Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Gav said:

Labour MP Rosie Duffield has stood down as Labour whip for breaking the lock down rules, what are these people thinking? 

https://news.sky.com/story/rosie-duffield-11997790

At least she had the integrity to admit wrong and stand down, unlike you know who. The public were starting to get frustrated with the rules, getting a bit slack, but after Cummings' escapade I bet many have just thought 'there is no point any more'. Any rise in illness and death is largely going to be the responsibility of Johnson and Cummings' distraction technique and irresponsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, gumboots said:

Its behind a paywall

If you turn off Javascript for the site then you can access the Telegraph - If you really have to - U-Block origin or something similar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gav said:

Labour MP Rosie Duffield has stood down as Labour whip for breaking the lock down rules, what are these people thinking? 

https://news.sky.com/story/rosie-duffield-11997790

She's thinking "I've been caught out doing the wrong thing but  I've taken responsibility for my actions and resigned from my position as Chief Whip. I haven't pretended I did nothing wrong."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 47er said:

She's thinking "I've been caught out doing the wrong thing but  I've taken responsibility for my actions and resigned from my position as Chief Whip. I haven't pretended I did nothing wrong."

She was actually thinking "The rules don't apply to me, I can do whatever I like" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gav said:

She was actually thinking "The rules don't apply to me, I can do whatever I like" 

But not without consequences. Whereas......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dominic Raab asked on tv this morning why we were easing restrictions when the threat level was still at 4. His answer was that we are transitioning between 3 and 4. There’s one big problem with that. The government can’t transition between anything, the levels are set independently by the joint biosecurity Centre. The government don’t get a say in that.

Level 4 says... “The system says that current social distancing measures and restrictions should remain in place.”

when will we be able to believe a single word that comes from the Tories mouths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

If you turn off Javascript for the site then you can access the Telegraph - If you really have to - U-Block origin or something similar

I dont want to read it particularly. Just pointing it out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you read the SIr Patrick Vallance piece in the Telegraph today, he mention that Sage is about range of opinions in the discussions and there is wide reading of the latest research and Sage endeavours to do is come down to a position or a range of positions, to provide options ministers could considers plus also explain the uncertainties and assumptions inherent in that science and evidence. 

 

2 hours ago, Blue blood said:

I agree there's an issue here with the media, although regarding protests I do wonder if not making life uncomfortable but safe is a part of what a protest is. It's a tricky one. 

I'm glad you are more concerned about the kid. After all Cummings clearly isn't. It didn't factor into his thinking when strapping his child in to his eyesight test drive nor when considering the media scrutiny his actions may cause. 

 

Protest outside his workplace at number 10 not at his family home. 

Yet again I have condemned Cummings for the eye sight test drive. Do you miss this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, den said:

Dominic Raab asked on tv this morning why we were easing restrictions when the threat level was still at 4. His answer was that we are transitioning between 3 and 4. There’s one big problem with that. The government can’t transition between anything, the levels are set independently by the joint biosecurity Centre. The government don’t get a say in that.

Level 4 says... “The system says that current social distancing measures and restrictions should remain in place.”

when will we be able to believe a single word that comes from the Tories mouths?

The interesting point to make here is both Kier Starmer and Steven Reed say they support easing of lock down restrictions despite the level still being at 4, Anneliese Dodds refused to answer the question on Marr.

Once again the Labour position is about as clear as mud.

Edited by Gav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue blood said:

This seems a somewhat contradictory post from the chap who said the rules were clear and we needed to rely on people's common sense. 

A bit like the government in defending the indefensible you have totally undermined previous arguments made...

Always said that some people wouldn't follow the guidelines and you seen that in the number of fines handed out to people. 

The rules were clear to me, my family and friends. And we follow them. If People haven't well that's down to them. I aint responsible for them. 

Yes people do need to use common sense and their own judgement in some situation For example, would I go to the beach or to Lytham today? No I wouldn't. But would I go for walk around my local park? Yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chaddyrovers said:

 

If you read the SIr Patrick Vallance piece in the Telegraph today, he mention that Sage is about range of opinions in the discussions and there is wide reading of the latest research and Sage endeavours to do is come down to a position or a range of positions, to provide options ministers could considers plus also explain the uncertainties and assumptions inherent in that science and evidence. 

Which is what a lot of us have been telling you Chaddy. You backed every single government move including late lockdown, allowing mass gatherings, stopping testing, moving people untested into care homes act, etc. You blandly replied to every one that the government were following the science. When it was pointed out that other scientists disagreed with those moves, you questioned their ability as scientists. You wanted to know what their credibility as scientists was. You wanted to know their background and what they specialised in - always coming to the conclusion that those scientists that the government followed were giving the best advice possible.  For you, that was the end of the debate. 
 

to start telling us now that there is no overall agreement between scientists is a bit rich. It’s hypocritical.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gav said:

The interesting point to make here is both Kier Starmer and Steven Reed say they support easing of lock down restrictions despite the level still being at 4, Anneliese Dodds refused to answer the question on Marr.

Once again the Labour position is about as clear as mud.

Whataboutery Gav.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, den said:

Whataboutery Gav.

Yes i thought that, Anneliese Dodds should have supported the Labour leader and Shadow Secretary of State for Communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gav said:

The interesting point to make here is both Kier Starmer and Steven Reed say they support easing of lock down restrictions despite the level still being at 4, Anneliese Dodds refused to answer the question on Marr.

Once again the Labour position is about as clear as mud.

I can see the confusion tbh. Maybe Starmer and Reed offering their own opinions rather than a party position?

Several times, Starmer has offered his take on a matter without making the party say the same, could just be how they're proceeding for now? Especially as there's no need for Labour to do anything, and they're mostly working internally on their own issues.

Currently they've turned around their approval simply by giving the Conservatives some rope and seeing what happens when questions are asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gav said:

Yes i thought that, Anneliese Dodds should have supported the Labour leader and Shadow Secretary of State for Communities.

I didn’t see it Gav, but at the moment this isn’t about the opposition parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mike E said:

I can see the confusion tbh. Maybe Starmer and Reed offering their own opinions rather than a party position?

Several times, Starmer has offered his take on a matter without making the party say the same, could just be how they're proceeding for now? Especially as there's no need for Labour to do anything, and they're mostly working internally on their own issues.

Currently they've turned around their approval simply by giving the Conservatives some rope and seeing what happens when questions are asked.

Starmer is the leader of the Labour Party. People want to hear his party position

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

That's like saying " I know Raya kept making mistakes but we are where we are, we need to be positive moving forward and not keep harboring on with what could have should have ". Mowbray thought differently and got rid of him.

Worlds gone mad, thats all i can say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, den said:

Which is what a lot of us have been telling you Chaddy. You backed every single government move including late lockdown, allowing mass gatherings, stopping testing, moving people untested into care homes act, etc. You blandly replied to every one that the government were following the science. When it was pointed out that other scientists disagreed with those moves, you questioned their ability as scientists. You wanted to know what their credibility as scientists was. You wanted to know their background and what they specialised in - always coming to the conclusion that those scientists that the government followed were giving the best advice possible.  For you, that was the end of the debate. 
 

to start telling us now that there is no overall agreement between scientists is a bit rich. It’s hypocritical.

 

TBH Den, I feel your all attitude is about you being proven right and other people wrong. 

At no point did I support moving people untested into care homes. So why have you lie Den? 

Yes The government makes the final decision based on the advice of the Sage committee aswell as other factors. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

TBH Den, I feel your all attitude is about you being proven right and other people wrong. 

At no point did I support moving people untested into care homes. So why have you lie Den? 

Yes The government makes the final decision based on the advice of the Sage committee aswell as other factors. 

 

Because you were wrong Chaddy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can support some easing of lockdown restrictions without wanting to see the mad scramble were seeing at the moment. Structure though is what is important. Clear instructions and enforcement of those. Theyve largely managed it in Germany and France as far as I can see with odd pockets of poor behaviour but nothing on the scale of what's been happening on our beaches eg at Durdle Door, or outside National Trust properties like Dunham Massey. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Always said that some people wouldn't follow the guidelines and you seen that in the number of fines handed out to people. 

The rules were clear to me, my family and friends. And we follow them. If People haven't well that's down to them. I aint responsible for them. 

Yes people do need to use common sense and their own judgement in some situation For example, would I go to the beach or to Lytham today? No I wouldn't. But would I go for walk around my local park? Yes. 

Hang on Chaddy you can't have your cake and eat it. 

The some people you mention changes in number from large numbers when deflecting from Cummings to small minorities when defending the government's lack of direction in this. You are just twisting the numbers to suit whoever you are defending. It's very disingenuous. 

Btw you ain't responsible for people but the government is. That's the point of leadership being responsible for people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, den said:

Because you were wrong Chaddy. 

Tell me Den when I support people being return to Homecare untested? 

The honest truth I didn't Den but you have chosen to lied to suit your argument again 

 

Edited by chaddyrovers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

 

Protest outside his workplace at number 10 not at his family home.

I think I agree with this as a general rule but there may be complications as I don't think you can protest outside number 10. Again, like with all the other innocents in danger, Cummings has a key role in causing this problem. Media harassment of family isn't good though whatsoever. 

42 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Yet again I have condemned Cummings for the eye sight test drive. Do you miss this?

Yes and good to hear. What do you think should happen because of this? More to the point what would happen to you or I if we did that? 

I think the rest of the trip was pretty dodge too - as the majority of politicians, experts, public, media and healthcare profession think too. But it's encouraging even you have a limit to which blind support doesn't cover. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Blue blood said:

Hang on Chaddy you can't have your cake and eat it. 

The some people you mention changes in number from large numbers when deflecting from Cummings to small minorities when defending the government's lack of direction in this. You are just twisting the numbers to suit whoever you are defending. It's very disingenuous. 

Btw you ain't responsible for people but the government is. That's the point of leadership being responsible for people. 

Well I can have my cake and eat it.

People will point to Cummings actions to cover their own mistakes and not following the lockdown rules. 

The Government cannot force the entire nation people into lockdown. People have to follow their guidelines. We aren't South Korea or China. South Korea authorities are allow access to your GPS phone tracking, surveillance camera records and credit card transactions I believe. In the UK that would be against our Privacy laws and other UK laws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.