Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So this thread is kind of like a notice board. Not really a discussion thread at all. You’re not really open to other viewpoints that might shift your perspective?" I would be interested to discuss how you can justify or excuse corruption and/or ineptitude. I think it should be perfectly possible to do that without resorting to “xyz did it and they are just as bad” because that isn’t an excuse or justification. What’s that old saying “two wrongs don’t make a right”. So feel free to discuss! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So this thread is kind of like a notice board. Not really a discussion thread at all. You’re not really open to other viewpoints that might shift your perspective? I would be interested to discuss how you can justify or excuse corruption and/or ineptitude. I think it should be perfectly possible to do that without resorting to “xyz did it and they are just as bad” because that isn’t an excuse or justification. What’s that old saying “two wrongs don’t make a right”. So feel free to discuss!" They can't justify it. It's why they always resort to distraction/evasion/whataboutism etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PMQ challenge from Ian Blackford “Tory ministers were using COVID-19 contracts for constitutional campaigning instead of saving lives. We need an inquiry into this gross misuse of public money, these contracts were meant for things like PPE and to help our NHS. Those responsible must be held to account.” Apparently revealed in high court papers that Gove diverted over £500k meant for PPE to polling companies run by cronies and ex colleagues." Yes but something about corbyn and Abbott. Its just shows how much of a sham this country is. In a fully functioning ciuntry that buffoon would be on the stand and he wouldnt be allowed to go,until he had actually answered the question. It's a joke. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May I just observe that the whataboutism in this thread so far is the usual crew claiming that someone will say what about, and getting upset about it. Just lol. "Don’t you start! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May I just observe that the whataboutism in this thread so far is the usual crew claiming that someone will say what about, and getting upset about it. Just lol.
Don’t you start!"He's right though. If you look at pt.1 of this thread it was full of it before anyone even thought about commenting. It's like they've run out of debate and every thread turns into the same old  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May I just observe that the whataboutism in this thread so far is the usual crew claiming that someone will say what about, and getting upset about it. Just lol.
Don’t you start!
He's right though. If you look at pt.1 of this thread it was full of it before anyone even thought about commenting.
It's like they've run out of debate and every thread turns into the same old "Probally something to do with anyone pointing out something the gmnt have done the standard response is..but what about Pointing out it doesnt mean it doesnt happen over and over again. Corbyn has probally been mentioned more on here in the last year, than when he was leader. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May I just observe that the whataboutism in this thread so far is the usual crew claiming that someone will say what about, and getting upset about it. Just lol.
Don’t you start!
He's right though. If you look at pt.1 of this thread it was full of it before anyone even thought about commenting.
It's like they've run out of debate and every thread turns into the same old
Probally something to do with anyone pointing out something the gmnt have done the standard response is..but what about
Pointing out it doesnt mean it doesnt happen over and over again.
Corbyn has probally been mentioned more on here in the last year, than when he was leader."Has that happened here or in pt.1? It actually happens way more often from your mob than it does from others. As I've already said 'you have no debate'. Yoire the first to complain about whataboutery and deflection yet you're the worst for it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Ministers will push to privatise Channel 4 in TV shake-up. This is pure spite from a government that runs scared from journalistic scrutiny.“ " Restrictions to be placed on others Like Netflix etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May I just observe that the whataboutism in this thread so far is the usual crew claiming that someone will say what about, and getting upset about it. Just lol.
Don’t you start!
He's right though. If you look at pt.1 of this thread it was full of it before anyone even thought about commenting.
It's like they've run out of debate and every thread turns into the same old "Sorry too busy oggling your pics to reply! Still makes me chuckle sometimes - how surreal it is to be discussing politics or the virus when our avatars are full of cock, pussy, tits and arse! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bercow: ‘I've never known a worse government than this. I've never seen one causing so much damage to the fabric of our society. I felt it necessary to make it clear that, so far as am concerned, we have to get behind the opposition and defeat it.’ “Please, please, pleeeeaaasssse can I have a peerage” " Why would YOU want a Peerage ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bercow: ‘I've never known a worse government than this. I've never seen one causing so much damage to the fabric of our society. I felt it necessary to make it clear that, so far as am concerned, we have to get behind the opposition and defeat it.’" Bercow: “Please, please, pleeeeaaasssse can I have a peerage” Labour: “Well John, you’re going to have to show us how much you really want it… you can start by saying some bad things about them nasty tories and oh it might be an idea not to be splashing out on expensive tickets to posh tennis tournaments - it’s not a good look, what with you being a socialist now”  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May I just observe that the whataboutism in this thread so far is the usual crew claiming that someone will say what about, and getting upset about it. Just lol.
Don’t you start!
He's right though. If you look at pt.1 of this thread it was full of it before anyone even thought about commenting.
It's like they've run out of debate and every thread turns into the same old
Probally something to do with anyone pointing out something the gmnt have done the standard response is..but what about
Pointing out it doesnt mean it doesnt happen over and over again.
Corbyn has probally been mentioned more on here in the last year, than when he was leader.
Has that happened here or in pt.1?
It actually happens way more often from your mob than it does from others.
As I've already said 'you have no debate'.
Yoire the first to complain about whataboutery and deflection yet you're the worst for it.
"My mob
Course I am..there isnt a day goes by when I dont start a thread about what those evil Europeans are upto now.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bercow: ‘I've never known a worse government than this. I've never seen one causing so much damage to the fabric of our society. I felt it necessary to make it clear that, so far as am concerned, we have to get behind the opposition and defeat it.’ Bercow: “Please, please, pleeeeaaasssse can I have a peerage” Labour: “Well John, you’re going to have to show us how much you really want it… you can start by saying some bad things about them nasty tories and oh it might be an idea not to be splashing out on expensive tickets to posh tennis tournaments - it’s not a good look, what with you being a socialist now” "Wimbledon starts next week so we shall have to keep an eye out for Big John  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today parliament voted on a new offence of ‘criminal exploitation of children’ that would have sent adults who involve children in crime to prison for 13 years. The Tories voted AGAINST it. Under the Tories, criminals have never had it so good." You sure about that? Can't see a reference anywhere...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can`t help feeling the Government is laughing at the General Public. " You are right. Allowing the EUFA delegates in without restrictions might just be the tipping point where people realise that levelling up actually meant giving privileged people space away from the masses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can`t help feeling the Government is laughing at the General Public. You are right. Allowing the EUFA delegates in without restrictions might just be the tipping point where people realise that levelling up actually meant giving privileged people space away from the masses." It isn’t an issue at the moment as joe public is only thinking about England being one of the teams taking part in the semi and the final…. that’s all that matters … footballs coming home etc etc … When England are beaten by Germany on Tuesday, and so won’t be involved in the games the government has changed the law so as to allow the VIPs into the country without quarantine …then the wailing will commence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today parliament voted on a new offence of ‘criminal exploitation of children’ that would have sent adults who involve children in crime to prison for 13 years. The Tories voted AGAINST it. Under the Tories, criminals have never had it so good. You sure about that? Can't see a reference anywhere... "Unless someone provides a reference for this I’m assuming all the other claims ITT are made up as well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today parliament voted on a new offence of ‘criminal exploitation of children’ that would have sent adults who involve children in crime to prison for 13 years. The Tories voted AGAINST it. Under the Tories, criminals have never had it so good." You may want to check this post! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today parliament voted on a new offence of ‘criminal exploitation of children’ that would have sent adults who involve children in crime to prison for 13 years. The Tories voted AGAINST it. Under the Tories, criminals have never had it so good. You sure about that? Can't see a reference anywhere...
Unless someone provides a reference for this I’m assuming all the other claims ITT are made up as well "Source was Peter Kyle MP. Parly voting will be listed in Hansard. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today parliament voted on a new offence of ‘criminal exploitation of children’ that would have sent adults who involve children in crime to prison for 13 years. The Tories voted AGAINST it. Under the Tories, criminals have never had it so good. You sure about that? Can't see a reference anywhere...
Unless someone provides a reference for this I’m assuming all the other claims ITT are made up as well
Source was Peter Kyle MP. Parly voting will be listed in Hansard."It was an Amendment, not a Bill. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today parliament voted on a new offence of ‘criminal exploitation of children’ that would have sent adults who involve children in crime to prison for 13 years. The Tories voted AGAINST it. Under the Tories, criminals have never had it so good. You sure about that? Can't see a reference anywhere...
Unless someone provides a reference for this I’m assuming all the other claims ITT are made up as well
Source was Peter Kyle MP. Parly voting will be listed in Hansard.
It was an Amendment, not a Bill. "And your point is? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today parliament voted on a new offence of ‘criminal exploitation of children’ that would have sent adults who involve children in crime to prison for 13 years. The Tories voted AGAINST it. Under the Tories, criminals have never had it so good. You sure about that? Can't see a reference anywhere...
Unless someone provides a reference for this I’m assuming all the other claims ITT are made up as well
Source was Peter Kyle MP. Parly voting will be listed in Hansard.
It was an Amendment, not a Bill.
And your point is?"I haven't seen the vote on this yet but maybe MPs that voted against it, thought that the proposed measures were robust enough in the PCSB without the need to alter it. Maybe they want to bring an amendment of their own. Thats why Bills go through several readings and Commitee stage. It allows for adjustment and tinkering but to say that "the Torys voted against tough sentences against child exploiters" is largely disingenuous. The test will come when the process is completed and the Bill goes before the HoC for approval. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today parliament voted on a new offence of ‘criminal exploitation of children’ that would have sent adults who involve children in crime to prison for 13 years. The Tories voted AGAINST it. Under the Tories, criminals have never had it so good. You sure about that? Can't see a reference anywhere...
Unless someone provides a reference for this I’m assuming all the other claims ITT are made up as well
Source was Peter Kyle MP. Parly voting will be listed in Hansard.
It was an Amendment, not a Bill.
And your point is?
I haven't seen the vote on this yet but maybe MPs that voted against it, thought that the proposed measures were robust enough in the PCSB without the need to alter it.
Maybe they want to bring an amendment of their own.
Thats why Bills go through several readings and Commitee stage. It allows for adjustment and tinkering but to say that "the Torys voted against tough sentences against child exploiters" is largely disingenuous.
The test will come when the process is completed and the Bill goes before the HoC for approval. "Indeed Disingenuous stuff as usual, I don’t really feel the need to fact check this thread more than once a day because nothing at all stands up to even the most casual scrutiny. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today parliament voted on a new offence of ‘criminal exploitation of children’ that would have sent adults who involve children in crime to prison for 13 years. The Tories voted AGAINST it. Under the Tories, criminals have never had it so good. You sure about that? Can't see a reference anywhere...
Unless someone provides a reference for this I’m assuming all the other claims ITT are made up as well
Source was Peter Kyle MP. Parly voting will be listed in Hansard.
It was an Amendment, not a Bill.
And your point is?
I haven't seen the vote on this yet but maybe MPs that voted against it, thought that the proposed measures were robust enough in the PCSB without the need to alter it.
Maybe they want to bring an amendment of their own.
Thats why Bills go through several readings and Commitee stage. It allows for adjustment and tinkering but to say that "the Torys voted against tough sentences against child exploiters" is largely disingenuous.
The test will come when the process is completed and the Bill goes before the HoC for approval.
Indeed
Disingenuous stuff as usual, I don’t really feel the need to fact check this thread more than once a day because nothing at all stands up to even the most casual scrutiny."Lol a self appointed quality control manager! Hardly disingenuous. A quote from an MP present at the vote. Irrelevant if it was an amendment, that is how legislation is developed. Note there has been no comment on any other points either! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today parliament voted on a new offence of ‘criminal exploitation of children’ that would have sent adults who involve children in crime to prison for 13 years. The Tories voted AGAINST it. Under the Tories, criminals have never had it so good. You sure about that? Can't see a reference anywhere...
Unless someone provides a reference for this I’m assuming all the other claims ITT are made up as well
Source was Peter Kyle MP. Parly voting will be listed in Hansard.
It was an Amendment, not a Bill.
And your point is?
I haven't seen the vote on this yet but maybe MPs that voted against it, thought that the proposed measures were robust enough in the PCSB without the need to alter it.
Maybe they want to bring an amendment of their own.
Thats why Bills go through several readings and Commitee stage. It allows for adjustment and tinkering but to say that "the Torys voted against tough sentences against child exploiters" is largely disingenuous.
The test will come when the process is completed and the Bill goes before the HoC for approval.
Indeed
Disingenuous stuff as usual, I don’t really feel the need to fact check this thread more than once a day because nothing at all stands up to even the most casual scrutiny.
Lol a self appointed quality control manager!
Hardly disingenuous. A quote from an MP present at the vote. Irrelevant if it was an amendment, that is how legislation is developed.
Note there has been no comment on any other points either!"What’s the full text of the complete amendment? Rather than your interpretation of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today parliament voted on a new offence of ‘criminal exploitation of children’ that would have sent adults who involve children in crime to prison for 13 years. The Tories voted AGAINST it. Under the Tories, criminals have never had it so good. You sure about that? Can't see a reference anywhere...
Unless someone provides a reference for this I’m assuming all the other claims ITT are made up as well
Source was Peter Kyle MP. Parly voting will be listed in Hansard.
It was an Amendment, not a Bill.
And your point is?
I haven't seen the vote on this yet but maybe MPs that voted against it, thought that the proposed measures were robust enough in the PCSB without the need to alter it.
Maybe they want to bring an amendment of their own.
Thats why Bills go through several readings and Commitee stage. It allows for adjustment and tinkering but to say that "the Torys voted against tough sentences against child exploiters" is largely disingenuous.
The test will come when the process is completed and the Bill goes before the HoC for approval.
Indeed
Disingenuous stuff as usual, I don’t really feel the need to fact check this thread more than once a day because nothing at all stands up to even the most casual scrutiny.
Lol a self appointed quality control manager!
Hardly disingenuous. A quote from an MP present at the vote. Irrelevant if it was an amendment, that is how legislation is developed.
Note there has been no comment on any other points either!
What’s the full text of the complete amendment?
Rather than your interpretation of it."What am I your secretary? You do your own research! I am satisfied that Peter Kyle MP, who I quoted, knows more about what was happening than anyone on Fabswingers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today parliament voted on a new offence of ‘criminal exploitation of children’ that would have sent adults who involve children in crime to prison for 13 years. The Tories voted AGAINST it. Under the Tories, criminals have never had it so good. You sure about that? Can't see a reference anywhere...
Unless someone provides a reference for this I’m assuming all the other claims ITT are made up as well
Source was Peter Kyle MP. Parly voting will be listed in Hansard.
It was an Amendment, not a Bill.
And your point is?
I haven't seen the vote on this yet but maybe MPs that voted against it, thought that the proposed measures were robust enough in the PCSB without the need to alter it.
Maybe they want to bring an amendment of their own.
Thats why Bills go through several readings and Commitee stage. It allows for adjustment and tinkering but to say that "the Torys voted against tough sentences against child exploiters" is largely disingenuous.
The test will come when the process is completed and the Bill goes before the HoC for approval.
Indeed
Disingenuous stuff as usual, I don’t really feel the need to fact check this thread more than once a day because nothing at all stands up to even the most casual scrutiny.
Lol a self appointed quality control manager!
Hardly disingenuous. A quote from an MP present at the vote. Irrelevant if it was an amendment, that is how legislation is developed.
Note there has been no comment on any other points either!
What’s the full text of the complete amendment?
Rather than your interpretation of it.
What am I your secretary? You do your own research! I am satisfied that Peter Kyle MP, who I quoted, knows more about what was happening than anyone on Fabswingers. "I’ll take that as a didn’t happen | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today parliament voted on a new offence of ‘criminal exploitation of children’ that would have sent adults who involve children in crime to prison for 13 years. The Tories voted AGAINST it. Under the Tories, criminals have never had it so good. You sure about that? Can't see a reference anywhere...
Unless someone provides a reference for this I’m assuming all the other claims ITT are made up as well
Source was Peter Kyle MP. Parly voting will be listed in Hansard.
It was an Amendment, not a Bill.
And your point is?
I haven't seen the vote on this yet but maybe MPs that voted against it, thought that the proposed measures were robust enough in the PCSB without the need to alter it.
Maybe they want to bring an amendment of their own.
Thats why Bills go through several readings and Commitee stage. It allows for adjustment and tinkering but to say that "the Torys voted against tough sentences against child exploiters" is largely disingenuous.
The test will come when the process is completed and the Bill goes before the HoC for approval.
Indeed
Disingenuous stuff as usual, I don’t really feel the need to fact check this thread more than once a day because nothing at all stands up to even the most casual scrutiny.
Lol a self appointed quality control manager!
Hardly disingenuous. A quote from an MP present at the vote. Irrelevant if it was an amendment, that is how legislation is developed.
Note there has been no comment on any other points either!
What’s the full text of the complete amendment?
Rather than your interpretation of it.
What am I your secretary? You do your own research! I am satisfied that Peter Kyle MP, who I quoted, knows more about what was happening than anyone on Fabswingers.
I’ll take that as a didn’t happen "Bizarre thinking! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Today parliament voted on a new offence of ‘criminal exploitation of children’ that would have sent adults who involve children in crime to prison for 13 years. The Tories voted AGAINST it. Under the Tories, criminals have never had it so good. You sure about that? Can't see a reference anywhere...
Unless someone provides a reference for this I’m assuming all the other claims ITT are made up as well
Source was Peter Kyle MP. Parly voting will be listed in Hansard.
It was an Amendment, not a Bill.
And your point is?
I haven't seen the vote on this yet but maybe MPs that voted against it, thought that the proposed measures were robust enough in the PCSB without the need to alter it.
Maybe they want to bring an amendment of their own.
Thats why Bills go through several readings and Commitee stage. It allows for adjustment and tinkering but to say that "the Torys voted against tough sentences against child exploiters" is largely disingenuous.
The test will come when the process is completed and the Bill goes before the HoC for approval.
Indeed
Disingenuous stuff as usual, I don’t really feel the need to fact check this thread more than once a day because nothing at all stands up to even the most casual scrutiny.
Lol a self appointed quality control manager!
Hardly disingenuous. A quote from an MP present at the vote. Irrelevant if it was an amendment, that is how legislation is developed.
Note there has been no comment on any other points either!
What’s the full text of the complete amendment?
Rather than your interpretation of it.
What am I your secretary? You do your own research! I am satisfied that Peter Kyle MP, who I quoted, knows more about what was happening than anyone on Fabswingers.
I’ll take that as a didn’t happen
Bizarre thinking!"Dont feed the Troll | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More Tory corruption brought to light: oil and gas donors gave the Tories 400k while fossil fuel licenses were being considered. Surprisingly, oil and gas licenses were then issued. In other news, the UK is gonna be hosting a summit about cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Just repeating that since I haven't seen a Tory defender even try to defend it yet." Can you say it again so they have the chance to read it twice Just in case they missed it the 1st time . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More Tory corruption brought to light: oil and gas donors gave the Tories 400k while fossil fuel licenses were being considered. Surprisingly, oil and gas licenses were then issued. In other news, the UK is gonna be hosting a summit about cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Just repeating that since I haven't seen a Tory defender even try to defend it yet. Can you say it again so they have the chance to read it twice Just in case they missed it the 1st time ." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More Tory corruption brought to light: oil and gas donors gave the Tories 400k while fossil fuel licenses were being considered. Surprisingly, oil and gas licenses were then issued. In other news, the UK is gonna be hosting a summit about cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Just repeating that since I haven't seen a Tory defender even try to defend it yet. Can you say it again so they have the chance to read it twice Just in case they missed it the 1st time . "Ah go on Say it again | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmmm Sajid Javid is the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. As well as being an MP, Javid is a highly paid senior advisor to the US bank JP Morgan. JP Morgan is a major player in private healthcare. Of course there is absolutely no conflict of interest there!" Boris Sacked him didnt he ? Should we trust the PM's Moral Judgement ? You know as a Leaver & all that ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmmm Sajid Javid is the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. As well as being an MP, Javid is a highly paid senior advisor to the US bank JP Morgan. JP Morgan is a major player in private healthcare. Of course there is absolutely no conflict of interest there! Boris Sacked him didnt he ? Should we trust the PM's Moral Judgement ? You know as a Leaver & all that ? "It was funny when I said it Come up with your own jokes, cheers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmmm Sajid Javid is the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. As well as being an MP, Javid is a highly paid senior advisor to the US bank JP Morgan. JP Morgan is a major player in private healthcare. Of course there is absolutely no conflict of interest there! Boris Sacked him didnt he ? Should we trust the PM's Moral Judgement ? You know as a Leaver & all that ?
It was funny when I said it
Come up with your own jokes, cheers "Why ? When i can just regurgitate sh*te that you spew out . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmmm Sajid Javid is the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. As well as being an MP, Javid is a highly paid senior advisor to the US bank JP Morgan. JP Morgan is a major player in private healthcare. Of course there is absolutely no conflict of interest there! Boris Sacked him didnt he ? Should we trust the PM's Moral Judgement ? You know as a Leaver & all that ? "No, SJ quit after a power struggle with Dominic Cummings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories passed a Bill yesterday in the commons which effectively outlaws legal protest. Not a single newspaper has this on the front page today! However, you might not have to wear a mask in Tesco next week so they're all crowing about "freedom" unironically." Considering all the protests. It has very much slipped under the radar. I thought it was miles off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And to add... The tories are seeking to increase refugee jail time (by up to 700%), but they voted against a Labour amendment to Policing bill that wanted to increase minimum sentencing for rapists? Just what kind of monsters are they?" And the people who openly support them doing all this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories passed a Bill yesterday in the commons which effectively outlaws legal protest. Not a single newspaper has this on the front page today! However, you might not have to wear a mask in Tesco next week so they're all crowing about "freedom" unironically. Considering all the protests. It has very much slipped under the radar. I thought it was miles off. " The PCSC Bill is at Report stage. Its not even been to the HoL yet! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories passed a Bill yesterday in the commons which effectively outlaws legal protest. Not a single newspaper has this on the front page today! However, you might not have to wear a mask in Tesco next week so they're all crowing about "freedom" unironically. Considering all the protests. It has very much slipped under the radar. I thought it was miles off. The PCSC Bill is at Report stage. Its not even been to the HoL yet! " Ah ok. Just reading why the minimum sentencing was voted down. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The wearing of masks will no longer be compulsory, as we wish to give people more freedom. What used to be legitimate protest will now be punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This Government on the same day." No, again you are trying to fit facts to suit your political narrative. The PCSC Bill has not been passed and is not law. Legitimate protest will not be made illegal in that bill anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The wearing of masks will no longer be compulsory, as we wish to give people more freedom. What used to be legitimate protest will now be punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This Government on the same day. No, again you are trying to fit facts to suit your political narrative. The PCSC Bill has not been passed and is not law. Legitimate protest will not be made illegal in that bill anyway. " So to clarify. They have proposed the bill but its not law yet? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The wearing of masks will no longer be compulsory, as we wish to give people more freedom. What used to be legitimate protest will now be punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This Government on the same day. No, again you are trying to fit facts to suit your political narrative. The PCSC Bill has not been passed and is not law. Legitimate protest will not be made illegal in that bill anyway. So to clarify. They have proposed the bill but its not law yet?" Read the bill it does not take away your freedom to protest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The wearing of masks will no longer be compulsory, as we wish to give people more freedom. What used to be legitimate protest will now be punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This Government on the same day. No, again you are trying to fit facts to suit your political narrative. The PCSC Bill has not been passed and is not law. Legitimate protest will not be made illegal in that bill anyway. So to clarify. They have proposed the bill but its not law yet?" Thats correct. Without looking, I think its passed its 3rd reading in the HoC, and should be going down to the HoL. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The wearing of masks will no longer be compulsory, as we wish to give people more freedom. What used to be legitimate protest will now be punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This Government on the same day. No, again you are trying to fit facts to suit your political narrative. The PCSC Bill has not been passed and is not law. Legitimate protest will not be made illegal in that bill anyway. So to clarify. They have proposed the bill but its not law yet? Thats correct. Without looking, I think its passed its 3rd reading in the HoC, and should be going down to the HoL. " So,and sorry to sound dense but surely if they have proposed it,they want it to become law.? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The wearing of masks will no longer be compulsory, as we wish to give people more freedom. What used to be legitimate protest will now be punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This Government on the same day. No, again you are trying to fit facts to suit your political narrative. The PCSC Bill has not been passed and is not law. Legitimate protest will not be made illegal in that bill anyway. So to clarify. They have proposed the bill but its not law yet? Thats correct. Without looking, I think its passed its 3rd reading in the HoC, and should be going down to the HoL. So,and sorry to sound dense but surely if they have proposed it,they want it to become law.?" A Bill will morph as it goes tbrough procedure. What is proposed may not be actually what happens. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So they are just proposing being banged up for a decade for vandalism for shits snd giggles? Does seem a rather strange token to push through such an important piece of legislation? You would have thought they would have had their hands full with covid and brexit?" Again, you make the mistake of confusing minimum and maximum sentences. Giving all the tools to the judiciary, doesn't mean that they will use them. It just gives them that option. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So they are just proposing being banged up for a decade for vandalism for shits snd giggles? Does seem a rather strange token to push through such an important piece of legislation? You would have thought they would have had their hands full with covid and brexit? Again, you make the mistake of confusing minimum and maximum sentences. Giving all the tools to the judiciary, doesn't mean that they will use them. It just gives them that option. " Surely if you have a maximum sentence, its there to.be used? I'm just curious how will they determine the severity of spray painting a statue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So they are just proposing being banged up for a decade for vandalism for shits snd giggles? Does seem a rather strange token to push through such an important piece of legislation? You would have thought they would have had their hands full with covid and brexit? Again, you make the mistake of confusing minimum and maximum sentences. Giving all the tools to the judiciary, doesn't mean that they will use them. It just gives them that option. Surely if you have a maximum sentence, its there to.be used? I'm just curious how will they determine the severity of spray painting a statue." Destroying or damaging property other than an offence of arson already carries a maximum term of life under Criminal Damage Act 1971 s.1(2). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In fairness to them I dont see a problem with the bill limiting legitimate protests and banging someone up for a decade for a spot of vandalism All seems perfectly reasonable. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think MPs should only receive their salary and expenses and nothing else. The idea that the can be paid as a director/consultant by private firms is always going to lead to bias, corruption and a failure to do what is morally right. They are being paid to run the country not lobby for businesses whilst lining their own pockets. " Spot on I'd lay them more but not let them take any positions which are open to abuse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think MPs should only receive their salary and expenses and nothing else. The idea that the can be paid as a director/consultant by private firms is always going to lead to bias, corruption and a failure to do what is morally right. They are being paid to run the country not lobby for businesses whilst lining their own pockets. Spot on I'd lay them more but not let them take any positions which are open to abuse." Pay | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this country is brill I think some people want to look on the bright side of life ,d,dd,d,d" It’s a great Country. It welcomed me and allowed me to become who I am now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this country is brill I think some people want to look on the bright side of life ,d,dd,d,d It’s a great Country. It welcomed me and allowed me to become who I am now. " And that is related to gmnt corruption in what way exactly? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Two facts conservatives have been in power for 40 out of last 50 years. In that time inequality on all metrics got worse. left or right those are facts. Question is with that alone why would we keep choosing a party any party with that record . As a country we don’t care about inequality corruption the government know we don’t because at ballot box they keep getting back in. The Americans aren’t as foolish they boot one party out every 8byears so they don’t take the piss. But we’ are apathetic minions who care littke but pretend we’re Great " I never knew the Americans kicked the ruling party out every 8 years. I always thought it was the president that can only do 8 years | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this country is brill I think some people want to look on the bright side of life ,d,dd,d,d It’s a great Country. It welcomed me and allowed me to become who I am now. And that is related to gmnt corruption in what way exactly?" Maybe he bunged the Tories a few quid and got given a 50 million quid contract. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
