy for anything that involves me using the minimum of effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaltRam Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 8 minutes ago, jimmyp said: Will you settle for conjecture? I will. Used to love Paul Daniels, me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 2 hours ago, 1967Ram said: UK u-turns on commitment to tax transparency, giving up £10 billion in corporate tax https://www.taxjustice.net/2020/05/06/uk-u-turns-on-commitment-to-tax-transparency-giving-up-10-billion-in-corporate-tax/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=scotland_joins_wave_of_countries_excluding_tax_haven_tied_corporations_from_covid_19_bailouts&utm_term=2020-05-28 Not great IMO: While countries on the Financial Secrecy Index on average decreased their secrecy scores on the index, the UK increased its secrecy score, for which it was criticised for “backsliding”. The UK is the only country to be identified as part of both the “axis of secrecy” – the countries most complicit in helping individuals to hide personal wealth from the rule of law – and the “axis of tax avoidance” – the countries most complicit in helping multinational corporations avoid tax. The UK is four times more responsible for corporate tax avoidance risks around world than the next biggest contributor of corporate tax avoidance risks, the Netherlands, which accounts for less than 7 per cent. Alex Cobham, chief executive at the Tax Justice Network, said: "The UK showed the world true leadership in 2016 by being the first country to commit to publishing country by country reporting data and promoting the standard at a global level. The UK’s U-turn on tax transparency this week, as the world takes stock of the economic costs of COVID19 and braces for economic recession is baffling if not dangerous. By choosing not to hold corporate giants to account, the UK has not only missed out on billions of pounds in corporate tax that could have gone to NHS workers on the frontline of the pandemic, they’ve put other countries’ health services at risk by putting the brakes on years of international effort to tackle corporate tax abuse." “The UK government seems to be claiming that they have just discovered, after four years of collecting this data, that their multinationals have been reporting inconsistently – and to such a degree that the government wants to block publication. It seems rather more likely that they’ve just realised how much anger there will be, from their own public and from neighbouring countries, when it becomes clear just how much profit shifting and tax abuse they’ve facilitated. This, of course, illustrates exactly why this data must be made public." Why any democracy would not want country by country reporting data to be made public is beyond me. This is the real issue that needs open and honest debate in this country. The very fact that its not discussed openly has got to be because vested interests are lobbying to keep it out of the public domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B4ev6is Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 The goverment on about open pubs again next few weeks and I think people will go and silly drunck as people not be able go in months but if going more or less normal what I think should be allowed open up next is pp even if it club shop and ticket office and pub at the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 2 hours ago, TuffLuff said: There’s memes too And cats. (looks around) Sorry, and no cats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 1 hour ago, uttoxram75 said: Why any democracy would not want country by country reporting data to be made public is beyond me. This is the real issue that needs open and honest debate in this country. The very fact that its not discussed openly has got to be because vested interests are lobbying to keep it out of the public domain. Something something Tory backers real reason for Brexit something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammieib Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 9 hours ago, TuffLuff said: Well why don’t we look into it and see The Vaughan Gething Case- The accusation: Snapped eating chips Reasoning: On his permitted exercise for the day and his child needed something to eat. Claims everything he did was in the rules within the Welsh lockdown rules. Verdict: There’s no evidence to suggest he did anything wrong. Certainly didn’t drive anybody with symptoms across the country or anything so I think we are ok to agree that this one is solved? Not guilty, go and enjoy your chips. The Stephen Kinnock Case Accusation: Went to visit parent on said parents birthday Reasoning: A short and simple. Took ‘necessary’ items to his dad, maintained distance and didn’t stay long. Verdict: Not the smartest move to post this ok twitter, but considering he didn’t drive anybody with symptoms, maintained a social distance or driving to test eye sight then i think he’s ok here surely? Got a good shoeing on twitter, a reminder of responsibilities by the twitter plod and I imagine a bit of a roasting in private. Not guilty but take it on the chin! The Tahir Ali case Accusation: Attended funeral with over ‘100 people’ Reasoning: No reason given, but he went as an observer. Quick couple of things to observe though. One this quote, “West Midlands Police confirmed it was called to Sutton New Hall Cemetery following reports of a large crowd of people. On arrival, officers found approximately 15 people socially-distanced into family groups, therefore no action was taken," (from bbc report). This is more than allowed but the police decided no further action was necessary. The other is Ali response, in that he apologised and said he wanted to help set clear guidance on funerals attendance. I think this helped me understand the complexities and position he was put in and how he was looking to change it. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/police-called-up-100-mourners-18028561.amp Verdict: Not ideal this. I think the problem was only considered once the funeral took place and he didn’t deny anything and said he wanted to do something about it. Too much context involved for it to be a simple case. The Kevan Jones Case Accusation: Attended birthday of a 100 year old war veteran Reasoning: The Party was moved indoors at the last minute due to the weather, all precautions were put in place to allow a small crowd into a sports hall. Read more here: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/kevan-jones-mp-defends-decision-18323036.amp Verdict: Similar to the Ali case he was put in a position. Maybe not the best action possible was taken but there was an attempt to keep within regulations and protect everyone involved. Not guilty KEY DIFFERENCES: As far I can tell, none of these people were ill or were with people were ill, they didn’t move the coronavirus from one place to another so had no potential to spread the disease, none of them tested their eye sight by driving 60 miles, none of them looked to cover up what they did, none of them were in meetings that decided what lockdown in the uk should be (actually, maybe gething could in Wales but he was eating chips!), none of them held press conferences in the rose garden at no.10 (won’t open that can of worms). Anymore? Similarities:...They were outside? There you go everyone I went and actually looked into what I did a post about. To all those who have been writing utter nonsense on here, about these MPs or trying to change the debate, I did the work you should be doing before posting you lazy bunch of self righteous, tedious bunch of bleeps. When did 30 miles become 60 miles to Bernard Castle? Sounds like a journalistic thing to do there to throw in an extra 30 miles lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TramRam Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 9 hours ago, Bob The Badger said: Labour took power and held onto it under Blair by doing exactly what you just said they never did when they adopted Clause 4. These things go in cycles. The US looks like it's crazy right but it's actually moving further to the left and it's scaring the Republicans to death which is why they're packing the courts with 30-something right wing judges with little experience. Labour were an utter trainwreck under Corbyn and the Brexit fiasco sealed their fate. But if you think the traditional Labour heartlands won't swing back after Brexit is in the rear view mirror and with Starmer at the helm you're in utter denial. It will at the next election imo, It wont take a great deal for those that voted Blue to return to red, Some may think they're unwashed, Some to teach Labour a lesson, Some for Brexit, Some against Corbyn, Some for BJ being a character, The red wall that was replaced by alot of blue bricks wont topple down at the next election but it will slowly be dismantled...unless something Catastrophic happens in the Tory party that forces a GE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EtoileSportiveDeDerby Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 9 hours ago, i-Ram said: I am slightly concerned. I have been coming on to this forum for 6 years and it is increasingly being suggested that we should only deal in facts. I never signed up for that. Would recommend the Football topics of this forum, the place for a modicum of dreams and recurring nightmares. Fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 Anybody else think the BBC fact checking is ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EtoileSportiveDeDerby Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 4 minutes ago, Curtains said: Anybody else think the BBC fact checking is ridiculous To be fair there is that much ballocks said and done that even if they fail to check the facts correctly it is just more poo piled on. Beeb can't really loose with that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FindernRam Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 For the first time in weeks I felt real joy when the Prime Minister basically shut down the Kuensberg woman. Throughout Boris's waffle which was essentially good news, I said to my wife lets just watch the questions (for once) and see how long it takes for the BBC to put Cummings into the question. About 20 words! Boris killed the question and dumped her. She looked totally shocked and on the 6 o'clock news appeared to have aged 10 years. I don't normally like limiting journalists but occasionally getting them to move on is worth the confected outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.