Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:Sunak speaks for a grand total of 84 seconds and then scuttles away to get his orders.

Crackpot.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Is there anybody far more expert than Duty? After all, history will prove him right.

Goon, obviously, because somebody told him about it at fight club

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Is there anybody far more expert than Duty? After all, history will prove him right.

Thank goodness.

Be sure to let us know where they should put the statue.

Anywhere in England's green and pleasant land will suit me.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Is there anybody far more expert than Duty? After all, history will prove him right.

Thank goodness.

Be sure to let us know where they should put the statue.

Anywhere in England's green and pleasant land will suit me.

Birmingham Central Mosque it is.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Is there anybody far more expert than Duty? After all, history will prove him right.

Thank goodness.

Be sure to let us know where they should put the statue.

Anywhere in England's green and pleasant land will suit me.

Birmingham Central Mosque it is.

Please don't hate crime me.

lostinwales wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Is there anybody far more expert than Duty? After all, history will prove him right.

Goon, obviously, because somebody told him about it at fight club

Whatever happened to Coxy?

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Lockdowns were not the problem- and the alternative would have been much worse. It is hard to get a handle on what happened in places like Iran and there was a real danger of bodies in the street.

You have to understand that we didn't know how lethal it was going to be. There was a trade off - how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom'. Of course we are all happier if it is someone else doing the dying, so it might be better to ask how many of your family were you prepared to lose for the sake of 'freedom'. Quite frankly we still don't know the long term impact of Covid, because it is still killing people and leaving others sick for months, years, who knows how long.

The problem with the lockdowns were that they were enacted too late and then ran on for too long because they then had to. They were handled clumsily, because some tw@t said we should take it on the chin.

To be honest looking back on the pandemic with the benefit of vaccines, with the impact of the things we did to save people having some value and then apparently declaring it was no big deal is the kind of attitude which only deserves contempt.

The trade off isn't 'how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom''; but the trade off was 'how many people are we going to save from lockdown v how many people are going to die from lockdown, with a slight side helping of how many people are going to have a vastly reduced quality of life from lockdown'.

Lockdown wasn't great but was the lesser of two evils. You obviously missed the line about how they should have been triggered faster which would have allowed them to end faster. I do appreciate how very unfortunate that all the actual experts in highly infectious diseases didn't have your foresight.

Some experts supported lockdown in the manner enacted. Other experts didn't. It wasn't 'all the actual experts' who believed lockdown in the manner enacted was correct.

Which just goes to show that the knowledge for a uniform consensus wasn't there at the time, even amongst those far more expert in this area than you'll ever be, no matter what you might think.

Wrong.

But I thought you were done with it?

Oh, you know me. Had to bite .
Not wrong though...

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Lockdowns were not the problem- and the alternative would have been much worse. It is hard to get a handle on what happened in places like Iran and there was a real danger of bodies in the street.

You have to understand that we didn't know how lethal it was going to be. There was a trade off - how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom'. Of course we are all happier if it is someone else doing the dying, so it might be better to ask how many of your family were you prepared to lose for the sake of 'freedom'. Quite frankly we still don't know the long term impact of Covid, because it is still killing people and leaving others sick for months, years, who knows how long.

The problem with the lockdowns were that they were enacted too late and then ran on for too long because they then had to. They were handled clumsily, because some tw@t said we should take it on the chin.

To be honest looking back on the pandemic with the benefit of vaccines, with the impact of the things we did to save people having some value and then apparently declaring it was no big deal is the kind of attitude which only deserves contempt.

The trade off isn't 'how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom''; but the trade off was 'how many people are we going to save from lockdown v how many people are going to die from lockdown, with a slight side helping of how many people are going to have a vastly reduced quality of life from lockdown'.

Exactly. Also, if you have even a passing understanding of economics you would also know that shutting down the economy and printing loads of money would lead to the inflation we have today. Inflation, which is effectively a tax on the poor and those who save.

-How many businesses shut down and never re-opened?
-How cancer screenings were missed or delayed that lead to late or missed diagnosis?
-How many children's development have been permanently stunted due to school closure, and mask wearing?
-Deaths to despair?
-Savings lost due to inflation?


There are thousands of excess deaths across the west right now of what should be healthy adults in the prime of their lives and we have no idea why. And no one wants to even find out.

Andrew Bridgen was removed from the Tory party for even daring to ask.

Loads of other countries went into lockdown and dont have inflation anywhere near ours. The bulk of our inflation woes are caused by a combination of Brexit and the free-market-Frak we elected for 2 months who tanked the economy.

Shut businesses, cancelled NHS appointments, school closures etc would all have been worse had we let the virus tear through the country as Johnson initially wanted. We all saw how much hospitals were struggling at the height of the pandemic, the NHS would not have survived had we not locked down.

The excess death thing is just conspiracist Love sacks.

the-goon2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Lockdowns were not the problem- and the alternative would have been much worse. It is hard to get a handle on what happened in places like Iran and there was a real danger of bodies in the street.

You have to understand that we didn't know how lethal it was going to be. There was a trade off - how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom'. Of course we are all happier if it is someone else doing the dying, so it might be better to ask how many of your family were you prepared to lose for the sake of 'freedom'. Quite frankly we still don't know the long term impact of Covid, because it is still killing people and leaving others sick for months, years, who knows how long.

The problem with the lockdowns were that they were enacted too late and then ran on for too long because they then had to. They were handled clumsily, because some tw@t said we should take it on the chin.

To be honest looking back on the pandemic with the benefit of vaccines, with the impact of the things we did to save people having some value and then apparently declaring it was no big deal is the kind of attitude which only deserves contempt.

The trade off isn't 'how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom''; but the trade off was 'how many people are we going to save from lockdown v how many people are going to die from lockdown, with a slight side helping of how many people are going to have a vastly reduced quality of life from lockdown'.

Exactly. Also, if you have even a passing understanding of economics you would also know that shutting down the economy and printing loads of money would lead to the inflation we have today. Inflation, which is effectively a tax on the poor and those who save.

-How many businesses shut down and never re-opened?
-How cancer screenings were missed or delayed that lead to late or missed diagnosis?
-How many children's development have been permanently stunted due to school closure, and mask wearing?
-Deaths to despair?
-Savings lost due to inflation?


There are thousands of excess deaths across the west right now of what should be healthy adults in the prime of their lives and we have no idea why. And no one wants to even find out.

Andrew Bridgen was removed from the Tory party for even daring to ask.  
 

Has your development been stunted? What the hell kind of grammar is that?

I think any rational person who thought about it will agree that there were always going to be two sides to a lockdown : balancing the likely cost in lives lost to the virus against those that might well result from all the listed after effects. Which is why a lot of governments delayed action - sometimes arguably for too long.

Remember that until we had a vaccine that could protect the vulnerable , and indeed everyone , there was no telling what would happen if the virus were basically allowed to run loose in hopes of growing natural immunity. Bit late to say "oops" if it continued to claim lives at the rate we saw in those early days in places like Italy or Iran, eh ?

I reckon we here in Australia (especially in my city) overdid the house arrest thing . But I do those who made the decisions the courtesy of accepting they made hard choices with imperfect information. Easy to say in hindsight where things might have been done differently ; but for those who favoured a much looser approach to now say "told you so" is frankly ridiculous since we have no way of knowing what actually would have happened if they'd had their way at the start.

Don't think any country got it perfectly right. But please spare me the "our freedom was stolen for nothing" garbage...

superflyweight wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Lockdowns were not the problem- and the alternative would have been much worse. It is hard to get a handle on what happened in places like Iran and there was a real danger of bodies in the street.

You have to understand that we didn't know how lethal it was going to be. There was a trade off - how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom'. Of course we are all happier if it is someone else doing the dying, so it might be better to ask how many of your family were you prepared to lose for the sake of 'freedom'. Quite frankly we still don't know the long term impact of Covid, because it is still killing people and leaving others sick for months, years, who knows how long.

The problem with the lockdowns were that they were enacted too late and then ran on for too long because they then had to. They were handled clumsily, because some tw@t said we should take it on the chin.

To be honest looking back on the pandemic with the benefit of vaccines, with the impact of the things we did to save people having some value and then apparently declaring it was no big deal is the kind of attitude which only deserves contempt.

The trade off isn't 'how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom''; but the trade off was 'how many people are we going to save from lockdown v how many people are going to die from lockdown, with a slight side helping of how many people are going to have a vastly reduced quality of life from lockdown'.

Exactly. Also, if you have even a passing understanding of economics you would also know that shutting down the economy and printing loads of money would lead to the inflation we have today. Inflation, which is effectively a tax on the poor and those who save.

-How many businesses shut down and never re-opened?
-How cancer screenings were missed or delayed that lead to late or missed diagnosis?
-How many children's development have been permanently stunted due to school closure, and mask wearing?
-Deaths to despair?
-Savings lost due to inflation?


There are thousands of excess deaths across the west right now of what should be healthy adults in the prime of their lives and we have no idea why. And no one wants to even find out.

Andrew Bridgen was removed from the Tory party for even daring to ask.  
 

Has your development been stunted?  What the hell kind of grammar is that?  

Samo wrote:Loads of other countries went into lockdown and dont have inflation anywhere near ours.  The bulk of our inflation woes are caused by a combination of Brexit and the free-market-Frak we elected for 2 months who tanked the economy.

Shut businesses, cancelled NHS appointments, school closures etc would all have been worse had we let the virus tear through the country as Johnson initially wanted.  We all saw how much hospitals were struggling at the height of the pandemic, the NHS would not have survived had we not locked down.

The excess death thing is just conspiracist Love sacks.

This shows a complete misunderstanding of inflation. Firstly, our inflation is not unusual compared to other countries. I think the EU average is 8.1%, and the UK's is 8.7%, with many countries having higher inflation than the UK (it bobs around, month to month, I believe the EU average was higher than the UK not too long ago). Second, inflation has been caused predominantly by high energy prices (we shut down our coal production, stupidly) and supply shortages, caused by the war in Ukraine and extreme weather in North Africa. It has nothing to do with Truss, as her tax cuts didn't go through. The borrowing we had to do to finance lockdown (up to £400bn) is also a driver. Truss, by comparison, wanted to borrow £10bn to finance tax cuts, which shows what a small drop in the ocean that would have been.

I'm not sure why pointing out something that is factual, that excess deaths are above the five-year average by a considerable margin, is conspiracist? This is a knock-on effect of lockdown: people delayed in getting treatment for illnesses.

alfie wrote:I think any rational person who thought about it will agree that there were always going to be two sides to a lockdown : balancing the likely cost in lives lost to the virus against those that might well result from all the listed after effects. Which is why a lot of governments delayed action - sometimes arguably for too long.

Remember that until we had a vaccine that could protect the vulnerable , and indeed everyone , there was no telling what would happen if the virus were basically allowed to run loose in hopes of growing natural immunity. Bit late to say "oops" if it continued to claim lives at the rate we saw in those early days in places like Italy or Iran, eh ?

I reckon we here in Australia (especially in my city) overdid the house arrest thing . But I do those who made the decisions the courtesy of accepting they made hard choices with imperfect information. Easy to say in hindsight where things might have been done differently ; but for those who favoured a much looser approach to now say "told you so" is frankly ridiculous since we have no way of knowing what actually would have happened if they'd had their way at the start.

Don't think any country got it perfectly right. But please spare me the "our freedom was stolen for nothing" garbage...

It wasn't hindsight, though. No matter how much this is repeated, many people (including some experts!) had the foresight to know differently and argue so at the time.

'Overdid the house arrest thing' Yeah, just a bit. A glimpse into chilling authoritarianism.

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:I think any rational person who thought about it will agree that there were always going to be two sides to a lockdown : balancing the likely cost in lives lost to the virus against those that might well result from all the listed after effects. Which is why a lot of governments delayed action - sometimes arguably for too long.

Remember that until we had a vaccine that could protect the vulnerable , and indeed everyone , there was no telling what would happen if the virus were basically allowed to run loose in hopes of growing natural immunity. Bit late to say "oops" if it continued to claim lives at the rate we saw in those early days in places like Italy or Iran, eh ?

I reckon we here in Australia (especially in my city) overdid the house arrest thing . But I do those who made the decisions the courtesy of accepting they made hard choices with imperfect information. Easy to say in hindsight where things might have been done differently ; but for those who favoured a much looser approach to now say "told you so" is frankly ridiculous since we have no way of knowing what actually would have happened if they'd had their way at the start.

Don't think any country got it perfectly right. But please spare me the "our freedom was stolen for nothing" garbage...

It wasn't hindsight, though. No matter how much this is repeated, many people (including some experts!) had the foresight to know differently and argue so at the time.

'Overdid the house arrest thing' Yeah, just a bit. A glimpse into chilling authoritarianism.

They didn't know anything of the sort at that time. They might have said they did, but they didn't have the information to know. It was just their opinion/ego based on a paucity of data. Being, arguably, correct in hindsight doesn't prove that the grounds for that position at the time were sound or rooted in good data - just chance and might as well have flipped a coin, been on the 'right' side once things had played out and then argued that 'history had proved you correct' and the original decision was, therefore, sound.

You might not like it, but the same thing will happen next time. And the next. Etc. Why? Because it's better to assume a novel human respiratory pathogen that had already killed people at its point of origin by Jan 2020 might actually be quite bad. Better to find out after the event that it was less deadly than one thought. Look on the bright side - at least the Covid pandemic acted as proof of principle re. the use of RNA-based vaccine technology, so approval of such for the next pandemic biological agent will be a lot faster, meaning shorter lockdowns etc.

alfie wrote:.... Remember that until we had a vaccine that could protect the vulnerable , and indeed everyone , there was no telling what would happen if the virus were basically allowed to run loose in hopes of growing natural immunity. Bit late to say "oops" if it continued to claim lives at the rate we saw in those early days in places like Italy or Iran, eh ? .

Most of those that were "vulnerable" died in the initial and subsequent uncontrolled spread. A proverb created out of experience says something along the lines of "Closing the barn door when the horse has bolted". It was quite clear from the early data who were vulnerable (death and severe symptoms) and those who were not.

No name Bertie wrote:

alfie wrote:.... Remember that until we had a vaccine that could protect the vulnerable , and indeed everyone , there was no telling what would happen if the virus were basically allowed to run loose in hopes of growing natural immunity. Bit late to say "oops" if it continued to claim lives at the rate we saw in those early days in places like Italy or Iran, eh ? .

Most of those that were "vulnerable" died in the initial and subsequent uncontrolled spread.  A proverb created out of experience says something along the lines of "Closing the barn door when the horse has bolted".    It was quite clear from the early data who were vulnerable (death and severe symptoms) and those who were not.  

No they didn't, a small minority of the vulnerable died.

So this succesful Newcastle Mayor is being banned by Labour for talking to Ken Loach the great Film maker.....How terrible doing that !!

Everybody is an antisemite in Labour it seems... If you don't worship Blair.

All very distasteful and it lessens the evil of real Antisemitism....I wouldn't pee on Starmer's Labour if you paid me.....

Looks like France have just received another harsh lesson yet again.

Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world.

the-goon2 wrote:Looks like France have just received another harsh lesson yet again.

Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world.

That's a very crass and tasteless comment considering what happened.

the-goon2 wrote:Looks like France have just received another harsh lesson yet again.

Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world.

The absolute state of this.

Samo wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Looks like France have just received another harsh lesson yet again.

Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world.

The absolute state of this.

The guy's a c*nt.

mountain man wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Looks like France have just received another harsh lesson yet again.

Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world.

That's a very crass and tasteless comment considering what happened.

Yet true. A quick look at the French prison population, recent terror attacks and no-go zones will justify my comments.

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Looks like France have just received another harsh lesson yet again.

Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world.

That's a very crass and tasteless comment considering what happened.

Yet true. A quick look at the French prison population, recent terror attacks and no-go zones will justify my comments.

Even if you're right (and I'm not saying you are), that's still no reason to act like a w*nker of the first order.

the-goon2 wrote:Looks like France have just received another harsh lesson yet again.

Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world.

What a truly horrible individual you are. Pretty stupid, and inaccurate as well.

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Looks like France have just received another harsh lesson yet again.

Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world.

What a truly horrible individual you are. Pretty stupid, and inaccurate as well.

What's inaccurate?

I hear a lot of emotional incontinence, but very little actual substance.

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Looks like France have just received another harsh lesson yet again.

Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world.

What a truly horrible individual you are. Pretty stupid, and inaccurate as well.

What's inaccurate?

I hear a lot of emotional incontinence, but very little actual substance.

By emotional incontinence, I assume you mean several normal, everyday, reasonably intelligent folks deciding that you're a nasty piece of work. In which case, yes, that is what you hear and refuse to reflect on.

Alright. I’ll bite.

Frances prison population is pretty standard, and they have a higher % of French nationals incarcerated (75) than we do British nationals (73), so I dont know what point you think that makes.

They also dont seem to have any more terror related deaths than we do per year. They’ve certainly had worse attacks than us, but you need to go back years.

No-go zones are a racist myth, completely unfounded and unprovable. They’ve tried claiming that there are no-go zones in the UK aswell and its dogwhistleing, gaslighting cowpat.

So I fail to see how any of this justifies the racist Love sacks you spouted. Although Im sure you’ll have your own facts and figures to vindicate yourself.

Samo wrote:Alright. I’ll bite.

Frances prison population is pretty standard, and they have a higher % of French nationals incarcerated (75) than we do British nationals (73), so I dont know what point you think that makes.

They also dont seem to have any more terror related deaths than we do per year. They’ve certainly had worse attacks than us, but you need to go back years.

No-go zones are a racist myth, completely unfounded and unprovable. They’ve tried claiming that there are no-go zones in the UK aswell and its dogwhistleing, gaslighting cowpat.

So I fail to see how any of this justifies the racist Love sacks you spouted. Although Im sure you’ll have your own facts and figures to vindicate yourself.

1. Nationality proves nothing- a dog born in a stable is not a horse. And even still, your "debunking" statistics are damning. Isn't 25% of your prison population being foreign kind of shocking? Is 25% of France, non French? The fact that you think you've got me by pointing out that the UK is just as terrible is actually hilarious.

2. Who is "us", I'm not British. Why didn't you compare France's terror deaths to Poland? Big nation, in the EU. And this statement is also damning "They’ve certainly had worse attacks than us, but you need to go back years", so France has had years and years of this issue, and what's being done about it? And they just got another.

3. No go zones are real. This is from 20 years ago, I doubt it's got any better. This is just true, you make yourself look even more stupid by refusing to acknowledge reality.
https://www.newsweek.com/europes-time-bomb-115189

4. More emotional diarrhea. Maybe calm down before you type.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Looks like France have just received another harsh lesson yet again.

Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world.

What a truly horrible individual you are. Pretty stupid, and inaccurate as well.

What's inaccurate?

I hear a lot of emotional incontinence, but very little actual substance.

By emotional incontinence, I assume you mean several normal, everyday, reasonably intelligent folks deciding that you're a nasty piece of work. In which case, yes, that is what you hear and refuse to reflect on.

Haha, ok. So arbitrarily define what I wrote to not mean the words I wrote. I guess that's easier than actually addressing what I wrote.

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Looks like France have just received another harsh lesson yet again.

Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world.

What a truly horrible individual you are. Pretty stupid, and inaccurate as well.

What's inaccurate?

I hear a lot of emotional incontinence, but very little actual substance.

By emotional incontinence, I assume you mean several normal, everyday, reasonably intelligent folks deciding that you're a nasty piece of work. In which case, yes, that is what you hear and refuse to reflect on.

Haha, ok. So arbitrarily define what I wrote to not mean the words I wrote. I guess that's easier than actually addressing what I wrote.

OK, so you meant something different. Whoopee do. Doesn't change the fact that most of the people on here are all reasonable, friendly people and think you're a pretty horrible person. That doesn't bother you because d1ckheads are usually the least likely people to be self-aware enough to realise or admit they are d1ckheads.

d!ckhead, C*ck, wacist = terms used by lefties when referring to ppl they have political disagreements with, but can't address their arguments.

I guess I can do it too.

I know you don't like me. I'm ok with that.

the-goon2 wrote:d!ckhead, C*ck, wacist = terms used by lefties when referring to ppl they have political disagreements with, but can't address their arguments.

I guess I can do it too.

I know you don't like me. I'm ok with that.

I'm no leftie and would use all those terms to describe you.

the-goon2 wrote:d!ckhead, C*ck, wacist = terms used by lefties when referring to ppl they have political disagreements with, but can't address their arguments.

I guess I can do it too.

I know you don't like me. I'm ok with that.

There's lots of left wing d1ckheads as well, and lots of d1ckheads with no political persuasion. And lots of decent right-wingers. It's not about politics or arguments, it's about how people behave and act and whether they are decent human beings or not. You don't seem to be.

Ok, you don't like me, noted. Can we move on now?

Has mass immigration from Muslim world/Africa to France been a net positive or negative for France and it's people.

Shall we have a list of pros and cons.

the-goon2 wrote:Ok, you don't like me, noted. Can we move on now?

Has mass immigration from Muslim world/Africa to France been a net positive or negative for France and it's people.

Shall we have a list of pros and cons.

First perhaps we should have a list of pros and cons as to why I should bother.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Ok, you don't like me, noted. Can we move on now?

Has mass immigration from Muslim world/Africa to France been a net positive or negative for France and it's people.

Shall we have a list of pros and cons.

First perhaps we should have a list of pros and cons as to why I should bother.

Just ignore him. I've already given him more attention than I should have. Once he realises he's not getting a reaction he'll hopefully Frak off back to whatever hole he crawled out of.

Samo wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Ok, you don't like me, noted. Can we move on now?

Has mass immigration from Muslim world/Africa to France been a net positive or negative for France and it's people.

Shall we have a list of pros and cons.

First perhaps we should have a list of pros and cons as to why I should bother.

Just ignore him.  I've already given him more attention than I should have.  Once he realises he's not getting a reaction he'll hopefully Frak off back to whatever hole he crawled out of.

It's good that the Off Topic section is such a hospitable and friendly place where we can all discuss modern events in a respectful way..

Long may it continue..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Ok, you don't like me, noted. Can we move on now?

Has mass immigration from Muslim world/Africa to France been a net positive or negative for France and it's people.

Shall we have a list of pros and cons.

First perhaps we should have a list of pros and cons as to why I should bother.

Just ignore him.  I've already given him more attention than I should have.  Once he realises he's not getting a reaction he'll hopefully Frak off back to whatever hole he crawled out of.

It's good that the Off Topic section is such a hospitable and friendly place where we can all discuss modern events in a respectful way..

Long may it continue..

Well, thing is Truss, that in general we do all get along in a respectful way (albeit with disagreements/banter etc), regardless of right-wing, centrist or left-wing beliefs. What does that tell you about the occasional poster that no-one gets along with?

Poor Boris.

Yet another political witch-hunt, eh?

Today has been a good day all round.

This idea of France "importing the third world" is misplaced.  

Let us remind ourselves that what happened in Syria was another Western backed regime change operation this time to get rid of London educated Dr Bashar Al Assad in which US-Western Economic Sanctions and US-NATO military support for various anti-Assad forces resulted in a thirteen year war in which over half a million Syrian civilians were killed and 7 million Syrians displaced to become refugees as their country was torn apart.  

With Dr Bashar Al Assad's recent return to the Arab League the war is essentially over except that the United States still occupies the resource rich Eastern part of Syria - about one third of Syria's territory containing the oil and agricultural rich lands.  

The United States and the West still have Syria under economic sanctions denying the Syrians access to their own oil and agricultural resources and these sanctions were maintained during the recent devastating Earthquakes to hit both Turkey and Western Syria resulting in a much higher death toll for the Syrians than was necessary.

Very unwelcome resignations today for Sunak. Dorries also resigned, but that's been overshadowed. Bit of a strange resignation as she was expected to be honoured in Johnson's list, but she wasn't and resigned from being an MP in a huff. Strange.

Dorries' constituency of Mid Bedfordshire was 59.8% Tory, 21.7% Labour, 12.6% Lib Dem at the last GE. It's a seat that has been Tory since the 30s, it even remained blue in the 1997 landslide. So it would be a tremendous scalp for Starmer if Labour won the by-election. Even with Labour's polling advantage, I wouldn't expect this to go anything other than blue at a GE, but in a by-election it's well within Labour's capabilities. If we remember the Tiverton by-election, the Tories won by a majority of 40.7% at the 2019 GE, but lost it to the LDs in that by-election. Mid Bedfordshire is a 38.1% majority. So a dollop of tactical voting and some Tory reluctance and Starmer will be laughing.

Uxbridge, Johnson's constituency, was far narrower in 2019 - Tories 52.6% to Labour's 37.6%, with a negligible third party vote. This should be an easy win for Labour at the by-election. Ordinarily, it wouldn't be worth trumpeting, but as it's a former PM's constituency, it'll be a big PR win.

Johnson's resignation statement was laughable. Hopefully it's the last we'll see of him in political life, although I believe he will attempt a comeback at some point. His political career hit a sudden and shocking decline - just four and a half years ago he won a big majority and seemed set for a Thatcher or Blair length as PM. Now he's disgraced and not even an MP. Good riddance.

Labour's lead remaining stable, generally around 13-18%, though some polls have them as high as 21%.

It has been rumored that Boris Johnson would like to be the next Secretary General of NATO when former Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg steps down in October to become Governor of the Central Bank of Norway.

Definitely sounds like Johnson is jumping before he’s pushed. Fingers crossed the committee bar him from holding a seat again, so he can disappear once and for all.

Good riddance.

I doubt we've seen last of Boris. I bet Sunak is sick of the hearing about him.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Today has been a good day all round.

Perhaps it has. Credit to India. They fought back well but I still believe it could have been a better day for us.

If only Smith hadn't thrown away his wicket with such a poor shot. I'm still hoping for a better day today.

There's certainly room for improvement.

Coming late to the party but it is all too common that higher proportions of ethnic groups end up in jail. Poverty is one cause. Expectations and Inherent bias is another, I.e. racism. That of course can also mean fewer opportunities to make a living hence poverty etc.
Our resident idiot seems to be claiming that the impact of racism is a reason to have racist attitudes.

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Looks like France have just received another harsh lesson yet again.

Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world.

What a truly horrible individual you are. Pretty stupid, and inaccurate as well.

What's inaccurate?

I hear a lot of emotional incontinence, but very little actual substance.

You're not really worth the effort. Off top of my head, Sweden is part of Schengen, as is France. France, presumably, had a responsibility to allow this guy in and apply for asylum under international law, which they did. This is not 'importing the 3rd world'. Secondarily, your blanket association of so-called 3rd world w/ all things bad is abhorrent. Bit like you appear to be, to be honest...

the-goon2 wrote:

Samo wrote:Alright. I’ll bite.

Frances prison population is pretty standard, and they have a higher % of French nationals incarcerated (75) than we do British nationals (73), so I dont know what point you think that makes.

They also dont seem to have any more terror related deaths than we do per year. They’ve certainly had worse attacks than us, but you need to go back years.

No-go zones are a racist myth, completely unfounded and unprovable. They’ve tried claiming that there are no-go zones in the UK aswell and its dogwhistleing, gaslighting cowpat.

So I fail to see how any of this justifies the racist Love sacks you spouted. Although Im sure you’ll have your own facts and figures to vindicate yourself.

1. Nationality proves nothing- a dog born in a stable is not a horse. And even still, your "debunking" statistics are damning. Isn't 25% of your prison population being foreign kind of shocking? Is 25% of France, non French? The fact that you think you've got me by pointing out that the UK is just as terrible is actually hilarious.

2. Who is "us", I'm not British. Why didn't you compare France's terror deaths to Poland? Big nation, in the EU. And this statement is also damning "They’ve certainly had worse attacks than us, but you need to go back years", so France has had years and years of this issue, and what's being done about it? And they just got another.

3. No go zones are real. This is from 20 years ago, I doubt it's got any better. This is just true, you make yourself look even more stupid by refusing to acknowledge reality.
https://www.newsweek.com/europes-time-bomb-115189

4. More emotional diarrhea. Maybe calm down before you type.

Thank **** for that.

Blimey, another resignation as Nigel Adams (I haven't heard of him, either) goes. And rumours of more resignations to come...

Adams' constituency of Selby was 60.3% Tory and 24.6% Labour at the 2019 GE, so a majority slightly smaller than Mid Bedfordshire and Tiverton, meaning another tough job for Sunak to keep the seat blue.

Three by-election losses for the Tories and it might be like dominoes. But if Sunak can hold on to Mid Bedfordshire and Selby, it will increase the doubts in Labour over Starmer and their potential of winning in 2024.