Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Bentley Bullet on December 04, 2023, 05:10:33 pm
-
....Over the coming decades as he blames chaos from Brexit and Covid for bogging down Tory reforms
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12822995/Jeremy-Hunt-says-Britain-prosperous-country-world.html
-
....Over the coming decades as he blames chaos from Brexit and Covid for bogging down Tory reforms
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12822995/Jeremy-Hunt-says-Britain-prosperous-country-world.html
So COVID only hit the UK?
And Brexit wasn't chucked on us by the Tory Govt, trying to manage it's own civil war over Europe?
We'll, glad that's sorted. Let's give them another go. What do you reckon, Tyke?
-
....Over the coming decades as he blames chaos from Brexit and Covid for bogging down Tory reforms
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12822995/Jeremy-Hunt-says-Britain-prosperous-country-world.html
He's actually right , the country is very prosperous , for the 1% .
-
It's just a more accurate spin on Wilts' version of the same link!
-
So COVID DID only hit the UK then BB?
-
....Over the coming decades as he blames chaos from Brexit and Covid for bogging down Tory reforms
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12822995/Jeremy-Hunt-says-Britain-prosperous-country-world.html
He's actually right , the country is very prosperous , for the 1% .
I'm absolutely certain that I'm not in the 1% that you talk of, and I'm not doing so bad.
-
So COVID DID only hit the UK then BB?
What are you talking about, silly b*llocks?
-
You flagged up COVID as having stopped us from becoming the most prosperous country in the world. I assumed you knew what you wer...ah damn. My mistake.
-
No I didn't! Neither did Jeremy Hunt as far as I understood it, but then, you twist and turn everything to condemn your opposition because your precious Labour party is f**king rubbish and there's nothing good to say about it in any way of promoting it directly.
-
No I didn't! Neither did Jeremy Hunt as far as I understood it, but then, you twist and turn everything to condemn your opposition because your precious Labour party is f**king rubbish and there's nothing good to say about it in any way of promoting it directly.
Oooh! That struck a nerve.
Hunt implied, and you backed him up, that a reason we hadn't been moving on our path to become the most prosperous country in the world is that COVID stopped us.
So, following that logic, either COVID must have been uniquely damaging to the UK. Or other countries aren't that bothered about becoming more prosperous.
Or...oh aye, or perhaps Hunt is talking absolute b*llocks and you're doing that thing you do of just uncritically parroting anything that comes out of the Tory party?
-
No he didn't. and I haven't backed him up either. I copied and pasted the EXACT wording of the article, to correct the (rather pathetic) spin that Wilts put on the article.
Hunt said: "Britain can become one of the most prosperous countries in the world as it taps into the growth potential of AI and leaves behind the chaos of Brexit and Covid."
Your one-sided, bent and twisted interpretation of it is just plain bullshit.
(as usual).
-
Hunt says that we've had problems due to "chopping and changing" in Govt due to Brexit and COVID.
Brexit was a self-inflicted wound by the Tory party, because they couldn't find any other way to resolve their perma-war over Europe.
Oddly, few other countries ended up with Govt "chopping and changing" because of COVID. Me, I thought the "chopping and changing" was due to the Tories being led first by a congenital liar, who lied once too often and got booted out, then by a seriously mentally ill replacement who managed to crash the economy in 6 weeks.
But I'm sure everything's fine now, after Sunak had a cosy chat with the world's most prominent drug addict and race-baiter over AI.
-
We have had problems due to "chopping and changing" in Govt due to Brexit and COVID!
After all, only the UK had the combination of COVID AND Brexit to contend with.
-
We have had problems due to "chopping and changing" in Govt due to Brexit and COVID!
After all, only the UK had the combination of COVID AND Brexit to contend with.
And a congenital liar and a mad woman as PM.
-
Oh, and the chopping and changing was caused by a shite opposition party that had nothing to offer other than being a hindrance to the government because they were f**king clueless in their own right.
-
.... And still are.
-
Oh, and the chopping and changing was caused by a shite opposition party that had nothing to offer other than being a hindrance to the government because they were f**king clueless in their own right.
BB.
The Tories and their supporters had a majority in Parliament all the way through the Brexit issue. The reason everything went into lockdown was that the far right of the party, the people who you have never once criticised, decided that they were going to block anything but the hardest Brexit.
The Tory party deposed Johnson when his lying got too obvious to ignore anymore.
The Tory party overwhelmingly voted in a mad woman to replace him...
...then booted her out 6 weeks later.
You DO know all these things, because despite your best efforts to prove the contrary, I know you're not stupid. What I don't ever understand is the fragile ego that stops you from admitting you know them.
-
Jees, I hope they use that as the tory election slogan 'it was brexit and covid that done us'
vote tory
-
BST, the opposition used COVID to oppose the government in any way it could. Just because they were outnumbered doesn't mean they weren't allowed an opinion. The trouble with their opinion was it was mainly based on hindsight while the government had to rely on foresight.
-
BB.
The Govt had a majority of 80 throughout the COVID crisis
I assume you DO understand how Government works in this country?
Run it by me how the Opposition were responsible for the COVID problems. I'm fascinated to hear this one.
-
BST, the opposition used COVID to oppose the government in any way it could. Just because they were outnumbered doesn't mean they weren't allowed an opinion. The trouble with their opinion was it was mainly based on hindsight while the government had to rely on foresight.
I just want to quote this comment so it can't 'disappear'
-
Where did I say the opposition was responsible for the Covid problems? The fact that they offered mainly hindrance with the occasional wisdom of hindsight just didn't help the problem which is not an accusation of them being responsible.
-
BB.
Go on. Talk me through how the Opposition hindered the Johnson Government's handling of COVID. I'm all ears.
-
Where did I say the opposition was responsible for the Covid problems? The fact that they offered mainly hindrance with the occasional wisdom of hindsight just didn't help the problem which is not an accusation of them being responsible.
you're putting Paul Daniels to shame
-
BB.
Go on. Talk me through how the Opposition hindered the Johnson Government's handling of COVID. I'm all ears.
BST, use your ears to ask someone to find you the Youtube channel, and type in Captain Hindsight Starmer and Covid.
Meanwhile, if you can answer just one of my questions put to you on this thread I'll be ever so grateful.
-
Where did I say the opposition was responsible for the Covid problems? The fact that they offered mainly hindrance with the occasional wisdom of hindsight just didn't help the problem which is not an accusation of them being responsible.
you're putting Paul Daniels to shame
You will have someone having a go at you Syd for not commenting on the subject matter.
-
BB.
Go on. Talk me through how the Opposition hindered the Johnson Government's handling of COVID. I'm all ears.
BST, use your ears to ask someone to find you the Youtube channel, and type in Captain Hindsight Starmer and Covid.
Meanwhile, if you can answer just one of my questions put to you on this thread I'll be ever so grateful.
Oh no! BB has refused the fence. Just when he was charging down the home strait.
There was me thinking you must have a dossier full of examples of the Opposition hindering Johnson's handling of COVID, and that I must be misunderstanding how our Parliament works when the Govt has nearly twice as many MPs as the official.Opposition.
Instead you send me off to search for someone else's opinion. Amazing how shy you get in these circumstances.
-
Where did I say the opposition was responsible for the Covid problems? The fact that they offered mainly hindrance with the occasional wisdom of hindsight just didn't help the problem which is not an accusation of them being responsible.
you're putting Paul Daniels to shame
You will have someone having a go at you Syd for not commenting on the subject matter.
I bet BST gets a right confidence boost when he sees Sydnaye's posts of support!
I know I do!
-
Where did I say the opposition was responsible for the Covid problems? The fact that they offered mainly hindrance with the occasional wisdom of hindsight just didn't help the problem which is not an accusation of them being responsible.
you're putting Paul Daniels to shame
You will have someone having a go at you Syd for not commenting on the subject matter.
I bet BST gets a right confidence boost when he sees Sydnaye's posts of support!
I know I do!
You're doing a great imitation of a flounder atm bb
-
There's some great debating techniques going on from the Tories here.
Waving thier little wrinkled maggots about an phishing.
Phil Neal and Graham Taylor style.
What a pair of Kitsons they were.
-
BB.
Go on. Talk me through how the Opposition hindered the Johnson Government's handling of COVID. I'm all ears.
BST, use your ears to ask someone to find you the Youtube channel, and type in Captain Hindsight Starmer and Covid.
Meanwhile, if you can answer just one of my questions put to you on this thread I'll be ever so grateful.
Oh no! BB has refused the fence. Just when he was charging down the home strait.
There was me thinking you must have a dossier full of examples of the Opposition hindering Johnson's handling of COVID, and that I must be misunderstanding how our Parliament works when the Govt has nearly twice as many MPs as the official.Opposition.
Instead you send me off to search for someone else's opinion. Amazing how shy you get in these circumstances.
Na BST, I tend to only trot when I'm the only horse in the race. You see, I always have a distinct advantage over you. I make sure I'm right before I discuss owt, whereas you seem to get more fulfilment out of arguing the toss when you're wrong.
My job is far easier than yours! I suggest you try it sometime.
Now, I'd look on YouTube for the videos I mentioned, but I've seen them before and repetition bores me. There are loads of instances out there in the media talking of Captain Hindsight, and if you haven't seen them that is because you will have turned a blind eye to them.
It seems to me that you have closed your eyes, put your hands over your ears and whistled when it didn't suit your agenda for far too long for me to change you.
-
BB.
I'm wanting to know this important insight you've had into our constitution that means an opposition can hinder a Govt with an 80 seat majority.
Not how they can suggest alternative policies.
Not how they can ask difficult questions.
How they can actively HINDER a Government. Your phrase. I want YOU to explain that to me, because it's something that no constitutional experts have ever imagined was possible.
Don't get shy now. Come on. You're onto something big.
-
They didn't suggest many alternative policies! A lot of them were already in place and Starmer and co jumped on the bandwagon claiming they were their ideas!
https://theweek.com/keir-starmer/951591/is-keir-starmer-becoming-captain-hindsight-on-covid-restrictions
-
There's some great debating techniques going on from the Tories here.
Waving thier little wrinkled maggots about an phishing.
Phil Neal and Graham Taylor style.
What a pair of Kitsons they were.
Have you nothing to say about the thread content.
It seems to be your standard (phishing) line when you come out from under your bridge.
-
Don't discourage him, Hound, it's really good for the cause knowing what kind of trolls BST's opinion attracts.
Hand on heart, would you want Iberian Red and Sydnaye to agree with you?
-
No mate, definitely not, but I do like reading their posts.
They are so funny.
Waldorf and Statler, they were Muppets as well.
-
They didn't suggest many alternative policies! A lot of them were already in place and Starmer and co jumped on the bandwagon claiming they were their ideas!
https://theweek.com/keir-starmer/951591/is-keir-starmer-becoming-captain-hindsight-on-covid-restrictions
That's good BB.
You post an article giving opinions by journalists and Tory MPs. And one of the things the article pins on Starmer is a request for a lockdown in October 2020. A lockdown that Johnson refused, allegedly saying "Let the bodies pile high."
It's been said by leading epidemiology experts that Johnson's refusal to go for a lockdown then led to tens of thousands of avoidable deaths and meant the lockdown that finally came was much longer and more damaging than it should have been if Johnson had done the sensible thing when pressed.
But yeah. Captain Hindsight eh? You just keep parrotting that Tory line, ignoring the facts, eh?
-
I can understand some people being suckered in to support Tory plans and promises, but defending what they've done by pretending they've been unlucky? A bit like the drunk driver blaming the brick wall for not getting out of the way.
-
Billy boy, did you HONESTLY think I'd find evidence of my point by searching the media sites that you frequent?
Anybody, ANYBODY can give an opinion of what route to take when they are not in a position to make a final decision, after all, where's the pressure or come back, for that matter?
It is no surprise that Captain Hindsight might have gotten the odd prediction right. So did I, and I know f**k all about pandemics, but I might not have put those forecasts into practice if it was my final decision. Besides that, there was a balance between lives and livelihoods to be made by the government.
In my opinion, Keir Starmer exploited his position by ignoring the effect that an early lockdown would have on the livelihoods of people for the popular and possibly ill-informed (in hindsight) view that an early lockdown should be applied to save lives. After all, the more livelihoods that were affected by the pandemic, the more popular the opposition (his party) would become.
-
Billy boy, did you HONESTLY think I'd find evidence of my point by searching the media sites that you frequent?
Anybody, ANYBODY can give an opinion of what route to take when they are not in a position to make a final decision, after all, where's the pressure or come back, for that matter?
It is no surprise that Captain Hindsight might have gotten the odd prediction right. So did I, and I know f**k all about pandemics, but I might not have put those forecasts into practice if it was my final decision. Besides that, there was a balance between lives and livelihoods to be made by the government.
In my opinion, Keir Starmer exploited his position by ignoring the effect that an early lockdown would have on the livelihoods of people for the popular and possibly ill-informed (in hindsight) view that an early lockdown should be applied to save lives. After all, the more livelihoods that were affected by the pandemic, the more popular the opposition (his party) would become.
I guess that's why you have COBRA meetings ....... or not ................. and why you have scientific advisors to listen to ....... or not.
''The UK should have gone into lockdown at least a week before it happened, Patrick Vallance has told the UK’s Covid inquiry, saying also he was reprimanded by two senior civil servants after he called for action to be taken in mid-March 2020.
Vallance, the UK government’s chief scientific adviser until earlier this year, said that while Boris Johnson first announced a lockdown on 23 March, by the weekend of 14-15 March it was clear to him that action was needed.
Data arriving that weekend showed “there were many more cases, it was far more widespread and was accelerating faster than anyone had expected”, Vallance told the inquiry. He added: “This was an occasion when I think it’s clear that we should have gone earlier.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/20/uk-covid-inquiry-patrick-vallance-lockdown
-
And it's understandable that ''I know f**k all about pandemics'' ............... johson didn't have a clue either so rather than listen to the experts on hand he decided the economy came first and f**k the old people.
''Former British PM Boris Johnson was 'bamboozled' by COVID stats, inquiry hears''
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-21/boris-johnson-was-bamboozled-by-covid-stats-inquiry-hears/103129320
-
So, we've learned from the pandemic that we can get a balance between lives and livelihoods bang on, in hindsight.
We've also learned that the opposition party can gain favour by going along with the popular (uninformed) opinion of the public to gain political smarty points.
-
whatever
-
I can understand some people being suckered in to support Tory plans and promises, but defending what they've done by pretending they've been unlucky? A bit like the drunk driver blaming the brick wall for not getting out of the way.
No comprendo
-
Maybe in future, we should have politicians who are qualified scientists in case of another pandemic.
-
Out of interest, does anyone know what the next pandemic will be and what the cause is going to be.
-
So, we've learned from the pandemic that we can get a balance between lives and livelihoods bang on, in hindsight.
We've also learned that the opposition party can gain favour by going along with the popular (uninformed) opinion of the public to gain political smarty points.
tories will still blame the NHS waiting list on covid and the strikes when it is their running of the NHS which has caused all the issues.
And it is hardly like the NHS was so busy and overwhelmed either during the pandemic.
It was an absolute shambles and they should never be elected again for their handling if brexit.
The decisions made wasn't between lives and livelihoods.
It was pure stupidity and recklessness. Like with the eat out to help out.
And also VIP line.
-
Which takes us back to the title of the thread, except after 13+ years of tories it's definitely not.
-
So, we've learned from the pandemic that we can get a balance between lives and livelihoods bang on, in hindsight.
We've also learned that the opposition party can gain favour by going along with the popular (uninformed) opinion of the public to gain political smarty points.
Christ, you actually believe this shit don't you?
If there was one thing that we knew by Autumn 2020, it's that there WASN'T a balance to be struck.
If you were stupid like Johnson was then, and like you still appear to be now, you thought there was a trade off. Don't lock down. Strike a balance.
But a virus doesn't strike a deal like that. If you don't control it, it spreads like wildfire. So if you don't lockdown when numbers are low, you sure as f**k have to lockdown when the numbers get high and out of control a few weeks later. And by that time, you have millions more infections, and tens of thousands more deaths. AND here's the rub. When you DO lockdown late, it takes much, much longer to get the situation back under control. Spit does far more economic damage than acting quickly would.
That was blindingly obvious by Autumn 2020. It's understandable that you didn't get it then, because Johnson was pushing back against that logic and you could not find it in yourself to ever criticise him.
The fact that you stick to that line now is, frankly, scary. You're so fixated on political bias, you can't see truth even on top of a pile of 50,000 avoidable corpses.
-
Stop being silly or I'll just ignore you. I've NEVER, EVER been against lockdowns, although I understood the difficulties involved in deciding when to start/end them without hindsight. Some people were, and still are against lockdowns of any duration and were giving the government dogs abuse for implementing them. Some people still talk about them being some form of government control!
It all boils down to opinions, and not everyone agrees with yours, or mine for that matter. It was a desperate situation in which the government couldn't be right in everyone's eyes. Some people even sought political smarty points, like you did.
I bet if another virus (God help us) comes along when your great leader Starmer (God help us) is PM you'll back him to the bloody hilt!
-
gibberish, it's down to science
-
Stop being silly or I'll just ignore you. I've NEVER, EVER been against lockdowns, although I understood the difficulties involved in deciding when to start/end them without hindsight. Some people were, and still are against lockdowns of any duration and were giving the government dogs abuse for implementing them. Some people still talk about them being some form of government control!
It all boils down to opinions, and not everyone agrees with yours, or mine for that matter. It was a desperate situation in which the government couldn't be right in everyone's eyes. Some people even sought political smarty points, like you did.
I bet if another virus (God help us) comes along when your great leader Starmer (God help us) is PM you'll back him to the bloody hilt!
Turn the gas off, cool down and concentrate on what my criticism of your take is.
Even now, three years on, you are parrotting the patently wrong line that there was a balance to be struck between lives and livelihood when it came to implementing the late 2020 lockdown.
There wasn't.
Rapid action to suppress the virus was the best thing that could be done BOTH in the interests of saving lives and in minimising the economic hit. It doesn't matter that some flat-earthers were and are still saying that lockdowns were unnecessary. The job ob Government isn't to steer a middle way between the right policy and something that a few head bangers want to do.
I've said time and again that you can excuse the Govt for getting that wrong in March 2020, because everyone was on a learning curve. What you cannot ever excuse them for, is getting that wrong in October/November 2020, when they lost control of the virus through deliberate policy choices.
You are still giving Johnson a pass on that and ignoring the fact that Starmer and Labour were calling the situation absolutely right before it got out of hand, and without the benefit of hindsight. Prof John Edmunds is just one of several experts who have said that mistake led to several 10s of thousands of entirely avoidable deaths, and there was no benefit to the economy because we still had to go into hard lockdown anyway, and for much longer, just as anyone who thought hard about it in Autumn 2020 knew we would.
The fact that you refuse to see that, and you still fire off that ridiculous Captain Hindsight jibe at a politician who made the correct call in advance, says everything about how twisted and biased you are. You'll turn a blind eye to maybe 50,000 avoidable deaths and maybe £100bn of avoidable economic loss in order to make a party political point. And I think, deep down, you know that's exactly what you are doing. But you can't stop yourself.
-
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
-
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
Employers claimed furlough, not employee’s!
-
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
Employers claimed furlough, not employee’s!
And?
-
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
Employers claimed furlough, not employee’s!
And?
You are saying some people claimed furlough and still worked, how did they manage that, given Employers claimed it?
-
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
Once again, there WASN'T a "lives vs livelihood" equation. It's your inability to see this that is the really scary thing.
I don't know how many times it has to be spelled out for you, but the fact is that delaying lockdown and letting the virus spread further had the dual effect of BOTH killing more people, AND meaning that when we did eventually have to lockdown, the lockdown was longer, harder and more economically damaging than it would have been if we'd locked down earlier.
That's an established fact. The fact that you simply refuse to engage with it, because you are emotionally committed to not countenancing any criticism of Johnson's policy makes me wonder if you';re actually Nadine Dorries in disguise?
-
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
Employers claimed furlough, not employee’s!
And?
You are saying some people claimed furlough and still worked, how did they manage that, given Employers claimed it?
Self-employed?
-
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
Once again, there WASN'T a "lives vs livelihood" equation. It's your inability to see this that is the really scary thing.
I don't know how many times it has to be spelled out for you, but the fact is that delaying lockdown and letting the virus spread further had the dual effect of BOTH killing more people, AND meaning that when we did eventually have to lockdown, the lockdown was longer, harder and more economically damaging than it would have been if we'd locked down earlier.
That's an established fact. The fact that you simply refuse to engage with it, because you are emotionally committed to not countenancing any criticism of Johnson's policy makes me wonder if you';re actually Nadine Dorries in disguise?
The government did consider that going into a lockdown too early could result in people getting bored and complacent and breaking lockdown rules before the lockdown was officially ended.
Johnson did make mistakes, along with probably every other leader in every other country.
Are you going to hold it against the Tories forever?
-
Billy boy, did you HONESTLY think I'd find evidence of my point by searching the media sites that you frequent?
Anybody, ANYBODY can give an opinion of what route to take when they are not in a position to make a final decision, after all, where's the pressure or come back, for that matter?
It is no surprise that Captain Hindsight might have gotten the odd prediction right. So did I, and I know f**k all about pandemics, but I might not have put those forecasts into practice if it was my final decision. Besides that, there was a balance between lives and livelihoods to be made by the government.
In my opinion, Keir Starmer exploited his position by ignoring the effect that an early lockdown would have on the livelihoods of people for the popular and possibly ill-informed (in hindsight) view that an early lockdown should be applied to save lives. After all, the more livelihoods that were affected by the pandemic, the more popular the opposition (his party) would become.
By the way. Which media sites do you reckon I frequent?
And as for this:
"In my opinion, Keir Starmer exploited his position by ignoring the effect that an early lockdown would have on the livelihoods of people for the popular and possibly ill-informed (in hindsight) view that an early lockdown should be applied to save lives. After all, the more livelihoods that were affected by the pandemic, the more popular the opposition (his party) would become."
Let's get this right. You reckon Starmer proposed a lockdown because it would have been popular? Specifically, it would have been popular BECAUSE it would have hurt more livelihoods?
What are you going to say when you meet the BB who said this, just a few hours later?
"By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
"People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless."
I'll leave you and that other BB to decide what you actually want to think. Get back to me when you've sorted it out.
-
Billy boy, did you HONESTLY think I'd find evidence of my point by searching the media sites that you frequent?
Anybody, ANYBODY can give an opinion of what route to take when they are not in a position to make a final decision, after all, where's the pressure or come back, for that matter?
It is no surprise that Captain Hindsight might have gotten the odd prediction right. So did I, and I know f**k all about pandemics, but I might not have put those forecasts into practice if it was my final decision. Besides that, there was a balance between lives and livelihoods to be made by the government.
In my opinion, Keir Starmer exploited his position by ignoring the effect that an early lockdown would have on the livelihoods of people for the popular and possibly ill-informed (in hindsight) view that an early lockdown should be applied to save lives. After all, the more livelihoods that were affected by the pandemic, the more popular the opposition (his party) would become.
By the way. Which media sites do you reckon I frequent?
Weighing up your contribution to this forum I'd guess...
Forest Hump?
Edward Penishands?
Debbie does Denaby?
-
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
Employers claimed furlough, not employee’s!
And?
You are saying some people claimed furlough and still worked, how did they manage that, given Employers claimed it?
Self-employed?
Self employed weren’t eligible for Furlough
Which leads me to think you just made it up
-
As for getting bored not adhering to the rules........ . But let's not get into Partygate again heh
-
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
Employers claimed furlough, not employee’s!
And?
You are saying some people claimed furlough and still worked, how did they manage that, given Employers claimed it?
Self-employed?
Self employed weren’t eligible for Furlough
Which leads me to think you just made it up
No, he just believes what his enablers tell him, (substitute Sunak et-al for Trump in the following)....
(https://i.imgur.com/SMiIIPw.jpg)
-
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
Employers claimed furlough, not employee’s!
And?
You are saying some people claimed furlough and still worked, how did they manage that, given Employers claimed it?
Self-employed?
Self employed weren’t eligible for Furlough
Which leads me to think you just made it up
I asked the question, hence the question mark. They may not have qualified for furlough but instead qualified for a job retention scheme, which was also known as the furlough scheme.
HMRC says nearly 9% of the furlough scheme was fraudulently claimed or otherwise wrongly paid out in 2020.
-
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
Employers claimed furlough, not employee’s!
And?
You are saying some people claimed furlough and still worked, how did they manage that, given Employers claimed it?
Self-employed?
Self employed weren’t eligible for Furlough
Which leads me to think you just made it up
I asked the question, hence the question mark. They may not have qualified for furlough but instead qualified for a job retention scheme, which was also known as the furlough scheme.
HMRC says nearly 9% of the furlough scheme was fraudulently claimed or otherwise wrongly paid out in 2020.
I had a friend who had two businesses that he ran.
One was a limited company which he had with him and his wife as directors.
The other one was a plumbing and heating one in which he was officially self employed.
For the duration of furlough he claimed furlough money through the limited company but carried on doing the plumbing and heating work.
-
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
Employers claimed furlough, not employee’s!
And?
You are saying some people claimed furlough and still worked, how did they manage that, given Employers claimed it?
Self-employed?
Self employed weren’t eligible for Furlough
Which leads me to think you just made it up
I asked the question, hence the question mark. They may not have qualified for furlough but instead qualified for a job retention scheme, which was also known as the furlough scheme.
HMRC says nearly 9% of the furlough scheme was fraudulently claimed or otherwise wrongly paid out in 2020.
Wrong again the self employed could not claim from the Job retention scheme, however, I’ll help you out, they could claim a grant if they had been self employed for the previous 2 years, depending on circumstances
-
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
Employers claimed furlough, not employee’s!
And?
You are saying some people claimed furlough and still worked, how did they manage that, given Employers claimed it?
Self-employed?
Self employed weren’t eligible for Furlough
Which leads me to think you just made it up
No, he just believes what his enablers tell him, (substitute Sunak et-al for Trump in the following)....
(https://i.imgur.com/SMiIIPw.jpg)
Kato, now's not the time to be silly. Not now Kato, not now.
-
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
Employers claimed furlough, not employee’s!
And?
You are saying some people claimed furlough and still worked, how did they manage that, given Employers claimed it?
Self-employed?
Self employed weren’t eligible for Furlough
Which leads me to think you just made it up
I asked the question, hence the question mark. They may not have qualified for furlough but instead qualified for a job retention scheme, which was also known as the furlough scheme.
HMRC says nearly 9% of the furlough scheme was fraudulently claimed or otherwise wrongly paid out in 2020.
Wrong again the self employed could not claim from the Job retention scheme, however, I’ll help you out, they could claim a grant if they had been self employed for the previous 2 years, depending on circumstances
https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/uk/consumer-advice/money/a35152622/furlough-rules-lockdown/
-
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
Employers claimed furlough, not employee’s!
And?
You are saying some people claimed furlough and still worked, how did they manage that, given Employers claimed it?
Self-employed?
Self employed weren’t eligible for Furlough
Which leads me to think you just made it up
You are led to believe all sorts of shite on this forum, but this ain't one of 'em owd lad.
-
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
Employers claimed furlough, not employee’s!
And?
You are saying some people claimed furlough and still worked, how did they manage that, given Employers claimed it?
Self-employed?
Self employed weren’t eligible for Furlough
Which leads me to think you just made it up
No, he just believes what his enablers tell him, (substitute Sunak et-al for Trump in the following)....
(https://i.imgur.com/SMiIIPw.jpg)
Kato, now's not the time to be silly. Not now Kato, not now.
Only one person being silly on this thread BB, and that's you.
-
NNK, You may not think I'm right, but that's not the point.
The point is I am right.
-
Filo and NNK. A member of my family claimed £27000 in furlough whilst self-employed. That's a fact.
BB is right on this. You're both wrong.
-
Filo and NNK. A member of my family claimed £27000 in furlough whilst self-employed. That's a fact.
BB is right on this. You're both wrong.
It was a grant, not Furlough, two totally separate schemes
-
I know someone who lives in Scotland who is self-employed and doubled his wages in payouts during COVID.
The truth is out there if you stop burying your head in The Guardian and the likes and get out more.
-
I know someone who lives in Scotland who is self-employed and doubled his wages in payouts during COVID.
The truth is out there if you stop burying your head in The Guardian and the likes and get out more.
Presumably you've reported him, as it wasn't possible to do that without breaking the law.
-
Filo and NNK. A member of my family claimed £27000 in furlough whilst self-employed. That's a fact.
BB is right on this. You're both wrong.
It was a grant, not Furlough, two totally separate schemes
The actual definition of furlough is the suspension or discharge of a worker or workers on account of economic conditions or shortage of work, especially when temporary. Technically, payment was given to those who had been furloughed, so it could be claimed that NOBODY was paid furlough, if one were to be picky, like you are being.
-
I know someone who lives in Scotland who is self-employed and doubled his wages in payouts during COVID.
The truth is out there if you stop burying your head in The Guardian and the likes and get out more.
Presumably you've reported him, as it wasn't possible to do that without breaking the law.
Yeah, but they told me I was wrong because nobody self-employed received 'furlough.'
-
I know someone who lives in Scotland who is self-employed and doubled his wages in payouts during COVID.
The truth is out there if you stop burying your head in The Guardian and the likes and get out more.
Presumably you've reported him, as it wasn't possible to do that without breaking the law.
Yeah, but they told me I was wrong because nobody self-employed received 'furlough.'
So you didn't then...
-
Filo and NNK. A member of my family claimed £27000 in furlough whilst self-employed. That's a fact.
BB is right on this. You're both wrong.
It was a grant, not Furlough, two totally separate schemes
The actual definition of furlough is the suspension or discharge of a worker or workers on account of economic conditions or shortage of work, especially when temporary. Technically, payment was given to those who had been furloughed, so it could be claimed that NOBODY was paid furlough, if one were to be picky, like you are being.
You can wriggle on that hook all you want, and twist words all you want, but you are wrong, plain and simple, anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see you for what you are, aided and abetted by your faithful canine
-
Filo and NNK. A member of my family claimed £27000 in furlough whilst self-employed. That's a fact.
BB is right on this. You're both wrong.
My post was in relation to all BB's posts on this thread. However, in the instance you've just posted on, you're wrong as well as BB.
What your family member claimed was a Grant from the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme - nothing at all to do with Furlough! The scheme also provided for the self employed to continue to work whilst they waited for the grant to be approved.
Just saying.
-
Filo and NNK. A member of my family claimed £27000 in furlough whilst self-employed. That's a fact.
BB is right on this. You're both wrong.
It was a grant, not Furlough, two totally separate schemes
The actual definition of furlough is the suspension or discharge of a worker or workers on account of economic conditions or shortage of work, especially when temporary. Technically, payment was given to those who had been furloughed, so it could be claimed that NOBODY was paid furlough, if one were to be picky, like you are being.
You can wriggle on that hook all you want, and twist words all you want, but you are wrong, plain and simple, anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see you for what you are, aided and abetted by your faithful canine
I haven't twisted any words! I've copied and pasted the definition of furlough because YOU made such a big song and dance about the use of the word, in the hope it would be a game changer. The truth is, whatever the correct word for the handout of cash to the self-employed was here nor there in relevance to the argument.
Now THAT is the truth, and anyone with an ounce of intelligence will know it is.
-
Filo and NNK. A member of my family claimed £27000 in furlough whilst self-employed. That's a fact.
BB is right on this. You're both wrong.
My post was in relation to all BB's posts on this thread. However, in the instance you've just posted on, you're wrong as well as BB.
What your family member claimed was a Grant from the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme - nothing at all to do with Furlough! The scheme also provided for the self employed to continue to work whilst they waited for the grant to be approved.
Just saying.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer i gave in post 76.
-
Filo and NNK. A member of my family claimed £27000 in furlough whilst self-employed. That's a fact.
BB is right on this. You're both wrong.
My post was in relation to all BB's posts on this thread. However, in the instance you've just posted on, you're wrong as well as BB.
What your family member claimed was a Grant from the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme - nothing at all to do with Furlough! The scheme also provided for the self employed to continue to work whilst they waited for the grant to be approved.
Just saying.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer i gave in post 76.
You do seem to struggle with reality BB. For the record.... There were two schemes in operation during the pandemic....
1. The Job Retention Scheme which was the one normally referred to by the term 'furlough'. This was aimed at companies to enable them to, as its name suggests, retain employees on the payroll; with the Government paying a percentage of each employees salary to the employer. It was the responsibility of the employer to make up the remainder of each employee's wages and pay them accordingly.
2. The Self-Employment Income Support Scheme. This came later and was aimed specifically, as its name suggests, at the self employed, to enable them to remain in business; and was in the form of a grant based on a percentage of the businesses past tax returns/profits with a fixed cap. This was never known as furlough and was managed completely separate of it.
-
I'm shocked that bb who is not short of criticising anyone for anything that differs from his extremely changeable and reversible outpourings could stand by and allow a criminal to defraud his fellow citizens. No better than the tories I say.
-
Stop being silly or I'll just ignore you. I've NEVER, EVER been against lockdowns, although I understood the difficulties involved in deciding when to start/end them without hindsight. Some people were, and still are against lockdowns of any duration and were giving the government dogs abuse for implementing them. Some people still talk about them being some form of government control!
It all boils down to opinions, and not everyone agrees with yours, or mine for that matter. It was a desperate situation in which the government couldn't be right in everyone's eyes. Some people even sought political smarty points, like you did.
I bet if another virus (God help us) comes along when your great leader Starmer (God help us) is PM you'll back him to the bloody hilt!
Your hero will be able to explain what the hell he followed shortly, victims, their rels and friends I would hazard a guess can't wait to hear it.
''You can’t handle the truth, Johnson will tell the Covid inquiry: a bit rich from a man who can’t recognise it''
This bit is a gem ''It seems very odd to see think-pieces decrying the “hindsight” of the present moment, given that all the criticisms of the government of the day were said and written while it was happening, and by many people''
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/05/boris-johnson-covid-inquiry-prime-minister
Vote tory .......... or obfuscate
-
Filo and NNK. A member of my family claimed £27000 in furlough whilst self-employed. That's a fact.
BB is right on this. You're both wrong.
My post was in relation to all BB's posts on this thread. However, in the instance you've just posted on, you're wrong as well as BB.
What your family member claimed was a Grant from the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme - nothing at all to do with Furlough! The scheme also provided for the self employed to continue to work whilst they waited for the grant to be approved.
Just saying.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer i gave in post 76.
You do seem to struggle with reality BB. For the record.... There were two schemes in operation during the pandemic....
1. The Job Retention Scheme which was the one normally referred to by the term 'furlough'. This was aimed at companies to enable them to, as its name suggests, retain employees on the payroll; with the Government paying a percentage of each employees salary to the employer. It was the responsibility of the employer to make up the remainder of each employee's wages and pay them accordingly.
2. The Self-Employment Income Support Scheme. This came later and was aimed specifically, as its name suggests, at the self employed, to enable them to remain in business; and was in the form of a grant based on a percentage of the businesses past tax returns/profits with a fixed cap. This was never known as furlough and was managed completely separate of it.
Kato,
Every bit of what you have said above has been said before on this thread, some of it by me! I actually conceded that the correct title of the cash handed out to the self-employed may not officially have been called "furlough", but that doesn't by any means mean that the argument is lost. The point is, according to HMRC nearly 9% of the money handed out was fraudulently claimed or otherwise wrongly paid out in 2020.
That figure is not exclusive to the self-employed, but Filo's obsession with the word "furlough" made it seem like it was.
Filo chose a technicality involving one word as a distraction to divert the whole point of the argument, in the hope that people like you would follow that diversion.
-
Filo and NNK. A member of my family claimed £27000 in furlough whilst self-employed. That's a fact.
BB is right on this. You're both wrong.
My post was in relation to all BB's posts on this thread. However, in the instance you've just posted on, you're wrong as well as BB.
What your family member claimed was a Grant from the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme - nothing at all to do with Furlough! The scheme also provided for the self employed to continue to work whilst they waited for the grant to be approved.
Just saying.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer i gave in post 76.
You do seem to struggle with reality BB. For the record.... There were two schemes in operation during the pandemic....
1. The Job Retention Scheme which was the one normally referred to by the term 'furlough'. This was aimed at companies to enable them to, as its name suggests, retain employees on the payroll; with the Government paying a percentage of each employees salary to the employer. It was the responsibility of the employer to make up the remainder of each employee's wages and pay them accordingly.
2. The Self-Employment Income Support Scheme. This came later and was aimed specifically, as its name suggests, at the self employed, to enable them to remain in business; and was in the form of a grant based on a percentage of the businesses past tax returns/profits with a fixed cap. This was never known as furlough and was managed completely separate of it.
Kato,
Every bit of what you have said above has been said before on this thread, some of it by me! I actually conceded that the correct title of the cash handed out to the self-employed may not officially have been called "furlough", but that doesn't by any means mean that the argument is lost. The point is, according to HMRC nearly 9% of the money handed out was fraudulently claimed or otherwise wrongly paid out in 2020.
That figure is not exclusive to the self-employed, but Filo's obsession with the word "furlough" made it seem like it was.
Filo chose a technicality involving one word as a distraction to divert the whole point of the argument, in the hope that people like you would follow that diversion.
Wrong again, I pointed it out because it was misleading, done deliberately to try and back your point up
-
No, it wasn't done deliberately! Why would that be necessary? I know from experience that there are one or two people on here who like to divert the route of threads as a form of distraction, just like you have done this time.
How about getting back on track?
Filo, do you disagree with the government's claims and the personal knowledge of people on this thread that money was fraudulently claimed during the pandemic?
-
No, it wasn't done deliberately! Why would that be necessary? I know from experience that there are one or two people on here who like to divert the route of threads as a form of distraction, just like you have done this time.
How about getting back on track?
Filo, do you disagree with the government's claims and the personal knowledge of people on this thread that money was fraudulently claimed during the pandemic?
I neither disagree or agree, I was just pointing out the inaccuracies in your post, I’ve kept out of the political stuff for a while now, mainly because people like you end up twisting things to suit your agenda, just has you have done in this thread, I’m back out now thanks, enjoy
-
You knew the point I was making. It was a valid point. I've explained what furloughing means. I've conceded that the government had to change the title for the self-employed because you can't furlough yourself, I suppose.
but, well done! You managed to redirect the thread while not even providing an opinion about the subject!
-
Filo and NNK. A member of my family claimed £27000 in furlough whilst self-employed. That's a fact.
BB is right on this. You're both wrong.
My post was in relation to all BB's posts on this thread. However, in the instance you've just posted on, you're wrong as well as BB.
What your family member claimed was a Grant from the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme - nothing at all to do with Furlough! The scheme also provided for the self employed to continue to work whilst they waited for the grant to be approved.
Just saying.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer i gave in post 76.
You do seem to struggle with reality BB. For the record.... There were two schemes in operation during the pandemic....
1. The Job Retention Scheme which was the one normally referred to by the term 'furlough'. This was aimed at companies to enable them to, as its name suggests, retain employees on the payroll; with the Government paying a percentage of each employees salary to the employer. It was the responsibility of the employer to make up the remainder of each employee's wages and pay them accordingly.
2. The Self-Employment Income Support Scheme. This came later and was aimed specifically, as its name suggests, at the self employed, to enable them to remain in business; and was in the form of a grant based on a percentage of the businesses past tax returns/profits with a fixed cap. This was never known as furlough and was managed completely separate of it.
Kato,
Every bit of what you have said above has been said before on this thread, some of it by me! I actually conceded that the correct title of the cash handed out to the self-employed may not officially have been called "furlough", but that doesn't by any means mean that the argument is lost. The point is, according to HMRC nearly 9% of the money handed out was fraudulently claimed or otherwise wrongly paid out in 2020.
That figure is not exclusive to the self-employed, but Filo's obsession with the word "furlough" made it seem like it was.
Filo chose a technicality involving one word as a distraction to divert the whole point of the argument, in the hope that people like you would follow that diversion.
You seem to be suffering from selective memory BB as it was yourself who brought up furlough….
By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown, which would have been an unpopular decision for many and possibly ignored enough to make a lockdown pointless.
.... And that was even without considering the lives versus livelihoods equation.
FILO simply, and correctly, put you straight on the matter; after which all you have done is obfuscate instead of admitting you were wrong. The Tories have an expression for people like you…. Useful Idiots.
-
OK, Explain what I said was wrong.
Start with my last post to keep it topical, and then perhaps start at the very beginning of the thread and tell me if you think BST's responses were actual responses to what I said.
Then perhaps you can tell me if YOUR responses were actual responses to what I said.
As for the Tory jibes, It's not the Tories I'm supporting here, I'm showing my objection, and often disgust at the likes of BST and his handful of followers.
-
So. Did you report that crook you know BB?
-
I can understand some people being suckered in to support Tory plans and promises, but defending what they've done by pretending they've been unlucky? A bit like the drunk driver blaming the brick wall for not getting out of the way.
No comprendo
Really? Watch out for those brick walls sneaking up on you.
-
So. Did you report that crook you know BB?
Like I said earlier, Yeah, but they told me I was wrong because nobody self-employed received 'furlough' money.
Do you think they were right?
-
I can understand some people being suckered in to support Tory plans and promises, but defending what they've done by pretending they've been unlucky? A bit like the drunk driver blaming the brick wall for not getting out of the way.
No comprendo
Really? Watch out for those brick walls sneaking up on you.
No, you No comprendo!
I don't support Tory plans and promises, and would only vote Tory if Labour was the only alternative.
-
So. Did you report that crook you know BB?
Like I said earlier, Yeah, but they told me I was wrong because nobody self-employed received 'furlough' money.
Do you think they were right?
So you didn't then. You're a weird one, not being able to admit the bleeding obvious.
-
So what's the obvious, Oh great one?
-
Soggy biscuit and tea time in Bentley again.
-
Yeah but they're nowt like they the ones you have soaked in your leaders' (Billy Stubbs) Tears.
-
I can understand some people being suckered in to support Tory plans and promises, but defending what they've done by pretending they've been unlucky? A bit like the drunk driver blaming the brick wall for not getting out of the way.
No comprendo
Really? Watch out for those brick walls sneaking up on you.
No, you No comprendo!
I don't support Tory plans and promises, and would only vote Tory if Labour was the only alternative.
Ah, I was originally talking in general, not aiming at you
-
So what's the obvious, Oh great one?
It's really embarrassing to have to explain this to you, but most exchanges with you end up here eventually.
Your contact, you say, fiddled the system. So presumably there was a system to be fiddled.
In that case, you either reported him and that was registered by the authorities. Because if they said there wasn't a system to be fiddled, why the f**k did you raise the issue?
Or you didn't report him. In which case why not admit that you tacitly condoned his fiddling?
And of course I know the answer. Because you always fire off more b*llocks when the logic of you previous b*llocks pins you in a corner.
-
Considering it's nowt to do with you whether I reported it or not, I responded with the flippant answer that your question deserved.
Now, either stop boring the arse off me or toddle off, there's a good chap.
-
I'm just trying to gauge your standards BB. Once again, you've lived
updown to them.
-
My standards, as you well know, are very low.
Why do you think I give you the time of day?
-
I think Bentley & Billy are having us all on and are in fact the same person. I’ve never seen them in a room together. Does make me wonder…
-
I think Bentley & Billy are having us all on and are in fact the same person. I’ve never seen them in a room together. Does make me wonder…
How dare you. I take great offence at that remark.
I am not remotely like BST (thank f**k).
-
I think Bentley & Billy are having us all on and are in fact the same person. I’ve never seen them in a room together. Does make me wonder…
Can't be the same person as they'd take it in turns, one of them to have all the evidence based facts and reasoned argument, and the other just bluff and bluster.
BST always seems to have the former.
Not fair is it?
-
It can be quite confusing if you are reading johnson's answers form the inquiry and also bb's comments on here
-
One of them is an absolute tool.
The other is an ex PM.
-
Hey Billy! Look at the quality of the followers you attract!
Why don't you break away from this 4th division off-topic football forum and show your political greatness in the real world? What with the courage of Nelson Mandela, the heart of Mahatma Gandhi, the charity of Mother Theresa and the brains of Jeremy Corbyn Keir Starmer, you'll be PM before Donny Rovers return to the Championship.
-
Hey Billy! Look at the quality of the followers you attract!
Why don't you break away from this 4th division off-topic football forum and show your political greatness in the real world? What with the courage of Nelson Mandela, the heart of Mahatma Gandhi, the charity of Mother Theresa and the brains of Jeremy Corbyn Keir Starmer, you'll be PM before Donny Rovers return to the Championship.
QED
-
Hey Billy! Look at the quality of the followers you attract!
Why don't you break away from this 4th division off-topic football forum and show your political greatness in the real world? What with the courage of Nelson Mandela, the heart of Mahatma Gandhi, the charity of Mother Theresa and the brains of Jeremy Corbyn Keir Starmer, you'll be PM before Donny Rovers return to the Championship.
QED
WALOB
-
''#10 culture led to better decisions'' serious question bb (snigger) are you writing the lines for him?
-
''#10 culture led to better decisions'' serious question bb (snigger) are you writing the lines for him?
I suspect this is being treated a bit more seriously than a schoolboy incident, Sydnaye, but if Boris is given lines he can write them his bloody self.
-
Did I miss it yesterday was there any questioning about keeping the borders open?
-
Didn't read anything about that, must be on today RR, it's another huge point.
-
OK, Explain what I said was wrong.
Start with my last post to keep it topical, and then perhaps start at the very beginning of the thread and tell me if you think BST's responses were actual responses to what I said.
Then perhaps you can tell me if YOUR responses were actual responses to what I said.
As for the Tory jibes, It's not the Tories I'm supporting here, I'm showing my objection, and often disgust at the likes of BST and his handful of followers.
Maybe if you re-read this thread from the beginning you’d see where what you’ve said was wrong as it’s been pointed out to you clearly and with facts. Of course, if you fail to see that then you’re a lost cause and no one should take your posts seriously, (actually, I’m not sure many do anyway ).
-
OK, Explain what I said was wrong.
Start with my last post to keep it topical, and then perhaps start at the very beginning of the thread and tell me if you think BST's responses were actual responses to what I said.
Then perhaps you can tell me if YOUR responses were actual responses to what I said.
As for the Tory jibes, It's not the Tories I'm supporting here, I'm showing my objection, and often disgust at the likes of BST and his handful of followers.
Maybe if you re-read this thread from the beginning you’d see where what you’ve said was wrong as it’s been pointed out to you clearly and with facts. Of course, if you fail to see that then you’re a lost cause and no one should take your posts seriously, (actually, I’m not sure many do anyway ).
YOU told me I was wrong. Now, I want you to tell me where I was wrong.
Start at the opening post, which as explained was a proper account of what Jeremy Hunt actually said and not the twisted version that Wilts Rover said. Then read BST's response.
-
OK, Explain what I said was wrong.
Start with my last post to keep it topical, and then perhaps start at the very beginning of the thread and tell me if you think BST's responses were actual responses to what I said.
Then perhaps you can tell me if YOUR responses were actual responses to what I said.
As for the Tory jibes, It's not the Tories I'm supporting here, I'm showing my objection, and often disgust at the likes of BST and his handful of followers.
Maybe if you re-read this thread from the beginning you’d see where what you’ve said was wrong as it’s been pointed out to you clearly and with facts. Of course, if you fail to see that then you’re a lost cause and no one should take your posts seriously, (actually, I’m not sure many do anyway ).
YOU told me I was wrong. Now, I want you to tell me where I was wrong.
Start at the opening post, which as explained was a proper account of what Jeremy Hunt actually said and not the twisted version that Wilts Rover said. Then read BST's response.
FFS, are you really that dense? Read your posts and the replies by Filo, myself and others correcting you!
Oh, and here's another one.... You said yesterday "You knew the point I was making. It was a valid point. I've explained what furloughing means. I've conceded that the government had to change the title for the self-employed because you can't furlough yourself, I suppose."
Wrong yet again. The government didn't change any title for the self employed. As I pointed out previously, they were two completely separate schemes, for two completely separate reasons. Oh, and the rules and criteria for both were completely different!
-
OK, Explain what I said was wrong.
Start with my last post to keep it topical, and then perhaps start at the very beginning of the thread and tell me if you think BST's responses were actual responses to what I said.
Then perhaps you can tell me if YOUR responses were actual responses to what I said.
As for the Tory jibes, It's not the Tories I'm supporting here, I'm showing my objection, and often disgust at the likes of BST and his handful of followers.
Maybe if you re-read this thread from the beginning you’d see where what you’ve said was wrong as it’s been pointed out to you clearly and with facts. Of course, if you fail to see that then you’re a lost cause and no one should take your posts seriously, (actually, I’m not sure many do anyway ).
YOU told me I was wrong. Now, I want you to tell me where I was wrong.
Start at the opening post, which as explained was a proper account of what Jeremy Hunt actually said and not the twisted version that Wilts Rover said. Then read BST's response.
FFS, are you really that dense? Read your posts and the replies by Filo, myself and others correcting you!
Oh, and here's another one.... You said yesterday "You knew the point I was making. It was a valid point. I've explained what furloughing means. I've conceded that the government had to change the title for the self-employed because you can't furlough yourself, I suppose."
Wrong yet again. The government didn't change any title for the self employed. As I pointed out previously, they were two completely separate schemes, for two completely separate reasons. Oh, and the rules and criteria for both were completely different!
I corrected myself before you stuck your awe in. If I'd said some Self-Employed people received a payment for furlough instead of furlough payment it would have been fine?
Do you disagree with the government's claims and the personal knowledge of people on this thread that money was fraudulently claimed during the pandemic?
-
OK, Explain what I said was wrong.
Start with my last post to keep it topical, and then perhaps start at the very beginning of the thread and tell me if you think BST's responses were actual responses to what I said.
Then perhaps you can tell me if YOUR responses were actual responses to what I said.
As for the Tory jibes, It's not the Tories I'm supporting here, I'm showing my objection, and often disgust at the likes of BST and his handful of followers.
Maybe if you re-read this thread from the beginning you’d see where what you’ve said was wrong as it’s been pointed out to you clearly and with facts. Of course, if you fail to see that then you’re a lost cause and no one should take your posts seriously, (actually, I’m not sure many do anyway ).
YOU told me I was wrong. Now, I want you to tell me where I was wrong.
Start at the opening post, which as explained was a proper account of what Jeremy Hunt actually said and not the twisted version that Wilts Rover said. Then read BST's response.
FFS, are you really that dense? Read your posts and the replies by Filo, myself and others correcting you!
Oh, and here's another one.... You said yesterday "You knew the point I was making. It was a valid point. I've explained what furloughing means. I've conceded that the government had to change the title for the self-employed because you can't furlough yourself, I suppose."
Wrong yet again. The government didn't change any title for the self employed. As I pointed out previously, they were two completely separate schemes, for two completely separate reasons. Oh, and the rules and criteria for both were completely different!
I corrected myself before you stuck your awe in. If I'd said some Self-Employed people received a furlough payment instead of furlough payment it would have been fine?
Do you disagree with the government's claims and the personal knowledge of people on this thread that money was fraudulently claimed during the pandemic?
Yet more obfuscation BB! I quoted what you said yesterday. I'll repeat it in case you had difficulty reading that post....
You knew the point I was making. It was a valid point. I've explained what furloughing means. I've conceded that the government had to change the title for the self-employed because you can't furlough yourself, I suppose.
So, show me where you've corrected it.
-
Post 64
-
Post 64
What you said in post 64 was....
I asked the question, hence the question mark. They may not have qualified for furlough but instead qualified for a job retention scheme, which was also known as the furlough scheme.
Which is NOT a correction of what you said yesterday, which was
You knew the point I was making. It was a valid point. I've explained what furloughing means. I've conceded that the government had to change the title for the self-employed because you can't furlough yourself, I suppose.
So where's the correction and the admission that the two schemes were separate and distinct? I suppose there'll now be more obfuscation from you when it would be easier to just admit you were wrong!
-
BB
In one post you said a reason we didn't bring in a lockdown earlier in Autumn 2020 was because people were fiddling payments. That delay killed a lot of people. By the logic of what you, yourself are saying, if you had personal knowledge of that fiddling, and you didn't report it, you are complicit in those deaths.
Did you report it?
-
NNK. If I'd said some Self-Employed people received a payment for being furloughed instead of a furlough payment would it have been fine?
-
BB
In one post you said a reason we didn't bring in a lockdown earlier in Autumn 2020 was because people were fiddling payments. That delay killed a lot of people. By the logic of what you, yourself are saying, if you had personal knowledge of that fiddling, and you didn't report it, you are complicit in those deaths.
Did you report it?
No, I didn't say that.
-
Then what on earth did you mean when you posted this?
"By October/November 2020 many (not just a few headbangers) were sick to death of lockdowns and were going through the motions of safe distancing etc. Some people never even adhered to the first lockdown and worked through it; some even claimed furlough while still working.
"People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown"
-
I meant exactly what I said.
Show me where I said "a reason we didn't bring in a lockdown earlier in Autumn 2020 was because people were fiddling payments."
-
NNK. If I'd said some Self-Employed people received a payment for being furloughed instead of a furlough payment would it have been fine?
No. However, I'm sure it must be fine in your world where every day is an
(https://i.imgur.com/RvLHTLj.jpg)
-
NNK. If I'd said some Self-Employed people received a payment for being furloughed instead of a furlough payment would it have been fine?
No. However, I'm sure it must be fine in your world where every day is an
(https://i.imgur.com/RvLHTLj.jpg)
Then It is you that is rather dense.
Do you disagree with the government's claims and the personal knowledge of people on this thread that money was fraudulently claimed during the pandemic?
-
I meant exactly what I said.
Show me where I said "a reason we didn't bring in a lockdown earlier in Autumn 2020 was because people were fiddling payments."
I refer you to my post 128. You said "People were becoming more non-conforming, putting the government under more pressure while deciding whether to put the country back into lockdown" having immediately before given an example of that non-conforming as being people fiddling payments.
So, if you knew of an example of that sort of disgusting behaviour and didn't report it, you were, in a small way, complicit with the deaths of thousands of people and a much bigger economic hit than we should have had.
Unless, when you posted earlier, you DIDN'T mean that people fiddling payments was an example of the sort of non-conforming with the rules that put the Government under more pressure when deciding whether to bring in lockdown.
But if that's the case, what you posted earlier is meaningless claptr...ahh. Of course!
-
NNK. If I'd said some Self-Employed people received a payment for being furloughed instead of a furlough payment would it have been fine?
No. However, I'm sure it must be fine in your world where every day is an
(https://i.imgur.com/RvLHTLj.jpg)
Then It is you that is rather dense.
Do you disagree with the government's claims and the personal knowledge of people on this thread that money was fraudulently claimed during the pandemic?
Stop trying to move the goal posts clown! It's making you look dafter than you are - if that's at all possible,
-
NNK. If I'd said some Self-Employed people received a payment for being furloughed instead of a furlough payment would it have been fine?
No. However, I'm sure it must be fine in your world where every day is an
(https://i.imgur.com/RvLHTLj.jpg)
Then It is you that is rather dense.
Do you disagree with the government's claims and the personal knowledge of people on this thread that money was fraudulently claimed during the pandemic?
Stop trying to move the goal posts clown! It's making you look dafter than you are - if that's at all possible,
The trouble with letting proper clowns like you loose on an internet forum is it is in danger of turning into a circus.
Do you disagree with the government's claims and the personal knowledge of people on this thread that money was fraudulently claimed during the pandemic?
-
NNK. If I'd said some Self-Employed people received a payment for being furloughed instead of a furlough payment would it have been fine?
No. However, I'm sure it must be fine in your world where every day is an
(https://i.imgur.com/RvLHTLj.jpg)
Then It is you that is rather dense.
Do you disagree with the government's claims and the personal knowledge of people on this thread that money was fraudulently claimed during the pandemic?
Stop trying to move the goal posts clown! It's making you look dafter than you are - if that's at all possible,
The trouble with letting proper clowns like you loose on an internet forum is it is in danger of turning into a circus.
Do you disagree with the government's claims and the personal knowledge of people on this thread that money was fraudulently claimed during the pandemic?
Nothing at all to do with the errors in your posts that I've been pointing out, you need to try harder.
-
You need to grow up and either put up or shut up.
-
You need to grow up and either put up or shut up.
I did, you didn’t.
-
Kato, it's for grown-ups at this time of night. I know you want to have the last word, but not now Kato, Not now.
-
Kato, it's for grown-ups at this time of night. I know you want to have the last word, but not now Kato, Not now.
I don’t want to have the last word BB. What I want is for you to accept that you were mistaken/wrong/incorrect, (call it what you will other than correct), on those items I’ve quoted you on. It’s what grownup do.
-
Kato, it's for grown-ups at this time of night. I know you want to have the last word, but not now Kato, Not now.
I don’t want to have the last word BB. What I want is for you to accept that you were mistaken/wrong/incorrect, (call it what you will other than correct), on those items I’ve quoted you on. It’s what grownup do.
But your infatuation with me goes further than that. You said more or less that you disagreed with everything I've said in this thread.
Now, put up or shut up, because you're f**king boring me.
-
Kato, it's for grown-ups at this time of night. I know you want to have the last word, but not now Kato, Not now.
I don’t want to have the last word BB. What I want is for you to accept that you were mistaken/wrong/incorrect, (call it what you will other than correct), on those items I’ve quoted you on. It’s what grownup do.
But your infatuation with me goes further than that. You said more or less that you disagreed with everything I've said in this thread.
Now, put up or shut up, because you're f**king boring me.
As I said BB I did, you didn’t.
-
OK, so now I'm just gonna ignore you.
Bye!
-
OK, so now I'm just gonna ignore you.
Bye!
Thank the Lord for that.