j.a.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've been busy with other things...you > know...life....for the last few days anf have just > caught up on this fascinating thread.... > > I'll upfront acknowledge that I dont like Boris at > all, Johnson shouldn't have made the > Starmer/Saville comment, and there is indeed no > place for intimidation of politicians in Society. > > Now for the bit that many of the posters above > will not like so much.... > > The partisanship (a polite word for bias) just > drips off most of the posts on here....and Keano > is 100% correct that mask of tolerance completely > slips from many of your progressive/lefty digital > faces when someone makes an argument you dislike. > > Keano is also 100% correct that the silence is > deafening on abusive or aggressive language when > it comes from posters who the 'EDF mob' > philosophically agree with. > > If I had seen any one of you call out DR for some > of his disgusting, personal comments above...then > I might be able to take this thread a bit more > seriously when you have a go at people like > keano.... Keano made his bed and can lie in it. While I see the logic of your argument generally speaking, Keano is being disingenuous at best in asserting that?s he?s above reproach. His posting history contains numerous examples of his personal style of nastiness. I personally find the idea that he?s the injured party pretty laughable, given his online behaviour over time. > > But back to bias not specific to the EDF...it > seems to me that when a right-wing politician gets > shouted at and abused...its just people 'calling > out' > evil/stupid/arrogant/populist/dangerous/unjust > figures; but left-wing politician gets shouted at > and it's suddenly an 'intimidatory mob', and > things like horrendous murders of left-wing > politicans gets rasied as the clear directionj of > travel If you don?t think there aren?t many parts of the internet where the opposite is true then I?ve got a bridge to sell you. This is the internet. It?s all a variety of echo chambers. (Just by way of case study...there must be > about a dozen mentions of Jo Cox above, but not > one mention of David Amisss....I wonder why that > might be....?). Intimidation, abuse (oh..and > murder) should be 'called out' regardless of which > political colour is on the recieving end. Jo Cox was murdered by a white extremist, David Amess by an Islamic extremist. Speaking bluntly, I think it?s because there?s a widespread acceptance of the existence of the latter, but still quite a lot of resistance in some circles to the idea of the former, which some people feel is an unrealistic assessment of our society. No doubt both murderers are mentally unhinged.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thank you for your contribution j.a. > > It is possible my debating style needs a bit of > work but I?m not sure what you mean by ?one of the > nastiest posters on here? > > It strikes me what irks people is that I don?t > sheep-like agree with them and it surprises them > and annoys them. So for example, just because > every newspaper, TV station, radio and most social > media yesterday decided Boris was responsible for > Starmer being harassed, and I disagreed, people > get upset. > > DR is one of those people who gets upset - the > masks slips and swear words and filth spew forth > from his mouth in personal attacks. > > I?m intrigued j.a. That despite quoting such bile > you make no comment whether it is acceptable on a > public forum. Do you not consider any of that > ?nasty?? I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I gave some hours ago.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > diable rouge Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Sorry keano, you're a jokester of a poster, > > pissed-up on Koolaid and long gone down the > rabbit > > hole. > > > > Do everyone a favour and go back to > masturbating > > into your sock while watching GB News... > > Charming. Weren?t you well brought up. > > And you have the audacity to criticise people > calling Starmer names? > > Idiot Mate, you lost the moral high ground a few years back. You?ve long since been one of the nastiest posters on here; you just dress it up in passive-aggressive ?arguments? and try to act like you?re being reasonable (spoiler alert, we can all see that you ain?t), but the fact is it?s pretty clear what kind of individual you are.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why are you trying to drag poor old Jo Cox into > this DR? Do you think a little emotional twang > helps you? > > Open your eyes you fool and see how this incident > is being used as another stick with which to beat > Boris. People like you are like puppets on a > string, dancing to others? tunes. Or, or, maybe???juuuuust maybe?Boris did a really stupid thing, the latest of many, and possibly he?s not really the political colossus that you think he is? Honestly, if you?re intent on thinking Boris is some kind of decent human being just trying his best, then whatever gets you through the night mate. I mean, there?s *quite a lot* of evidence to the contrary, but you see what you want see.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Given a number of people have made the point that > this is only one side of the story...it's notable > that most commenters seem to have assumed that > this discussion the bosses want to have with her > 'in due course' is to take her to task over her > comment.... > > Just a thought, but perhaps on reflection they > were shocked and disappointed in themselves and > want to address any concerns she might have > regarding sexism in the workplace...perhaps they > want a little time to make sure they approach that > meeting in the best conciliatory/constructive > manner...they perhaps want to make clear they want > to improve the company culture. > > Anyway...perhaps that's wishful thinking..but it > would seem a very stupid thing to do in today's > climate for any sensible business owner to respond > to an accusation of sexism by sacking or in some > way making life difficult for the compplainant > (but of course I know it does > happen)....anyway...just a thought...but perhaps > everyone might come out of the initial > confrontation with a better outlook and improved > work environment. Disagreements can sometimes > result in self-reflection, and have positive > outcomes as they get people talking.... Yeeeeeah, maybe - in fact hopefully this is the case. My experience (and it?s only my experience) is that in these cases fault usually lies with management. Generally either they are actual dinosaurs (not unknown but getting rarer all the time fortunately), or they?ve mishandled the situation. Moreover I kind of feel that the onus is on management to make sure people don?t feel this way on the first place. If you want to be in charge then it comes with the territory. Yes there are always people inclined to look for drama whom might ?wilfully misinterpret? an otherwise innocent remark but they?re few and far between.

While I appreciate the lack of nuance in this post, all I can say is? ?nice, real f*?+ing nice? https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/levelling-up-in-doubt-as-ps1bn-a-year-cut-from-post-brexit-regional-funding-mps-warn-rishi-sunak-3543409 Once again they?re going to f? over the North. They?ve learned *NOTHING*. ETA - I can swallow Brexit, I can learn to live with it, if it delivers on those promises to enhance the lives of people on those regions that were decimated by the (checks notes), ah yes, the various Tory governments of the past forty years (again lack of nuance acknowledged but I?m not far off). But that seems??in doubt.

Your friend needs to stand her ground very firmly. I obviously only know one side of the story to go on, but from what you have described JohnL is correct. The owners need to explain themselves to her; she owes them no explanation. If she feels she is treated unfairly she should seek legal advice. The fact that there is no HR department does not absolve them from legal responsibility. There is simply no place for this in modern society. As I say, I only know one side of the argument and - to be fair - it?s entirely possible that the CEO?s are able to resolve this. However, she has every right to be maintain a robust position.

So? You liked it when the thread went quiet? ?and somehow when a few posts were made you felt the need to point out how things are now worse? ?you know you could, just, kind of?ignore it? Sometimes it?s best to let go tbh.

To be fair, there?s a debate to be had about the future of the BBC as the under-20?s are growing up with the subscription model as standard (Netflix, Prime, Disney+ and so on) and may well wonder why the BBC doesn?t just do the same. Technology is driving this change, as it often does, and it may be that the BBC should think about it. At the same time this government cannot be trusted to manage this debate, as their aim is clearly to hobble the national broadcaster. DB?s comparison to Hungary is a valid one.

Cat, The Secret Barrister thread that JohnL linked to will answer most if not all of your questions.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > j.a. Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > ETA - I will admit, however, to a certain > amount > > of cautious optimism at the appointment of > Truss > > to run EU negotiations. > Truss is both bonkers AND thick. She is the bottom > of the barrel. Yes, but I wonder if somehow she realises that constant pandering to the Bakers and Moggs of this world won?t move things forward. Her opening gambit has been in that vein.

Over the last fifty years we?ve had repeated examples of industries dying and those involved not being helped to find new work. In this country the demise of coal and manufacturing in the North and the Midlands is the perfect example, but there?s plenty of others. Brexit was supposed to be something that helped everyone. Those communities, as well as the coastal towns, are supposed to be the prime beneficiaries of this. Thus far that promise is not being kept, and if we keep screwing over people like farmers because the big picture is pretty???well, we?re just repeating the mistakes of the past, regardless of the motivations behind it. In twenty years time, what will they say, if we take away their livelihood and give nothing in return? ETA - I will admit, however, to a certain amount of cautious optimism at the appointment of Truss to run EU negotiations. Frost may be an astute political operator (or he may not, I disagree with your assessment of him), but he was also a bully, a thug, a devotee of the ?tough it out? school of negotiating and entirely unsuited to the job assigned to him. Once again we have a Tory party being threatened by it?s extremist wing and all Frost did was play to them. He failed as a negotiator (seriously, he agreed a deal and then tried to get out of it - WTF?), and it is to be hoped Liz Truss will be able to make headway.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Fair enough J.a.. And I'm not unsympathetic to > people doing it tough (despite screeching from > some people that I don't care about anything or > anyone) > > But putting the conversation over this deal in > context.....agriculture is around 120billion > sterling industry in the UK, and according to > those stats being bandied around, this deal will > have a 94m sterling impact on the agriculture > sector...so a 0.08percent hit to the farming > sector. I'd argue that probably qualifies as 'a > bit'. Of course I might not be comparing Apple's > with apples on those two figures..as this is just > off the cuff calls, so happy to be told otherwise > if I should be thinking different numbers. And of > course am aware that specific impacts will be felt > more keenly by certain types of farmers than > others, it won't be a uniform hit of 0.08percetn > across the sector. > > In anycase...as I've said...this deal is small in > the context of the overall economy...but with > positive impacts on the manufacturing sector > (around 18percent of British GDP, versus less than > 1 percent for farming) that's a core reason why > the net impact is positive. > > More broadly, surely if we're talking about > impacts on the national economy, we should be > considering national impacts. At the individual > level someone will always lose out from any > decision or agreement to some degree unfort, but > hopefully on balance positive changes from a > national perspective can be the aim. All of that may well be (probably is) true. But consider the following? Part of how Brexit was sold to us was that we could take back control of our fishing and allow our farmers to sell around the world. This was a large part of what I call the ?emotional? arguments in favour of Leave. The idea - and is was just an idea, because the ?how? of it was never defined - that we could have greater command over how fish and meat was reared, butchered and sold, theoretically around the world. So far? I?m sure you?re aware of how hard fishing is having it. Meat farming is not doing much, if any, better. While on the grand scheme of things the numbers may be small, I can assure you it?s 100% for those involved. Put crudely, what you?re supporting is basically a death knell for high-quality, high-welfare animal husbandry in this country. Let us ask what will happen next. Well, once those farmers are out of business, those who replace them will in all likelihood *not* be so interested in maintaining such high standards, because the only people in a position to take over will be the big conglomerates. We will lose the skill set and the desire to raise good-quality and humanely cared-for beef, pork, chicken and lamb. The stuff coming over from your homeland? I?m sorry, but it isn?t always that wonderful - and yes, I really do know what I?m talking about. You know how the energy market is your area of expertise? This kind of thing is mine. Now, there are those who might feel that if the current crop of farmers can?t compete in the market as it is, then they should get out of it. This is of course a point of view. But I would say that people in this country have become disconnected from the real cost of what it takes to create high-quality food. People want it cheap, but they don?t want it bad. Well, when it comes to meat and fish, quality costs. If you can?t afford it, go veggie or even vegan. But frankly, lower your expectations about how little you feel you should pay for that leg of lamb. My point is this - when you focus on results at the strategic level then a deal like this seems pretty sweet. But zoom down to the actual people involved and it becomes apparent there are real human costs involved, as well as a literal danger to the quality of food we consume. If you?re willing to go that route then fine, but what are you going to do about the farmers and fishers who see their livelihoods evaporate? Because some of them are going to put a shotgun in their mouth. To me this is another example of those mistakes made early in the Brexit process about which I harp on relentlessly. There?s a *lot* of Leave voters for whom control of this kind of thing was exactly what they wanted from it. But as you point out, there precious little money in it, not many votes, so the Tories just sold it down the river.

@thecat ?Farmers lose a bit? Dude, it?s a lot worse than that. Farming in this country is on a precipice.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But they were already in the building, sitting > outside. I think it is mischief making and really > not the smoking gun that people say/want it to be. > (One can believe this and also not be a supporter > of Boris. It is called being rational and > reasonable and it stops one from being reflexively > anti just because it is the default setting.) To me personally it looks very much like a group of people who know they probably shouldn?t be doing what they?re doing, but they feel the rules don?t apply to them. If we hadn?t had all the other revelations then yes, it?d be much ado about nothing. But taken in the wider context it looks very much like 10 Downing St developed the view that they could do as they pleased. As always, this is a result of the person at the top setting the tone?

wordsworth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...honey,pass the tissues luv... Why, have you run out of socks?

?If I'm right (that frost is hitting a brick wall at cabinet) then this is just another area where this government is just lurching around with no clear objective or directives from the top...and an example of why I have been concerned with such a sh-te government implementing brexit...not necessarily with brexit as a concept itself...? And herein lies one the core reasons why, in the end, I couldn?t vote Leave. No one - nobody at all - had any idea how to *actually implement it*. As has been mentioned ad neaseum, there is no single, coherent version of Brexit which commands majority support across the Leave vote. As such any agreement with the EU will piss off someone, possibly many people. This is the unfortunate, inevitable, inescapable result of voting Leave without a clearly understood and agreed view on the matter. Them of course there is the small matter of electing such a lying, conniving, self-serving charlatan as Johnson to enact it, a man so divorced from any understanding of leadership and honesty as to put their nation on a crash course with disaster when something so important (to put it mildly) as Brexit is at stake. I still believe that the mistakes were made in the early days of Brexit, such that they could not later be corrected, but even so this is now becoming an utter shit show. To be clear, I personally take no pleasure in this, I would?ve preferred to eat humble pie and seen the Leave camp be able to make good on everything they promised. But?well, they?re still arguing with themselves.

So who?s going to replace Frost? Will Johnson go for pragmatism and try to shove Gove in there (doubt he?ll want it), or is he gonna double down and try to find someone even more crass and unqualified? To go from David Davis, to Olly Robbins, to Frost?where do you go from there? Genuinely intrigued to see who next carries the can for this.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dan Hodges (Mail on Sunday opinion writer) hasn't > heard of tactical voting... > > On the by-election. Disastrous result for Boris. > But a pretty terrible result for Starmer as well. Dan Hodges is weirdly obsessed with how badly Labour are doing. Presumably it?s down to him being the kid of a Labour MP, but even so he really needs to let it go.

jazzer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How, what, when, where, how? I'd suggest providing > evidence before sweeping in with your > statement... > Evidence, evidence, evidence??? > > The NHS are LIFE savers, literally. So can you > please just take a step back and stop knocking the > organisation. > Unless you have experienced it first hand, you'll > never ever know what an utterly amazing job they > do day in, day out, 24hrs a day, 365 days Every > Year. My evidence - (from personal experience on > the receiving end). I'll be eternally grateful for > what they did for me. > > And yes things do go wrong, it's medical science > but they try damn hard. Literally no one here is having a go at the staff. I?d go so far as to say that everyone would agree with your characterisation of the organisation. What is most certainly in question is the idea that the NHS has an ironclad defence against privatisation. A lot of people have a hefty (financial) interest in allowing/creating situations in which the NHS is overloaded so that they can push for privatisation. No doubt the NHS could be better managed at top levels and could handle procurement more effectively but that goes for every public organisation (and most private ones too). If you want to see a total boondoggle look at defence procurement! Ironically if we fixed defence spending we could find the NHS to an amazing standard. The danger to healthcare that is free at the point of delivery is very real. But no politician is going to simply stop it. They?ll do it incredibly slowly, boiling us like the proverbial frog on a pot until one day it?s too late, and we didn?t even realise it. It?s not the organisation that is the problem (with caveat of what I mentioned above), but the vultures who circle it, eyeing up the tremendous funding they could peel off for themselves. Big Pharma have done some amazing things during the pandemic, but it doesn?t change what they inherently are. ?Dopesick? anyone?

Oh look. The UK has dropped its red line over the ECJ. Odd, Frost was somewhat insistent about that. A u-turn from this government? Perish the thought. Sounds suspiciously like the US has applied some pressure behind the scenes. Or maybe not. Either way, it?ll move things forward.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Exactly. > > Think how successful Bridesmaids was. > > Think how unsuccessful the female Ghostbusters > film was. The female Ghostbusters movie failed for a number of reasons, not least of which it was a bad, bad movie. Good example of assuming that the basic franchise can succeed regardless of changes. The original is a great film, a very hard act to follow, and it didn?t help that they wrote a terrible script. The massive online hate-filled misogynistic campaign against it had nothing to do with the fact that it wasn?t a good film, however much those trolls may have claimed otherwise. I?ll agree Diablo makes an interesting point but personally I?m unconvinced by the argument in the case of Bond. TBF I?ve never been a huge fan of the franchise, so possibly I?m biased because I?d be interested to see if a female Bond could bring something to the vibe. Other people just don?t like the idea of a woman in a role that they see as the preserve of a man and generally speaking I?m suspicious of that viewpoint. There?s plenty of examples of that these days.

SpringTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No I won't, sorry. It'll be even less relevant > than it is now. And somehow the idea of a female Bond seems wrong to you. That?s pretty pathetic.

SpringTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Angelina Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > James Bond dies? > > > Don't worry. She'll be back. And then even less > people will watch. Grow up.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Imagine being on the same side as Hollie.... > > Imagine being on the same side as Farage, Tice, Widdecombe, Moylan, Liddle, Mummery and the entire editorial staff of the Telegraph? Both sides have some dubious elements, that?s a blame game which will go to sunrise and beyond.