FabSwingers.com forum: 55 Tufton street.

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

Is this all people have now.

Some tinfoil hat conspiracy as a reply

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Is this all people have now.

Some tinfoil hat conspiracy as a reply

If you aren’t aware of the shady nature of 55 Tufton street, I’m not sure what anyone here can do to help you.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Is this all people have now.

Some tinfoil hat conspiracy as a reply

Conspiracy theory, are you stating it doesn’t exist?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Is this all people have now.

Some tinfoil hat conspiracy as a reply

If you aren’t aware of the shady nature of 55 Tufton street, I’m not sure what anyone here can do to help you. "

He doth protest too much , methinks

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

Morley you seem rather defensive and triggered?

You realise your entire viewpoint (maybe not “entire” but certainly on everything you discuss here) totally aligns with what comes out of the various organisations operating out of or connected to 55 Tufton Street.

It seems that many of your go to sources are likewise repeating what comes out of Tufton St.

It’s almost like they, and you, have been heavily influenced by these organisations over a prolonged period of time and now think the same.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

My viewpoint aligns with what read from economics, from output and input data, from my workings in accounting and business.

But seemingly all people have as a rebuttalcin hesmee is " Tufton street"

It's not a rebuttal of any point. And I now see it more lf a badge that. People can actually refute any data presented, or an idea

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

Except you tend to only ever quote data and sources that support you POV so there is no balance. You are just doing the job of Tufton St perpetuating and disseminating their thinking.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Is this all people have now.

Some tinfoil hat conspiracy as a reply

Where can I buy 1 of these tinfoil hats? You seem to have your finger on the pulse. In this sunny weather, I could convert such a hat to get solar power to charge my mobile phone. That would be v helpful indeed.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Is this all people have now.

Some tinfoil hat conspiracy as a reply

Your head might get a bit hot?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Is this all people have now.

Some tinfoil hat conspiracy as a reply

Your head might get a bit hot?"

I thought of that. I'd use some of that solar power to power a cunning air con contraption under the hat.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ustABaldBeardedVikingMan
over a year ago

Hinckley

And here we see a good example of the demise of the internet debate and art of conversation.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"And here we see a good example of the demise of the internet debate and art of conversation. "

I quite agree. Some of the above comments were v silly. I call shame.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

For those unfamiliar with 55 Tufton street, here’s a wee introduction to some of the groups and characters there:

https://www.desmog.com/55-tufton-street/

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"And here we see a good example of the demise of the internet debate and art of conversation. "

You’re right. Damn us for having a laugh and not taking the politics forum on a swinger website seriously. We are suitably chastised.

Please do tell us your thoughts on the various organisations that are registered to, operate out of, or are affiliated to 55 Tufton Street.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"For those unfamiliar with 55 Tufton street, here’s a wee introduction to some of the groups and characters there:

https://www.desmog.com/55-tufton-street/"

That link might not be allowed. But we can do better than that...

“The funding of the Tufton Street think tanks is deliberately opaque but, researchers at Desmog found that they “are tied to major US funders of climate science denial including the Koch brothers and Robert Mercer, who also bankrolled Donald Trump” and, as George Monbiot wrote of the Institute for Economic Affairs in The Guardian,

“The only hard information we have is that, for many years, it has been funded by British American Tobacco (BAT), Japan Tobacco International, Imperial Tobacco and Philip Morris International.”

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?"

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?"

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady."

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests."

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Is this all people have now.

Some tinfoil hat conspiracy as a reply

Also have to say this is the go to route when people do not like others connecting dots and drawing parallels. They label things as conspiracy theories in the hope they get conflated with the more whacko and outlandish theories to try and discredit them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests."

Lots of people are funded by those with vested interests, it’s not a problem as long as it’s declared for all to see.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

Anybody wants some more interesting Tufton St stuff? Well you are getting it anyway...

Housed in what has become one of London’s most notorious addresses, emerges a new entity: Emmnon Ltd.

The company, which was only incorporated on 10 February, shares an address with the growing legion of ‘free market’, Brexit and climate science-denying dark money think tanks at 55 Tufton Street.

The nature of its business is listed as “activities of political organisations” but it currently has no filing activity beyond its certification of incorporation. It currently lists only two directors – Peter Robin Whittle and Neil Philip Anderson.

Peter Whittle is the former deputy leader of UKIP and has offices based at 55 Tufton Street – home to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, TaxPayers’ Alliance and Civitas think tanks.

The entities represent part of a larger network of groups credited with pushing the Conservative Party further rightwards and forming the ideological backbone behind former Prime Minister Liz Truss’ short-lived Government.

The opaquely funded collective often enjoys a platform in the established press, pushing ‘free market’ economics and small-state ideology, net zero scepticism, Brexit and culture war issues.

It is notoriously secretive about where its funding comes from, although it has previously emerged that it has received funding from US-based trusts, climate-denying and fossil fuel interests, and maintains a close relationship with senior Conservative and right-wing figures.

Whittle is also the founder of the New Culture Forum (NCF), a right-wing think tank also housed at Tufton Street. Its mission is “challenging the orthodoxies dominant in our institutions, public life and wider culture” and it was described by Tim Montgomerie and Matthew Elliot in a 2009 presentation as being part of the ‘infrastructure’ of the broader conservative movement.

The group aims to counter a “left-wing bias” in academia and the media, railing against “woke ideology” and denouncing immigration and multiculturalism, and has recently thrown its weight behind anti-trans issues.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

Peterborough

"For those unfamiliar with 55 Tufton street, here’s a wee introduction to some of the groups and characters there:

https://www.desmog.com/55-tufton-street/"

Is it like Sesame Street or Coronation Street?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website! "

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

Are there any that don’t disclose their relationship or funding?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness."

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

"Context behind the data matters.

If I posted data from the opposite side of the argument that was funded by climate change evangelists and people with financial interests in the promotion of “green energy” then Morley would attack it or at least call it out. Rightly so.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry"

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation. "

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

Which is fine and right. I have explained the difference in this case. Openly funded award winning independently regulated investigative journalists vs dark money funded partisan “think tanks” with hidden associations and agenda.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

"Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

Are there any that don’t disclose their relationship or funding?"

Not sure the labour Marxist group have any financial records to be honest, and I’m certainly not going to spend time researching this or the other groups that are fringe…., I will leave that to people who want to grind axes and have a shit load of time.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy."

That’s your prerogative but when you say “interests in eco-energy” can you tell me what financial gains the likes of The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, Polden Puckham Charitable Foundation, and The Minor Foundation expect to achieve?

To me the hidden/secretive dark money supporting the various Tufton St organisations is far more suspicious. And when those who have been uncovered include Exxon Mobil, Koch brothers, Robert Mercer, British American Tobacco (BAT), Japan Tobacco International, Imperial Tobacco and Philip Morris International, then I know which group seems to keep better company and holds to higher ethical standards.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy.

Do gains have to be financial for anyone or company/charity to be valid interests?

I haven't argued that one lot of money is better or worse than the other, just that DeSmog take money from one side and Tufton St take money from the other.

As I said previously, I don't think they are the best 'source' to be used in this argument.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy.

Do gains have to be financial for anyone or company/charity to be valid interests?

I haven't argued that one lot of money is better or worse than the other, just that DeSmog take money from one side and Tufton St take money from the other.

As I said previously, I don't think they are the best 'source' to be used in this argument."

Fair enough. I think they are demonstrably different. They are not the only source I have been quoting either. In fact only the point on Tufton St funding came from them as they did some, you know, investigative journalism to try and lift the veil on Tufton St funding!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy.

Do gains have to be financial for anyone or company/charity to be valid interests?

I haven't argued that one lot of money is better or worse than the other, just that DeSmog take money from one side and Tufton St take money from the other.

As I said previously, I don't think they are the best 'source' to be used in this argument.

And you'll notice I've only spoken of DeSmog.

Not really sure why you're talking about 'other sources'.

You said it was 'rightly so' that funding was called out and now you want a whole debate on it.

Do we agree that DeSmog are on the opposite side of the 'climate argument'?

If so, there's not really too much to discuss.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy.

Do gains have to be financial for anyone or company/charity to be valid interests?

I haven't argued that one lot of money is better or worse than the other, just that DeSmog take money from one side and Tufton St take money from the other.

As I said previously, I don't think they are the best 'source' to be used in this argument.

Also...”take money from one side or the other” hmmm.

So Tufton St are funded by huge a multi-national oil & gas company whose $billions in profit are threatened by the move to “green” energy sources and the Koch brothers who have far reaching financial interests in fossil fuel and are climate changer deniers. ie ALL about short term profits and keeping rich.

Journalists funded by a range of charitable foundations whose purpose is to help look after the future of our society and well being of ALL people.

But you do not see a difference?

Really?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy.

Do gains have to be financial for anyone or company/charity to be valid interests?

I haven't argued that one lot of money is better or worse than the other, just that DeSmog take money from one side and Tufton St take money from the other.

As I said previously, I don't think they are the best 'source' to be used in this argument.

And you'll notice I've only spoken of DeSmog.

Not really sure why you're talking about 'other sources'.

You said it was 'rightly so' that funding was called out and now you want a whole debate on it.

Do we agree that DeSmog are on the opposite side of the 'climate argument'?

If so, there's not really too much to discuss."

See previous post typed while you typed. For me it is about the motivation behind the position they take. One is altruistic the other is purely financially driven.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy.

Do gains have to be financial for anyone or company/charity to be valid interests?

I haven't argued that one lot of money is better or worse than the other, just that DeSmog take money from one side and Tufton St take money from the other.

As I said previously, I don't think they are the best 'source' to be used in this argument.

And you'll notice I've only spoken of DeSmog.

Not really sure why you're talking about 'other sources'.

You said it was 'rightly so' that funding was called out and now you want a whole debate on it.

Do we agree that DeSmog are on the opposite side of the 'climate argument'?

If so, there's not really too much to discuss.

See previous post typed while you typed. For me it is about the motivation behind the position they take. One is altruistic the other is purely financially driven."

Altruism using other people's money

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rucks and TrailersMan
over a year ago

Ealing

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy.

Do gains have to be financial for anyone or company/charity to be valid interests?

I haven't argued that one lot of money is better or worse than the other, just that DeSmog take money from one side and Tufton St take money from the other.

As I said previously, I don't think they are the best 'source' to be used in this argument.

And you'll notice I've only spoken of DeSmog.

Not really sure why you're talking about 'other sources'.

You said it was 'rightly so' that funding was called out and now you want a whole debate on it.

Do we agree that DeSmog are on the opposite side of the 'climate argument'?

If so, there's not really too much to discuss.

See previous post typed while you typed. For me it is about the motivation behind the position they take. One is altruistic the other is purely financially driven."
. However to most rational people the source of the funding is irrelevant. What matters isthe validity of the arguments presented by an organisation. The funding source hardly even enters the equation. Most people can read, write and analyse both facts and opinions .

In elections we receive endless information from the media and numerous different sources .

People then vote accordingly.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy.

Do gains have to be financial for anyone or company/charity to be valid interests?

I haven't argued that one lot of money is better or worse than the other, just that DeSmog take money from one side and Tufton St take money from the other.

As I said previously, I don't think they are the best 'source' to be used in this argument.

And you'll notice I've only spoken of DeSmog.

Not really sure why you're talking about 'other sources'.

You said it was 'rightly so' that funding was called out and now you want a whole debate on it.

Do we agree that DeSmog are on the opposite side of the 'climate argument'?

If so, there's not really too much to discuss.

See previous post typed while you typed. For me it is about the motivation behind the position they take. One is altruistic the other is purely financially driven.. However to most rational people the source of the funding is irrelevant. What matters isthe validity of the arguments presented by an organisation. The funding source hardly even enters the equation. Most people can read, write and analyse both facts and opinions .

In elections we receive endless information from the media and numerous different sources .

People then vote accordingly. "

If most people could read, write and analyse accurately we’d not have had 13 years of Tory rule, nor left the EU.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rucks and TrailersMan
over a year ago

Ealing

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy.

Do gains have to be financial for anyone or company/charity to be valid interests?

I haven't argued that one lot of money is better or worse than the other, just that DeSmog take money from one side and Tufton St take money from the other.

As I said previously, I don't think they are the best 'source' to be used in this argument.

And you'll notice I've only spoken of DeSmog.

Not really sure why you're talking about 'other sources'.

You said it was 'rightly so' that funding was called out and now you want a whole debate on it.

Do we agree that DeSmog are on the opposite side of the 'climate argument'?

If so, there's not really too much to discuss.

In elections we receive endless information from the media and numerous different sources .

People then vote accordingly.

If most people could read, write and analyse accurately we’d not have had 13 years of Tory rule, nor left the EU. "
. The electorate appear to have a very different opinion to you. The 2019 election result was a stunning success. Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion you also have to rank it again what other sectors of the population think

Winning three elections in a row and probably also winning the next one is hardly an indication of failure. It simply reflects the wishes of the majority..

We hardly wantto have the economy destroyed by a Labour government or be subject to intimidation and bullying by trade union activists .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy.

Do gains have to be financial for anyone or company/charity to be valid interests?

I haven't argued that one lot of money is better or worse than the other, just that DeSmog take money from one side and Tufton St take money from the other.

As I said previously, I don't think they are the best 'source' to be used in this argument.

And you'll notice I've only spoken of DeSmog.

Not really sure why you're talking about 'other sources'.

You said it was 'rightly so' that funding was called out and now you want a whole debate on it.

Do we agree that DeSmog are on the opposite side of the 'climate argument'?

If so, there's not really too much to discuss.

In elections we receive endless information from the media and numerous different sources .

People then vote accordingly.

If most people could read, write and analyse accurately we’d not have had 13 years of Tory rule, nor left the EU. . The electorate appear to have a very different opinion to you. The 2019 election result was a stunning success. Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion you also have to rank it again what other sectors of the population think

Winning three elections in a row and probably also winning the next one is hardly an indication of failure. It simply reflects the wishes of the majority..

We hardly wantto have the economy destroyed by a Labour government or be subject to intimidation and bullying by trade union activists ."

Have you seen our economy now? And have you seen the industrial action now?

Who’s been in charge for 13 years again?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy.

Do gains have to be financial for anyone or company/charity to be valid interests?

I haven't argued that one lot of money is better or worse than the other, just that DeSmog take money from one side and Tufton St take money from the other.

As I said previously, I don't think they are the best 'source' to be used in this argument.

And you'll notice I've only spoken of DeSmog.

Not really sure why you're talking about 'other sources'.

You said it was 'rightly so' that funding was called out and now you want a whole debate on it.

Do we agree that DeSmog are on the opposite side of the 'climate argument'?

If so, there's not really too much to discuss.

See previous post typed while you typed. For me it is about the motivation behind the position they take. One is altruistic the other is purely financially driven.

Altruism using other people's money

All charities use other people’s money. They donate in the knowledge of what that charity stands for. The charitable foundations then support projects that fit with their ethos.

If someone cannot see the difference being demonstrated here between DeSmog and Tufton St then they are either thick or being contrary. Now I know you aren’t thick Feisty so I can only assume you are arguing for the sake of it and I am not up for that so this is the last point I will make on this...

Here is a hypothetical situation:

1) A climate change lobby group is created with the purpose of influencing UK govt policy and public opinion by undertaking well funded research studies and promoting data that supports their agenda and suppresses/ignores ant research/data that undermines or counters their agenda.

2) This lobby group is actually made up of multiple organisations that seemingly focus on single issues but are in fact coordinated and aligned (and share many of the same personnel).

3) This lobby group is not subject to any regulation or scrutiny.

4) They also refuse to divulge who is funding them.

5) However, some investigative journalists start digging and discover that they are funded by (made up) The Solar Power Consortium, The Wind Power Multi-National, The Wave Power Conglomerate who are all currently making £billions in profit from green initiatives and want to not only protect that income stream but actively grow it.

6) The companies behind this lobby group also realise that they have synergies and support from other groups who want to promote globalisation, the removal or borders, and freedom of movement so they can have access to a mobile cheap labour force. So they also begin lobbying on their behalf.

In that situation you have equivalence. Right now comparing DeSmog with Tufton St is false equivalence.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy.

Do gains have to be financial for anyone or company/charity to be valid interests?

I haven't argued that one lot of money is better or worse than the other, just that DeSmog take money from one side and Tufton St take money from the other.

As I said previously, I don't think they are the best 'source' to be used in this argument.

And you'll notice I've only spoken of DeSmog.

Not really sure why you're talking about 'other sources'.

You said it was 'rightly so' that funding was called out and now you want a whole debate on it.

Do we agree that DeSmog are on the opposite side of the 'climate argument'?

If so, there's not really too much to discuss.

In elections we receive endless information from the media and numerous different sources .

People then vote accordingly.

Winning three elections in a row and probably also winning the next one is hardly an indication of failure. It simply reflects the wishes of the majority..

We hardly wantto have the economy destroyed by a Labour government or be subject to intimidation and bullying by trade union activists ."

Absolutely brutal take down of the electorate.

Although i agree. They are malleable and soft and will likely vote us in for five more years of mismanagement, savage austerity and tax avoidance for the ultra wealthy.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rucks and TrailersMan
over a year ago

Ealing

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy.

Do gains have to be financial for anyone or company/charity to be valid interests?

I haven't argued that one lot of money is better or worse than the other, just that DeSmog take money from one side and Tufton St take money from the other.

As I said previously, I don't think they are the best 'source' to be used in this argument.

And you'll notice I've only spoken of DeSmog.

Not really sure why you're talking about 'other sources'.

You said it was 'rightly so' that funding was called out and now you want a whole debate on it.

Do we agree that DeSmog are on the opposite side of the 'climate argument'?

If so, there's not really too much to discuss.

In elections we receive endless information from the media and numerous different sources .

People then vote accordingly.

Winning three elections in a row and probably also winning the next one is hardly an indication of failure. It simply reflects the wishes of the majority..

We hardly wantto have the economy destroyed by a Labour government or be subject to intimidation and bullying by trade union activists .

Have you seen our economy now? And have you seen the industrial action now?

Who’s been in charge for 13 years again?

"
. Hello. I see it everyday day of the week and out on the roads travelling daily. In contact with those involved in the social care sector daily so can see what is happening in the real world . Most people recognise that we have an energy crisis and a war in Ukraine . This is hardly the fault of the government.

At least the government have given extensive help to the less well off in society. Some posters on here need to try mixing with the less well off and see the actual help that they receive from the government.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy.

Do gains have to be financial for anyone or company/charity to be valid interests?

I haven't argued that one lot of money is better or worse than the other, just that DeSmog take money from one side and Tufton St take money from the other.

As I said previously, I don't think they are the best 'source' to be used in this argument.

And you'll notice I've only spoken of DeSmog.

Not really sure why you're talking about 'other sources'.

You said it was 'rightly so' that funding was called out and now you want a whole debate on it.

Do we agree that DeSmog are on the opposite side of the 'climate argument'?

If so, there's not really too much to discuss.

In elections we receive endless information from the media and numerous different sources .

People then vote accordingly.

Winning three elections in a row and probably also winning the next one is hardly an indication of failure. It simply reflects the wishes of the majority..

We hardly wantto have the economy destroyed by a Labour government or be subject to intimidation and bullying by trade union activists .

Have you seen our economy now? And have you seen the industrial action now?

Who’s been in charge for 13 years again?

. Hello. I see it everyday day of the week and out on the roads travelling daily. In contact with those involved in the social care sector daily so can see what is happening in the real world . Most people recognise that we have an energy crisis and a war in Ukraine . This is hardly the fault of the government.

There’s none so blind.

If you can’t see after 13 years, I’m not sure there’s any helping you.

Go well.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

Pat is trolling. Vicious Top Tory Trolling!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

So back to Tufton St itself, ready for some more info (no not from DeSmog Feisty)...

Restore Trust – far from restoring trust – is one of many organisations which needs scrutiny. It recently tried – and failed – to seize control of the National Trust, to stop it exploring debates on issues like sl@very and LGBTQ+ inclusivity.

Although Restore Trust claims to be grassroots it won’t say who funds it, or even who it is. It has many of the hallmarks of an astro-turfed – a fake grassroots – organisation whose function is to mask the real actors who have a vested and often financial interest in the message they sell...

...changed their website to reveal the operator of their site – RT2021 Limited.

Public records show that one of RT2021’s company directors is Neil Record, who is also the chairman of climate change denial group Net Zero Watch and libertarian think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs. Despite previous denials, this confirms that Restore Trust is linked with the Tufton Street network of think tanks and pressure groups that are funded by dark money and which helped push the economic ideas behind Liz Truss’s disastrous premiership.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Imagine quoting DeSmog when you're talking about Tufton St links

You spotted it! Clever Feisty

As I said on the other thread. Very very few 'people' are truly neutral.

This has to be the funniest one to date though

Glad I made you laugh.

Is it only one side who can play the game then?

Are DeSmog as shady as Tufton St?

It doesn't really matter if they're as shady as Tufton St. you're the one who has an issue with who is funding who

I'm assuming you're aware of DeSmogs funders?

They are explicit about it. That is the opposite of shady.

That they are. They are still funded by people with vested interests.

Yep but not shady.

Explicitly journalists too.

Award winning.

Signed up to be independently regulated by IMPRESS.

Not “think tanks” or lobbying groups.

And if you look at today’s news page (UK operation) the lead article is critical of a range of “green initiatives involving hydrogen”.

So...not remotely like NetZeroWatch or any of the other Tufton St gang

Not remotely?

I mean you're crying about Tufton St. shadiness yet alseem to have more than enough info about them

Oh Feisty are you being contrary for the sake of it? You’re better than that!

The info on Tufton St has been uncovered via prolonged investigative journalism and clearly only scratches the surface. The DeSmog info is on their website!

For the sake of it? No, never

I'm intrigued as to why one set of people who are funded by one side should be dismissed yet the other set who are funded by the other side are pinned up.

Shadiness or no shadiness.

I’m clearly not saying that though. As per the other thread where I said...

Context behind the data matters.

The big oil & gas companies are funding some of the Tufton St organisations. Why is that? Do you trust the research and data funded by them to present an argument detrimental to their industry

There is a difference here though...

DeSmog are a collection of award winning journalists who are explicit about their funding, have presented both sides of the argument and are independently regulated.

The Tufton St organisations hide their funding and affiliations, and are not subject to any oversight or regulation.

'Morely would attack it, rightly so'

That's all I'm doing

If you think there's a huge difference, that's cool, I don't subscribe to that.

They are funded by people who have interests in eco-energy, that for me is enough that they shouldn't be quoted when trying to argue that Tufton St is funded by fossil-energy.

Do gains have to be financial for anyone or company/charity to be valid interests?

I haven't argued that one lot of money is better or worse than the other, just that DeSmog take money from one side and Tufton St take money from the other.

As I said previously, I don't think they are the best 'source' to be used in this argument.

And you'll notice I've only spoken of DeSmog.

Not really sure why you're talking about 'other sources'.

You said it was 'rightly so' that funding was called out and now you want a whole debate on it.

Do we agree that DeSmog are on the opposite side of the 'climate argument'?

If so, there's not really too much to discuss.

In elections we receive endless information from the media and numerous different sources .

People then vote accordingly.

Winning three elections in a row and probably also winning the next one is hardly an indication of failure. It simply reflects the wishes of the majority..

We hardly wantto have the economy destroyed by a Labour government or be subject to intimidation and bullying by trade union activists .

Have you seen our economy now? And have you seen the industrial action now?

Who’s been in charge for 13 years again?

Hello there, it’s good to see you are now backing Sunak (you have previously called him a snake) after they disasters of Alexander and Truss. Sunak has his faults but he is 100 times better than his last 2 predecessors

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rucks and TrailersMan
over a year ago

Ealing

"So back to Tufton St itself, ready for some more info (no not from DeSmog Feisty)...

...changed their website to reveal the operator of their site – RT2021 Limited.

People do want comments on woke issues from an organisation such the National Trust . The organisation should be protecting the national heritage, not criticising it.

Restore Trust already has 10000 supporters and a fighting fund.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So back to Tufton St itself, ready for some more info (no not from DeSmog Feisty)...

...changed their website to reveal the operator of their site – RT2021 Limited.

People do want comments on woke issues from an organisation such the National Trust . The organisation should be protecting the national heritage, not criticising it.

Restore Trust already has 10000 supporters and a fighting fund. "

Hello there, whilst I am out and about in the real world nobody is talking about the restore trust with a pathetically low 10,000 supporters, the National Trust has over 5 million members, you can’t argue with the general public

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So back to Tufton St itself, ready for some more info (no not from DeSmog Feisty)...

...changed their website to reveal the operator of their site – RT2021 Limited.

People do want comments on woke issues from an organisation such the National Trust . The organisation should be protecting the national heritage, not criticising it.

Restore Trust already has 10000 supporters and a fighting fund. "

What are ‘woke issues’?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields

"So back to Tufton St itself, ready for some more info (no not from DeSmog Feisty)...

...changed their website to reveal the operator of their site – RT2021 Limited.

People do want comments on woke issues from an organisation such the National Trust . The organisation should be protecting the national heritage, not criticising it.

Restore Trust already has 10000 supporters and a fighting fund.

What are ‘woke issues’?"

Racists are tired of being called out by the "woke". It's a big problem in this country apparently.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rucks and TrailersMan
over a year ago

Ealing

"So back to Tufton St itself, ready for some more info (no not from DeSmog Feisty)...

...changed their website to reveal the operator of their site – RT2021 Limited.

People do want comments on woke issues from an organisation such the National Trust . The organisation should be protecting the national heritage, not criticising it.

Restore Trust already has 10000 supporters and a fighting fund.

"
. The Natuonal Trust is a long established organisation. How many supporters have they lost recently. The restore organisation is newly formed so takes time to build up membership..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So back to Tufton St itself, ready for some more info (no not from DeSmog Feisty)...

...changed their website to reveal the operator of their site – RT2021 Limited.

People do want comments on woke issues from an organisation such the National Trust . The organisation should be protecting the national heritage, not criticising it.

Restore Trust already has 10000 supporters and a fighting fund.

. The Natuonal Trust is a long established organisation. How many supporters have they lost recently. The restore organisation is newly formed so takes time to build up membership.."

Hello there, you can’t argue with the general public, over 5 million members

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"Except you tend to only ever quote data and sources that support you POV so there is no balance. You are just doing the job of Tufton St perpetuating and disseminating their thinking. "

I tend to quote ons sources of data.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

The biggest pressure groups of all.

Unions

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

The biggest pressure groups of all.

Unions"

Counterpoint - unions are a very good thing, actually.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

The biggest pressure groups of all.

Unions

Counterpoint - unions are a very good thing, actually. "

Ah yes.

My pressure groups is good because it represents my thoughts.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

The biggest pressure groups of all.

Unions

Counterpoint - unions are a very good thing, actually.

Ah yes.

My pressure groups is good because it represents my thoughts."

I’m not in a trade union, as it happens. I left when I became management because I felt it was a conflict of interests.

That doesn’t dispute the fact that unions are a good thing.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

The biggest pressure groups of all.

Unions

Counterpoint - unions are a very good thing, actually.

Ah yes.

My pressure groups is good because it represents my thoughts."

At least you’re now admitting it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

The biggest pressure groups of all.

Unions

Counterpoint - unions are a very good thing, actually.

Ah yes.

My pressure groups is good because it represents my thoughts.

I’m not in a trade union, as it happens. I left when I became management because I felt it was a conflict of interests.

That doesn’t dispute the fact that unions are a good thing. "

By the same logic. Pressure group from differing thought processes are good things.

They stop group think.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields

"Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

The biggest pressure groups of all.

Unions

Counterpoint - unions are a very good thing, actually.

Ah yes.

My pressure groups is good because it represents my thoughts.

I’m not in a trade union, as it happens. I left when I became management because I felt it was a conflict of interests.

That doesn’t dispute the fact that unions are a good thing.

By the same logic. Pressure group from differing thought processes are good things.

They stop group think.

Some pressure groups want workers to be treated fairly.

Others want to destroy the environment as fast as possible for as much profit as possible.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

The biggest pressure groups of all.

Unions

Counterpoint - unions are a very good thing, actually.

Ah yes.

My pressure groups is good because it represents my thoughts.

I’m not in a trade union, as it happens. I left when I became management because I felt it was a conflict of interests.

That doesn’t dispute the fact that unions are a good thing.

By the same logic. Pressure group from differing thought processes are good things.

They stop group think.

Some pressure groups want workers to be treated fairly.

Others want to destroy the environment as fast as possible for as much profit as possible."

OUCH

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

The biggest pressure groups of all.

Unions

Counterpoint - unions are a very good thing, actually.

Ah yes.

My pressure groups is good because it represents my thoughts.

I’m not in a trade union, as it happens. I left when I became management because I felt it was a conflict of interests.

That doesn’t dispute the fact that unions are a good thing.

By the same logic. Pressure group from differing thought processes are good things.

They stop group think.

Some pressure groups want workers to be treated fairly.

Others want to destroy the environment as fast as possible for as much profit as possible."

Not all pressure groups exist for the right reasons.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

The biggest pressure groups of all.

Unions

Counterpoint - unions are a very good thing, actually.

Ah yes.

My pressure groups is good because it represents my thoughts.

I’m not in a trade union, as it happens. I left when I became management because I felt it was a conflict of interests.

That doesn’t dispute the fact that unions are a good thing.

By the same logic. Pressure group from differing thought processes are good things.

They stop group think.

Some pressure groups want workers to be treated fairly.

Others want to destroy the environment as fast as possible for as much profit as possible.

Not all pressure groups exist for the right reasons. "

The ones you dont like by chance?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

The biggest pressure groups of all.

Unions

Counterpoint - unions are a very good thing, actually.

Ah yes.

My pressure groups is good because it represents my thoughts.

I’m not in a trade union, as it happens. I left when I became management because I felt it was a conflict of interests.

That doesn’t dispute the fact that unions are a good thing.

By the same logic. Pressure group from differing thought processes are good things.

They stop group think.

Some pressure groups want workers to be treated fairly.

Others want to destroy the environment as fast as possible for as much profit as possible.

Not all pressure groups exist for the right reasons.

The ones you dont like by chance?"

The ones that spread dangerous misinformation about climate change or immigration? Yeah.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

The biggest pressure groups of all.

Unions

Counterpoint - unions are a very good thing, actually.

Ah yes.

My pressure groups is good because it represents my thoughts.

I’m not in a trade union, as it happens. I left when I became management because I felt it was a conflict of interests.

That doesn’t dispute the fact that unions are a good thing.

By the same logic. Pressure group from differing thought processes are good things.

They stop group think.

Some pressure groups want workers to be treated fairly.

Others want to destroy the environment as fast as possible for as much profit as possible.

Not all pressure groups exist for the right reasons.

The ones you dont like by chance?

The ones that spread dangerous misinformation about climate change or immigration? Yeah. "

Some was right.

Any one you disagree with is a bad pressure group.

Any one you agree with is a good one.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields

"Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

The biggest pressure groups of all.

Unions

Counterpoint - unions are a very good thing, actually.

Ah yes.

My pressure groups is good because it represents my thoughts.

I’m not in a trade union, as it happens. I left when I became management because I felt it was a conflict of interests.

That doesn’t dispute the fact that unions are a good thing.

By the same logic. Pressure group from differing thought processes are good things.

They stop group think.

Some pressure groups want workers to be treated fairly.

Others want to destroy the environment as fast as possible for as much profit as possible.

Not all pressure groups exist for the right reasons.

The ones you dont like by chance?

The ones that spread dangerous misinformation about climate change or immigration? Yeah.

Some was right.

Any one you disagree with is a bad pressure group.

Any one you agree with is a good one.

Who wouldn't disagree with demonising immigrants or destroying the environment for corporate profit?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Labour are also infested by think tanks and pressure groups, some with right leaning views and others that are very left of left...

The biggest pressure groups of all.

Unions

Counterpoint - unions are a very good thing, actually.

Ah yes.

My pressure groups is good because it represents my thoughts.

I’m not in a trade union, as it happens. I left when I became management because I felt it was a conflict of interests.

That doesn’t dispute the fact that unions are a good thing.

By the same logic. Pressure group from differing thought processes are good things.

They stop group think.

Why are you so apposed to be linked to Tufton Street, you ‘share’ (stol@n?) their ideologies

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago

the land of saints & sinners

To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rucks and TrailersMan
over a year ago

Ealing

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

"
Maybe their members and supporters are those who want what is best for society overall. Pursue their policies and most people will be better off eventually. It is a bit pointless putting in place short term policies. Liz Truss had a vision of the future but sadly othe members of the party were too impatient. She is married to a Chartered Accountant so is hardly going to take unnecessary risks. The country is a lot worse off for abandoning her

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

Maybe their members and supporters are those who want what is best for society overall. Pursue their policies and most people will be better off eventually. It is a bit pointless putting in place short term policies. Liz Truss had a vision of the future but sadly othe members of the party were too impatient. She is married to a Chartered Accountant so is hardly going to take unnecessary risks. The country is a lot worse off for abandoning her "

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

Hello there, I am afraid you are not living in the real world, many people are having to pays £100s of pounds a month extra on their mortgages because of thick Lizzies reckless and pathetic budget ‘announcement ‘ . Luckily she saw sense and sacked her incompetent chancellor and appointed Hunt to steady the sinking ship , btw, Hunt is married to a Chinese women (obviously this is completely irrelevant as is Truss husband )

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

Top notch trolling.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rucks and TrailersMan
over a year ago

Ealing

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

"
. Interest rates have simply returned to long run averages. Everyone knew that they were artificially low for the last fifteen years . You can hardly blame Liz Truss for additional mortgage costs.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

. Interest rates have simply returned to long run averages. Everyone knew that they were artificially low for the last fifteen years . You can hardly blame Liz Truss for additional mortgage costs. "

I mean you can. Her policies directly contributed to the rise in interest rates.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

. Interest rates have simply returned to long run averages. Everyone knew that they were artificially low for the last fifteen years . You can hardly blame Liz Truss for additional mortgage costs. "

Hello there, I am afraid you’re not living in the real world. Liz Truss was a disaster and was out lasted by a lettuce, she is a laughing stock and will go down as the second worst PM in living memory ,

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

This is a lie...but hey ho.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

This is a lie...but hey ho."

Which bit?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

This is a lie...but hey ho."

No it isn’t

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

This is a lie...but hey ho."

Life, death, taxes, and Morley calling people liars.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

This is a lie...but hey ho.

Life, death, taxes, and Morley calling people liars."

Tbh, as this thread is about Tufton Street it is ironic that he is trying to defend their Queen

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

To be fair, organisations lobbying to influence things aren't really a conspiracy no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on. Just Stop Oil is funded by wankers in America with vested interests in companies in the green energy sectors. It's just how people are, selfish, and focussed on helping themselves while portraying a false narrative of altruism to get idiots to support them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

This is a lie...but hey ho.

Which bit?"

The " many people are eating extra of hundreds of pounds on their mortgages"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 29/06/23 12:51:21]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

This is a lie...but hey ho.

Which bit?

The " many people are eating extra of hundreds of pounds on their mortgages""

Eating

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

This is a lie...but hey ho.

Which bit?

The " many people are eating extra of hundreds of pounds on their mortgages""

Increased base rates are not a result of Trusseconomics is that what you are saying?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"To be fair, organisations lobbying to influence things aren't really a conspiracy no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on. Just Stop Oil is funded by wankers in America with vested interests in companies in the green energy sectors. It's just how people are, selfish, and focussed on helping themselves while portraying a false narrative of altruism to get idiots to support them."

True, however, Tufty Club have given us Alexander and Truss, by far the 2 worst PMs in living memory

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People hit with hundreds of pounds extra either have multiple mortgages, which means they're part of the housing problem, or were stupid and got an interest only mortgage.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

This is a lie...but hey ho.

Which bit?

The " many people are eating extra of hundreds of pounds on their mortgages"

Increased base rates are not a result of Trusseconomics is that what you are saying?"

The budget affected gilts.

Which came down inside 2 weeks.

The bank had already changed the base rate 21/9/22

Truss budget 23/9/22

Uk gilts

3.498% 22/9/22

3.45% 19/10/22

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"People hit with hundreds of pounds extra either have multiple mortgages, which means they're part of the housing problem, or were stupid and got an interest only mortgage."

I don’t have a mortgage, but I know people who are now struggling

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

This is a lie...but hey ho.

Which bit?

The " many people are eating extra of hundreds of pounds on their mortgages"

Increased base rates are not a result of Trusseconomics is that what you are saying?

The budget affected gilts.

Which came down inside 2 weeks.

The bank had already changed the base rate 21/9/22

Truss budget 23/9/22

Uk gilts

3.498% 22/9/22

3.45% 19/10/22"

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

This is a lie...but hey ho.

Which bit?

The " many people are eating extra of hundreds of pounds on their mortgages"

Increased base rates are not a result of Trusseconomics is that what you are saying?

The budget affected gilts.

Which came down inside 2 weeks.

The bank had already changed the base rate 21/9/22

Truss budget 23/9/22

Uk gilts

3.498% 22/9/22

3.45% 19/10/22

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?"

This is to do with the point on mortgages.

Have I supplied the evidence? Yes or non

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

This is a lie...but hey ho.

Which bit?

The " many people are eating extra of hundreds of pounds on their mortgages"

Increased base rates are not a result of Trusseconomics is that what you are saying?

The budget affected gilts.

Which came down inside 2 weeks.

The bank had already changed the base rate 21/9/22

Truss budget 23/9/22

Uk gilts

3.498% 22/9/22

3.45% 19/10/22

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?

This is to do with the point on mortgages.

Have I supplied the evidence? Yes or non"

No , you haven’t , Truss started this, Hunt (who she appointed as chancellor) continued it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

This is a lie...but hey ho.

Which bit?

The " many people are eating extra of hundreds of pounds on their mortgages"

Increased base rates are not a result of Trusseconomics is that what you are saying?

The budget affected gilts.

Which came down inside 2 weeks.

The bank had already changed the base rate 21/9/22

Truss budget 23/9/22

Uk gilts

3.498% 22/9/22

3.45% 19/10/22

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?

This is to do with the point on mortgages.

Have I supplied the evidence? Yes or non

No , you haven’t , Truss started this, Hunt (who she appointed as chancellor) continued it

So you've changed your stance from the initial budget announcement to the amended budget under hunt and rishi?

So you lied.

Great

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

This is a lie...but hey ho.

Which bit?

The " many people are eating extra of hundreds of pounds on their mortgages"

Increased base rates are not a result of Trusseconomics is that what you are saying?

The budget affected gilts.

Which came down inside 2 weeks.

The bank had already changed the base rate 21/9/22

Truss budget 23/9/22

Uk gilts

3.498% 22/9/22

3.45% 19/10/22

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?

This is to do with the point on mortgages.

Have I supplied the evidence? Yes or non

No , you haven’t , Truss started this, Hunt (who she appointed as chancellor) continued it

So you've changed your stance from the initial budget announcement to the amended budget under hunt and rishi?

So you lied.

Great

I know there are two conversations going on here but Morley can you answer the questions...

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"To me it seems that the people who use that building are divorced from reality…..

Probably it because they have been out in the sun far too long and have too much time on their hands….

This is a lie...but hey ho.

Which bit?

The " many people are eating extra of hundreds of pounds on their mortgages"

Increased base rates are not a result of Trusseconomics is that what you are saying?

The budget affected gilts.

Which came down inside 2 weeks.

The bank had already changed the base rate 21/9/22

Truss budget 23/9/22

Uk gilts

3.498% 22/9/22

3.45% 19/10/22

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?

This is to do with the point on mortgages.

Have I supplied the evidence? Yes or non

No , you haven’t , Truss started this, Hunt (who she appointed as chancellor) continued it

So you've changed your stance from the initial budget announcement to the amended budget under hunt and rishi?

So you lied.

Great

No , I haven’t , Truss started this, Hunt (who she appointed as chancellor) continued it

I can see you are blindly following the the second rule of Tufty Club , defend you’re queen (thick Lizzie at all costs )

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

You original point is this.

"many people are having to pays £100s of pounds a month extra on their mortgages because of thick Lizzies reckless and pathetic budget ‘announcement'"

You originally inferred is was the announcement of the budget.

Ni showed this had unwound within 3 weeks in terms of its affect on the gilt markets, a that the base rate had already changed before the mini budget.( there was no change during that 3 week period)

Now you are changing your wording to saybit was the chancellor she appoint ( hunt) and another budget he announced.

So I am sorry. You are wrong and now you are lying.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You original point is this.

"many people are having to pays £100s of pounds a month extra on their mortgages because of thick Lizzies reckless and pathetic budget ‘announcement'"

You originally inferred is was the announcement of the budget.

Ni showed this had unwound within 3 weeks in terms of its affect on the gilt markets, a that the base rate had already changed before the mini budget.( there was no change during that 3 week period)

Now you are changing your wording to saybit was the chancellor she appoint ( hunt) and another budget he announced.

So I am sorry. You are wrong and now you are lying."

No , I am not , Truss started this, Hunt (who she appointed as chancellor) continued it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields

Is this intended as irony?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"You original point is this.

"many people are having to pays £100s of pounds a month extra on their mortgages because of thick Lizzies reckless and pathetic budget ‘announcement'"

You originally inferred is was the announcement of the budget.

Ni showed this had unwound within 3 weeks in terms of its affect on the gilt markets, a that the base rate had already changed before the mini budget.( there was no change during that 3 week period)

Now you are changing your wording to saybit was the chancellor she appoint ( hunt) and another budget he announced.

So I am sorry. You are wrong and now you are lying.

No , I am not , Truss started this, Hunt (who she appointed as chancellor) continued it

You have been shown she started nothing of your caims as her budget had no effect on any interest rate or gilt markets long term.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You original point is this.

"many people are having to pays £100s of pounds a month extra on their mortgages because of thick Lizzies reckless and pathetic budget ‘announcement'"

You originally inferred is was the announcement of the budget.

Ni showed this had unwound within 3 weeks in terms of its affect on the gilt markets, a that the base rate had already changed before the mini budget.( there was no change during that 3 week period)

Now you are changing your wording to saybit was the chancellor she appoint ( hunt) and another budget he announced.

So I am sorry. You are wrong and now you are lying.

No , I am not , Truss started this, Hunt (who she appointed as chancellor) continued it

You have been shown she started nothing of your caims as her budget had no effect on any interest rate or gilt markets long term.

No , Truss started this, Hunt (who she appointed as chancellor) continued it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

I think we are going to soon need to start a thread listing all the questions Morley refuses to answer. Starting to see a pattern!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"I think we are going to soon need to start a thread listing all the questions Morley refuses to answer. Starting to see a pattern!"

You asked questions not relevant to the point.

Fif gilt mortgages are linked to base rates and gilt yields.

Did I prove they were below the levels , did I prove that rates were increased before the budget?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You original point is this.

"many people are having to pays £100s of pounds a month extra on their mortgages because of thick Lizzies reckless and pathetic budget ‘announcement'"

You originally inferred is was the announcement of the budget.

Ni showed this had unwound within 3 weeks in terms of its affect on the gilt markets, a that the base rate had already changed before the mini budget.( there was no change during that 3 week period)

Now you are changing your wording to saybit was the chancellor she appoint ( hunt) and another budget he announced.

So I am sorry. You are wrong and now you are lying.

No , I am not , Truss started this, Hunt (who she appointed as chancellor) continued it

You have been shown she started nothing of your caims as her budget had no effect on any interest rate or gilt markets long term.

You cant expect him to answer a question where it would highlight Queen Tuftys inept premiership

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"I think we are going to soon need to start a thread listing all the questions Morley refuses to answer. Starting to see a pattern!

You asked questions not relevant to the point.

Fif gilt mortgages are linked to base rates and gilt yields.

Did I prove they were below the levels , did I prove that rates were increased before the budget?

Show me the forum rule that I can only ask certain questions related to the points only you want to discuss?

Nice swerve but you are avoiding! Why?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"I think we are going to soon need to start a thread listing all the questions Morley refuses to answer. Starting to see a pattern!

You asked questions not relevant to the point.

Fif gilt mortgages are linked to base rates and gilt yields.

Did I prove they were below the levels , did I prove that rates were increased before the budget?

Show me the forum rule that I can only ask certain questions related to the points only you want to discuss?

Nice swerve but you are avoiding! Why?"

It bears no relation to the point

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think we are going to soon need to start a thread listing all the questions Morley refuses to answer. Starting to see a pattern!

You asked questions not relevant to the point.

Fif gilt mortgages are linked to base rates and gilt yields.

Did I prove they were below the levels , did I prove that rates were increased before the budget?

Show me the forum rule that I can only ask certain questions related to the points only you want to discuss?

Nice swerve but you are avoiding! Why?

It bears no relation to the point

I was the one that made the initial claim, the actions of Truss during and after her disastrous budget announcement are valid to her culpability in increasing mortgage payments .

So, why did she appointing Hunt

Why did she resign as PM

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"I think we are going to soon need to start a thread listing all the questions Morley refuses to answer. Starting to see a pattern!

You asked questions not relevant to the point.

Fif gilt mortgages are linked to base rates and gilt yields.

Did I prove they were below the levels , did I prove that rates were increased before the budget?

Show me the forum rule that I can only ask certain questions related to the points only you want to discuss?

Nice swerve but you are avoiding! Why?

It bears no relation to the point

I don’t care about the point. I am asking you the following questions...

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"I think we are going to soon need to start a thread listing all the questions Morley refuses to answer. Starting to see a pattern!

You asked questions not relevant to the point.

Fif gilt mortgages are linked to base rates and gilt yields.

Did I prove they were below the levels , did I prove that rates were increased before the budget?

Show me the forum rule that I can only ask certain questions related to the points only you want to discuss?

Nice swerve but you are avoiding! Why?

It bears no relation to the point

I don’t care about the point. I am asking you the following questions...

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?"

I dont care about answering questions that have no relevance to a discussion.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think we are going to soon need to start a thread listing all the questions Morley refuses to answer. Starting to see a pattern!

You asked questions not relevant to the point.

Fif gilt mortgages are linked to base rates and gilt yields.

Did I prove they were below the levels , did I prove that rates were increased before the budget?

Show me the forum rule that I can only ask certain questions related to the points only you want to discuss?

Nice swerve but you are avoiding! Why?

It bears no relation to the point

I don’t care about the point. I am asking you the following questions...

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?

I dont care about answering questions that have no relevance to a discussion."

They are relevant , tick took

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"I think we are going to soon need to start a thread listing all the questions Morley refuses to answer. Starting to see a pattern!

You asked questions not relevant to the point.

Fif gilt mortgages are linked to base rates and gilt yields.

Did I prove they were below the levels , did I prove that rates were increased before the budget?

Show me the forum rule that I can only ask certain questions related to the points only you want to discuss?

Nice swerve but you are avoiding! Why?

It bears no relation to the point

I don’t care about the point. I am asking you the following questions...

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?

I dont care about answering questions that have no relevance to a discussion."

I see that with you a lot! Avoidance. Pity! When you answering the questions about Turver?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"I think we are going to soon need to start a thread listing all the questions Morley refuses to answer. Starting to see a pattern!

You asked questions not relevant to the point.

Fif gilt mortgages are linked to base rates and gilt yields.

Did I prove they were below the levels , did I prove that rates were increased before the budget?

Show me the forum rule that I can only ask certain questions related to the points only you want to discuss?

Nice swerve but you are avoiding! Why?

It bears no relation to the point

I don’t care about the point. I am asking you the following questions...

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?

I dont care about answering questions that have no relevance to a discussion.

I see that with you a lot! Avoidance. Pity! When you answering the questions about Turver?"

There are no questions.

We have discussed the Truss budget and seen thay the interest rates and yields evidence.

Turver as you acknowledge. Has no links to Tufton street.

Nothing else is relevant.

If you'd like to produce evidence to the contrary.

Then we can start discussing.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"I think we are going to soon need to start a thread listing all the questions Morley refuses to answer. Starting to see a pattern!

You asked questions not relevant to the point.

Fif gilt mortgages are linked to base rates and gilt yields.

Did I prove they were below the levels , did I prove that rates were increased before the budget?

Show me the forum rule that I can only ask certain questions related to the points only you want to discuss?

Nice swerve but you are avoiding! Why?

It bears no relation to the point

I don’t care about the point. I am asking you the following questions...

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?

I dont care about answering questions that have no relevance to a discussion.

I see that with you a lot! Avoidance. Pity! When you answering the questions about Turver?

There are no questions.

We have discussed the Truss budget and seen thay the interest rates and yields evidence.

Turver as you acknowledge. Has no links to Tufton street.

Nothing else is relevant.

If you'd like to produce evidence to the contrary.

Then we can start discussing.

What utterly bizarre thought processes. You attempting to determine whether something is relevant is clearly an avoidance technique.

Why do I need evidence to ask a question? Clue...I don’t!

Let’s try again. 6th time of asking. Tick Tock!

Q1. Does Turver say the same things NetZeroWatch say?

Q2. Does Turver retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?

Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turver agrees with NetZeroWatch?

Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda?

And...

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

Morely starts a thread about Tufton St then refuses to answer questions that are related to Tufton St! You couldn’t make this up!

If you don’t want to talk about Tufton St then don’t start a thread on Tufton St

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Morely starts a thread about Tufton St then refuses to answer questions that are related to Tufton St! You couldn’t make this up!

If you don’t want to talk about Tufton St then don’t start a thread on Tufton St

The 1st rule of Tufton St is don't talk about Tufton St!

It's Fight Club all over again.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

Another one for Morley to not respond to!

Evening Standard...

Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-Budget still plays a role in the latest round of gilt market chaos

City Comment: After the ’fiscal event’, investors will never view gilts in quite the same way again.

“The events throughout the Ashes Test match at Lord’s were truly remarkable. During one of the rare quieter passages of play I was chatting to one of London’s major bond market participants.

Our conversation turned to another extraordinary period of turmoil, the mini-Budget of last September and the financial markets meltdown that followed.

His sobering view was that bond investors will never again view gilts — and the British Government as a borrower — in quite the same way again. Centuries building a reputation as one of the world’s most responsible and prudent issuers of Government bonds had been trashed in days as investors looked on aghast.

For the foreseeable future, he said, bond markets would not take the utterances of the British Prime Minister and Chancellor on trust as they once did.

They would be scrutinised far more closely for any signs of fiscal back-sliding that could once again set the alarm bells ringing”

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rucks and TrailersMan
over a year ago

Ealing

At least Liz Truss has qualifications and worked for a very prestigious company . Shell . She is a qualified accountant and is a lot more talented than most politicians. In addition she went to Oxford

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"At least Liz Truss has qualifications and worked for a very prestigious company . Shell . She is a qualified accountant and is a lot more talented than most politicians. In addition she went to Oxford

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs . "

Hello there, I am afraid you’re not living in the real world, thick Lizzie was an unelected PM who crashed the markets and was outlasted by a lettuce

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs . "

Right woman, wrong time?

. Wrong woman, any time. Certainly the wrong ideology

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Right woman, wrong time?

. Wrong woman, any time. Certainly the wrong ideology "

She was completely out of her depth, a malfunctioning robot , her demise was predictable

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Hello there, I am afraid you’re not living in the real world, thick Lizzie was an unelected PM who crashed the markets and was outlasted by a lettuce

Thick Lizzie you say?

She was elected into the PM role, the markets did not crash, they reacted to her policies and there was no actual lettuce just a reference to the shelf life.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Hello there, I am afraid you’re not living in the real world, thick Lizzie was an unelected PM who crashed the markets and was outlasted by a lettuce

Thick Lizzie you say?

She was elected into the PM role, the markets did not crash, they reacted to her policies and there was no actual lettuce just a reference to the shelf life.

Good effort

Why did she sack Kwasi and appoint Hunt

Why did she resign

What was the shelf life of the lettuce

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Hello there, I am afraid you’re not living in the real world, thick Lizzie was an unelected PM who crashed the markets and was outlasted by a lettuce

Thick Lizzie you say?

She was elected into the PM role, the markets did not crash, they reacted to her policies and there was no actual lettuce just a reference to the shelf life.

The patient didn’t die, they just reacted to their heart stopping.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach

"... there was no actual lettuce just a reference to the shelf life."

There was an actual lettuce. The Daily Star started the whole thing by purchasing a lettuce and asking if it would last longer than Truss. They even stuck eyes and a wig on it. The various front page pictures are googleable

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

"... there was no actual lettuce just a reference to the shelf life.

Ah I can see why I might have missed the actual lettuce and only ever heard of it in context of shelf life.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Hello there, I am afraid you’re not living in the real world, thick Lizzie was an unelected PM who crashed the markets and was outlasted by a lettuce

Thick Lizzie you say?

She was elected into the PM role, the markets did not crash, they reacted to her policies and there was no actual lettuce just a reference to the shelf life.

Good effort

Why did she sack Kwasi and appoint Hunt

Why did she resign

What was the shelf life of the lettuce

Kwasi was a scapegoat, I did actually feel a little sorry for him! He was promoted and looked like a rabbit in the headlights. Although all sympathy I did have went out the window when he told a fake company he could setup meetings with the Johnson..

I made a mistake on the lettuce

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Hello there, I am afraid you’re not living in the real world, thick Lizzie was an unelected PM who crashed the markets and was outlasted by a lettuce

Thick Lizzie you say?

She was elected into the PM role, the markets did not crash, they reacted to her policies and there was no actual lettuce just a reference to the shelf life.

The patient didn’t die, they just reacted to their heart stopping."

More of an allergic reaction

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rucks and TrailersMan
over a year ago

Ealing

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Right woman, wrong time?

. Wrong woman, any time. Certainly the wrong ideology

She was completely out of her depth, a malfunctioning robot , her demise was predictable "
. There are lots of politicians with whom I disagree. However most people have enough common sense not to describe them in derogatory terms .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Right woman, wrong time?

. Wrong woman, any time. Certainly the wrong ideology

She was completely out of her depth, a malfunctioning robot , her demise was predictable .

There are lots of politicians with whom I disagree. However most people have enough common sense not to describe them in derogatory terms . "

*******************************

Yes, I do agree wholeheartedly.

Using vulgarities such as "thick", "halfwits", "turd", "brexshit", etc., etc..., say enough about the poster(s) state of mental ability (or lack of).

Confusion, I would think, reigns supreme in some poor folks. Maybe this forum is is a rare facility they use for venting such 'thoughts', as it is primarily anonymous with absolutely no requirement to explain or prove anything.

It's so simple to be decent and thoughtful toward others, is it not....??

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Right woman, wrong time?

. Wrong woman, any time. Certainly the wrong ideology

She was completely out of her depth, a malfunctioning robot , her demise was predictable . There are lots of politicians with whom I disagree. However most people have enough common sense not to describe them in derogatory terms . "

They are only words and you have previously called Sunak a ‘snake ‘ , however , I shall refrain from calling Truss thick Lizzie it is upsetting you

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"Another one for Morley to not respond to!

Evening Standard...

Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-Budget still plays a role in the latest round of gilt market chaos

City Comment: After the ’fiscal event’, investors will never view gilts in quite the same way again.

“The events throughout the Ashes Test match at Lord’s were truly remarkable. During one of the rare quieter passages of play I was chatting to one of London’s major bond market participants.

Our conversation turned to another extraordinary period of turmoil, the mini-Budget of last September and the financial markets meltdown that followed.

For the foreseeable future, he said, bond markets would not take the utterances of the British Prime Minister and Chancellor on trust as they once did.

They would be scrutinised far more closely for any signs of fiscal back-sliding that could once again set the alarm bells ringing”

Sorry I take the weekend off usually.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"Another one for Morley to not respond to!

Evening Standard...

Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-Budget still plays a role in the latest round of gilt market chaos

City Comment: After the ’fiscal event’, investors will never view gilts in quite the same way again.

“The events throughout the Ashes Test match at Lord’s were truly remarkable. During one of the rare quieter passages of play I was chatting to one of London’s major bond market participants.

Our conversation turned to another extraordinary period of turmoil, the mini-Budget of last September and the financial markets meltdown that followed.

For the foreseeable future, he said, bond markets would not take the utterances of the British Prime Minister and Chancellor on trust as they once did.

They would be scrutinised far more closely for any signs of fiscal back-sliding that could once again set the alarm bells ringing”

So a made up conversation?

Can we listen?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Another one for Morley to not respond to!

Evening Standard...

Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-Budget still plays a role in the latest round of gilt market chaos

City Comment: After the ’fiscal event’, investors will never view gilts in quite the same way again.

“The events throughout the Ashes Test match at Lord’s were truly remarkable. During one of the rare quieter passages of play I was chatting to one of London’s major bond market participants.

Our conversation turned to another extraordinary period of turmoil, the mini-Budget of last September and the financial markets meltdown that followed.

For the foreseeable future, he said, bond markets would not take the utterances of the British Prime Minister and Chancellor on trust as they once did.

They would be scrutinised far more closely for any signs of fiscal back-sliding that could once again set the alarm bells ringing”

So a made up conversation?

Can we listen?"

Dunno ask the Evening Standard

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"Another one for Morley to not respond to!

Evening Standard...

Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-Budget still plays a role in the latest round of gilt market chaos

City Comment: After the ’fiscal event’, investors will never view gilts in quite the same way again.

“The events throughout the Ashes Test match at Lord’s were truly remarkable. During one of the rare quieter passages of play I was chatting to one of London’s major bond market participants.

Our conversation turned to another extraordinary period of turmoil, the mini-Budget of last September and the financial markets meltdown that followed.

For the foreseeable future, he said, bond markets would not take the utterances of the British Prime Minister and Chancellor on trust as they once did.

They would be scrutinised far more closely for any signs of fiscal back-sliding that could once again set the alarm bells ringing”

So a made up conversation?

Can we listen?

Dunno ask the Evening Standard"

Ah ok.

So a made up conversation then.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs . "

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Another one for Morley to not respond to!

Evening Standard...

Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-Budget still plays a role in the latest round of gilt market chaos

City Comment: After the ’fiscal event’, investors will never view gilts in quite the same way again.

“The events throughout the Ashes Test match at Lord’s were truly remarkable. During one of the rare quieter passages of play I was chatting to one of London’s major bond market participants.

Our conversation turned to another extraordinary period of turmoil, the mini-Budget of last September and the financial markets meltdown that followed.

For the foreseeable future, he said, bond markets would not take the utterances of the British Prime Minister and Chancellor on trust as they once did.

They would be scrutinised far more closely for any signs of fiscal back-sliding that could once again set the alarm bells ringing”

So a made up conversation?

Can we listen?

Dunno ask the Evening Standard

Ah ok.

So a made up conversation then.

Ask the journalist not me. But also, is what is said wrong? The damage to bonds/gilts?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Do you remember all the photos she has done in tanks etc to try and be like Thatcher, she ended up more like Mavis Wilton

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"Another one for Morley to not respond to!

Evening Standard...

Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-Budget still plays a role in the latest round of gilt market chaos

City Comment: After the ’fiscal event’, investors will never view gilts in quite the same way again.

“The events throughout the Ashes Test match at Lord’s were truly remarkable. During one of the rare quieter passages of play I was chatting to one of London’s major bond market participants.

Our conversation turned to another extraordinary period of turmoil, the mini-Budget of last September and the financial markets meltdown that followed.

For the foreseeable future, he said, bond markets would not take the utterances of the British Prime Minister and Chancellor on trust as they once did.

They would be scrutinised far more closely for any signs of fiscal back-sliding that could once again set the alarm bells ringing”

So a made up conversation?

Can we listen?

Dunno ask the Evening Standard

Ah ok.

So a made up conversation then.

Ask the journalist not me. But also, is what is said wrong? The damage to bonds/gilts?"

Yes.it unwound. As has already been poi ted out.

I'm sorry but some anonymous informant doesn't really cut it as evidence.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Another one for Morley to not respond to!

Evening Standard...

Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-Budget still plays a role in the latest round of gilt market chaos

City Comment: After the ’fiscal event’, investors will never view gilts in quite the same way again.

“The events throughout the Ashes Test match at Lord’s were truly remarkable. During one of the rare quieter passages of play I was chatting to one of London’s major bond market participants.

Our conversation turned to another extraordinary period of turmoil, the mini-Budget of last September and the financial markets meltdown that followed.

For the foreseeable future, he said, bond markets would not take the utterances of the British Prime Minister and Chancellor on trust as they once did.

They would be scrutinised far more closely for any signs of fiscal back-sliding that could once again set the alarm bells ringing”

So a made up conversation?

Can we listen?

Dunno ask the Evening Standard

Ah ok.

So a made up conversation then.

Ask the journalist not me. But also, is what is said wrong? The damage to bonds/gilts?

Yes.it unwound. As has already been poi ted out.

I'm sorry but some anonymous informant doesn't really cut it as evidence.

You should stop copying gully then

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"Another one for Morley to not respond to!

Evening Standard...

Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-Budget still plays a role in the latest round of gilt market chaos

City Comment: After the ’fiscal event’, investors will never view gilts in quite the same way again.

“The events throughout the Ashes Test match at Lord’s were truly remarkable. During one of the rare quieter passages of play I was chatting to one of London’s major bond market participants.

Our conversation turned to another extraordinary period of turmoil, the mini-Budget of last September and the financial markets meltdown that followed.

For the foreseeable future, he said, bond markets would not take the utterances of the British Prime Minister and Chancellor on trust as they once did.

They would be scrutinised far more closely for any signs of fiscal back-sliding that could once again set the alarm bells ringing”

So a made up conversation?

Can we listen?

Dunno ask the Evening Standard

Ah ok.

So a made up conversation then.

Ask the journalist not me. But also, is what is said wrong? The damage to bonds/gilts?

Yes.it unwound. As has already been poi ted out.

I'm sorry but some anonymous informant doesn't really cut it as evidence.

You should stop copying gully then

Please point out where gully quoted an anonymous source.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Another one for Morley to not respond to!

Evening Standard...

Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-Budget still plays a role in the latest round of gilt market chaos

City Comment: After the ’fiscal event’, investors will never view gilts in quite the same way again.

“The events throughout the Ashes Test match at Lord’s were truly remarkable. During one of the rare quieter passages of play I was chatting to one of London’s major bond market participants.

Our conversation turned to another extraordinary period of turmoil, the mini-Budget of last September and the financial markets meltdown that followed.

For the foreseeable future, he said, bond markets would not take the utterances of the British Prime Minister and Chancellor on trust as they once did.

They would be scrutinised far more closely for any signs of fiscal back-sliding that could once again set the alarm bells ringing”

So a made up conversation?

Can we listen?

Dunno ask the Evening Standard

Ah ok.

So a made up conversation then.

Ask the journalist not me. But also, is what is said wrong? The damage to bonds/gilts?

Yes.it unwound. As has already been poi ted out.

I'm sorry but some anonymous informant doesn't really cut it as evidence.

You should stop copying gully then

Please point out where gully quoted an anonymous source.

Gully ‘is’ an anonymous source

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Another one for Morley to not respond to!

Evening Standard...

Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-Budget still plays a role in the latest round of gilt market chaos

City Comment: After the ’fiscal event’, investors will never view gilts in quite the same way again.

“The events throughout the Ashes Test match at Lord’s were truly remarkable. During one of the rare quieter passages of play I was chatting to one of London’s major bond market participants.

Our conversation turned to another extraordinary period of turmoil, the mini-Budget of last September and the financial markets meltdown that followed.

For the foreseeable future, he said, bond markets would not take the utterances of the British Prime Minister and Chancellor on trust as they once did.

They would be scrutinised far more closely for any signs of fiscal back-sliding that could once again set the alarm bells ringing”

So a made up conversation?

Can we listen?

Dunno ask the Evening Standard

Ah ok.

So a made up conversation then.

Ask the journalist not me. But also, is what is said wrong? The damage to bonds/gilts?

Yes.it unwound. As has already been poi ted out.

I'm sorry but some anonymous informant doesn't really cut it as evidence.

As I said speak to the Evening Standard. While you are being communicative perhaps you can finally answer these questions...

Q1. Does Turver say the same things NetZeroWatch say?

Q2. Does Turver retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?

Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turver agrees with NetZeroWatch?

Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda?

And...

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"Another one for Morley to not respond to!

Evening Standard...

Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-Budget still plays a role in the latest round of gilt market chaos

City Comment: After the ’fiscal event’, investors will never view gilts in quite the same way again.

“The events throughout the Ashes Test match at Lord’s were truly remarkable. During one of the rare quieter passages of play I was chatting to one of London’s major bond market participants.

Our conversation turned to another extraordinary period of turmoil, the mini-Budget of last September and the financial markets meltdown that followed.

For the foreseeable future, he said, bond markets would not take the utterances of the British Prime Minister and Chancellor on trust as they once did.

They would be scrutinised far more closely for any signs of fiscal back-sliding that could once again set the alarm bells ringing”

So a made up conversation?

Can we listen?

Dunno ask the Evening Standard

Ah ok.

So a made up conversation then.

Ask the journalist not me. But also, is what is said wrong? The damage to bonds/gilts?

Yes.it unwound. As has already been poi ted out.

I'm sorry but some anonymous informant doesn't really cut it as evidence.

As I said speak to the Evening Standard. While you are being communicative perhaps you can finally answer these questions...

Q1. Does Turver say the same things NetZeroWatch say?

Q2. Does Turver retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?

Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turver agrees with NetZeroWatch?

Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda?

And...

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?"

We discussed the above. They have no relevance to the conversation .

You claimed he had links to Tufton street

You couldn't prove it.

Anything else is irrelevant.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Another one for Morley to not respond to!

Evening Standard...

Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-Budget still plays a role in the latest round of gilt market chaos

City Comment: After the ’fiscal event’, investors will never view gilts in quite the same way again.

“The events throughout the Ashes Test match at Lord’s were truly remarkable. During one of the rare quieter passages of play I was chatting to one of London’s major bond market participants.

Our conversation turned to another extraordinary period of turmoil, the mini-Budget of last September and the financial markets meltdown that followed.

For the foreseeable future, he said, bond markets would not take the utterances of the British Prime Minister and Chancellor on trust as they once did.

They would be scrutinised far more closely for any signs of fiscal back-sliding that could once again set the alarm bells ringing”

So a made up conversation?

Can we listen?

Dunno ask the Evening Standard

Ah ok.

So a made up conversation then.

Ask the journalist not me. But also, is what is said wrong? The damage to bonds/gilts?

Yes.it unwound. As has already been poi ted out.

I'm sorry but some anonymous informant doesn't really cut it as evidence.

As I said speak to the Evening Standard. While you are being communicative perhaps you can finally answer these questions...

Q1. Does Turver say the same things NetZeroWatch say?

Q2. Does Turver retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?

Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turver agrees with NetZeroWatch?

Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda?

And...

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?

We discussed the above. They have no relevance to the conversation .

You claimed he had links to Tufton street

You couldn't prove it.

Anything else is irrelevant.

So you can’t/won’t answer

thanks for proving my point that Turver is directly influenced by Tufton St. His narrative ploughs an identical furrow. I didn’t actually say he was connected, I simply posed it as possible. It still is possible! And you cannot prove he isn’t! But he is DEFINITELY directly influenced frequently retweeting and linking NetZeroWatch content.

Now what about the other questions?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleyman OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"Another one for Morley to not respond to!

Evening Standard...

Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-Budget still plays a role in the latest round of gilt market chaos

City Comment: After the ’fiscal event’, investors will never view gilts in quite the same way again.

“The events throughout the Ashes Test match at Lord’s were truly remarkable. During one of the rare quieter passages of play I was chatting to one of London’s major bond market participants.

Our conversation turned to another extraordinary period of turmoil, the mini-Budget of last September and the financial markets meltdown that followed.

For the foreseeable future, he said, bond markets would not take the utterances of the British Prime Minister and Chancellor on trust as they once did.

They would be scrutinised far more closely for any signs of fiscal back-sliding that could once again set the alarm bells ringing”

So a made up conversation?

Can we listen?

Dunno ask the Evening Standard

Ah ok.

So a made up conversation then.

Ask the journalist not me. But also, is what is said wrong? The damage to bonds/gilts?

Yes.it unwound. As has already been poi ted out.

I'm sorry but some anonymous informant doesn't really cut it as evidence.

As I said speak to the Evening Standard. While you are being communicative perhaps you can finally answer these questions...

Q1. Does Turver say the same things NetZeroWatch say?

Q2. Does Turver retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?

Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turver agrees with NetZeroWatch?

Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda?

And...

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?

We discussed the above. They have no relevance to the conversation .

You claimed he had links to Tufton street

You couldn't prove it.

Anything else is irrelevant.

So you can’t/won’t answer

Now what about the other questions?"

What's there to answer.

You made a claim.

It was wrong. Nothing changes that fact

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rucks and TrailersMan
over a year ago

Ealing

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Liz Truss was a bit of a joke at Oxford. Had very few friends (if any). Spent her time wanting to be popular which made her easily manipulated and influenced. While I have been clear in my disdain for Johnson, I can at least see why some people may like him and invite him to parties. Truss never received any invites! That is why she was/is just a Tufton St sock puppet and Oil industry shill."
. How would you possibly know how many friends Liz Truss had and in any event what is the relevance.? Who would care or have any interst in what parties she was invited to ? .Her constituents clearly think highly of her hence the reason she was elected . Becoming prime minister is a considerable achievement and not one that I would poke fun at or sneer at. Shell also have a rigorous selection procedure for recruiting employees which she clearly passed. .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Liz Truss was a bit of a joke at Oxford. Had very few friends (if any). Spent her time wanting to be popular which made her easily manipulated and influenced. While I have been clear in my disdain for Johnson, I can at least see why some people may like him and invite him to parties. Truss never received any invites! That is why she was/is just a Tufton St sock puppet and Oil industry shill.. How would you possibly know how many friends Liz Truss had and in any event what is the relevance.? Who would care or have any interst in what parties she was invited to ? .Her constituents clearly think highly of her hence the reason she was elected . Becoming prime minister is a considerable achievement and not one that I would poke fun at or sneer at. Shell also have a rigorous selection procedure for recruiting

employees which she clearly passed. ."

Hello there, I am afraid you’re not living n the real world, working for shell is hardly relevant when becoming an MP or the PM. Truss wasn’t up to the job, she was outlasted by a lettuce

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Liz Truss was a bit of a joke at Oxford. Had very few friends (if any). Spent her time wanting to be popular which made her easily manipulated and influenced. While I have been clear in my disdain for Johnson, I can at least see why some people may like him and invite him to parties. Truss never received any invites! That is why she was/is just a Tufton St sock puppet and Oil industry shill.. How would you possibly know how many friends Liz Truss had and in any event what is the relevance.? Who would care or have any interst in what parties she was invited to ? .Her constituents clearly think highly of her hence the reason she was elected . Becoming prime minister is a considerable achievement and not one that I would poke fun at or sneer at. Shell also have a rigorous selection procedure for recruiting employees which she clearly passed. ."

She had very few friends at Oxford. You don’t have to believe me. I don’t really care.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rucks and TrailersMan
over a year ago

Ealing

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Liz Truss was a bit of a joke at Oxford. Had very few friends (if any). Spent her time wanting to be popular which made her easily manipulated and influenced. While I have been clear in my disdain for Johnson, I can at least see why some people may like him and invite him to parties. Truss never received any invites! That is why she was/is just a Tufton St sock puppet and Oil industry shill.. How would you possibly know how many friends Liz Truss had and in any event what is the relevance.? Who would care or have any interst in what parties she was invited to ? .Her constituents clearly think highly of her hence the reason she was elected . Becoming prime minister is a considerable achievement and not one that I would poke fun at or sneer at. Shell also have a rigorous selection procedure for recruiting employees which she clearly passed. .

She had very few friends at Oxford. You don’t have to believe me. I don’t really care."
. I just found it to be a totally bizarre comment .Unless you were in the same year and on the same course I find it hard to believe how anyone would know.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rucks and TrailersMan
over a year ago

Ealing

"Another one for Morley to not respond to!

Evening Standard...

Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-Budget still plays a role in the latest round of gilt market chaos

City Comment: After the ’fiscal event’, investors will never view gilts in quite the same way again.

“The events throughout the Ashes Test match at Lord’s were truly remarkable. During one of the rare quieter passages of play I was chatting to one of London’s major bond market participants.

Our conversation turned to another extraordinary period of turmoil, the mini-Budget of last September and the financial markets meltdown that followed.

For the foreseeable future, he said, bond markets would not take the utterances of the British Prime Minister and Chancellor on trust as they once did.

They would be scrutinised far more closely for any signs of fiscal back-sliding that could once again set the alarm bells ringing”

So a made up conversation?

Can we listen?

Dunno ask the Evening Standard

Ah ok.

So a made up conversation then.

Ask the journalist not me. But also, is what is said wrong? The damage to bonds/gilts?

Yes.it unwound. As has already been poi ted out.

I'm sorry but some anonymous informant doesn't really cut it as evidence.

As I said speak to the Evening Standard. While you are being communicative perhaps you can finally answer these questions...

Q1. Does Turver say the same things NetZeroWatch say?

Q2. Does Turver retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?

Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turver agrees with NetZeroWatch?

Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda?

And...

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?"
. I thought that these forums were to pass idle time . They are hardly a source of serious information. It is always interesting to read people's opinion. Backing detail is irrelevant as no rational person is going to spend their time analysing posts in detail. Despite the audience of posts bring circa ten people some posters even post backing detail and linka to source information . Opinions are interesting , sources irrelevant

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

"Another one for Morley to not respond to!

Evening Standard...

Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-Budget still plays a role in the latest round of gilt market chaos

City Comment: After the ’fiscal event’, investors will never view gilts in quite the same way again.

“The events throughout the Ashes Test match at Lord’s were truly remarkable. During one of the rare quieter passages of play I was chatting to one of London’s major bond market participants.

Our conversation turned to another extraordinary period of turmoil, the mini-Budget of last September and the financial markets meltdown that followed.

For the foreseeable future, he said, bond markets would not take the utterances of the British Prime Minister and Chancellor on trust as they once did.

They would be scrutinised far more closely for any signs of fiscal back-sliding that could once again set the alarm bells ringing”

So a made up conversation?

Can we listen?

Dunno ask the Evening Standard

Ah ok.

So a made up conversation then.

Ask the journalist not me. But also, is what is said wrong? The damage to bonds/gilts?

Yes.it unwound. As has already been poi ted out.

I'm sorry but some anonymous informant doesn't really cut it as evidence.

As I said speak to the Evening Standard. While you are being communicative perhaps you can finally answer these questions...

Q1. Does Turver say the same things NetZeroWatch say?

Q2. Does Turver retweet links to NetZeroWatch articles?

Q3. Can we therefore deduce that Turver agrees with NetZeroWatch?

Q4. Do the organisations that are part of the Tufton St community have an agenda?

And...

Why did Truss sack Kwartang?

Why was Truss forced to resign?

We discussed the above. They have no relevance to the conversation .

You claimed he had links to Tufton street

You couldn't prove it.

Anything else is irrelevant.

So you can’t/won’t answer

Now what about the other questions?

What's there to answer.

You made a claim.

It was wrong. Nothing changes that fact"

Thanks for confirming you are Wrong! Quote my “claim” and let’s see what I said that doesn’t relate to these questions. You start a thread on Tufton St then refuse to answer questions about Tufton St LOL you couldn’t make this up!

Incidentally Turver has been retweeting Farage too!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Liz Truss was a bit of a joke at Oxford. Had very few friends (if any). Spent her time wanting to be popular which made her easily manipulated and influenced. While I have been clear in my disdain for Johnson, I can at least see why some people may like him and invite him to parties. Truss never received any invites! That is why she was/is just a Tufton St sock puppet and Oil industry shill.. How would you possibly know how many friends Liz Truss had and in any event what is the relevance.? Who would care or have any interst in what parties she was invited to ? .Her constituents clearly think highly of her hence the reason she was elected . Becoming prime minister is a considerable achievement and not one that I would poke fun at or sneer at. Shell also have a rigorous selection procedure for recruiting employees which she clearly passed. .

She had very few friends at Oxford. You don’t have to believe me. I don’t really care.. I just found it to be a totally bizarre comment .Unless you were in the same year and on the same course I find it hard to believe how anyone would know. "

Hello there, I am afraid you’re not living in the real world, can I ask, where does your adoration for truss come from ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

We are all a lot worse off through our failure to pursue her policies . She was a worthy replacement for Boris and had a vision of the future. A sad state of affairs .

Liz Truss was a bit of a joke at Oxford. Had very few friends (if any). Spent her time wanting to be popular which made her easily manipulated and influenced. While I have been clear in my disdain for Johnson, I can at least see why some people may like him and invite him to parties. Truss never received any invites! That is why she was/is just a Tufton St sock puppet and Oil industry shill.. How would you possibly know how many friends Liz Truss had and in any event what is the relevance.? Who would care or have any interst in what parties she was invited to ? .Her constituents clearly think highly of her hence the reason she was elected . Becoming prime minister is a considerable achievement and not one that I would poke fun at or sneer at. Shell also have a rigorous selection procedure for recruiting employees which she clearly passed. .

You don’t need to be in the same class or even the same year. It doesn’t even have to be you! And as I said, you don’t have to believe and I don’t care if you do/don’t.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread