Boris ...is he a dead man walking.

[enfieldspares]

Rules are for Plebs. Not Patricians. Get over it, move along and shut up and do as you're told.

[12gauge82]

5 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I too am a fan of Farage, but he is a spent force and is as ever without any decent support.

If you think the current government is bad, just reflect on what might be if either Corbyn or Starmer had reached power. If you still think they could do better you are sadly mistaken.

If we don't give the tories something to worry about with a credible threat that another party that isn't more left leaning than them might get in, nothing will ever change. 

I'm done with the two party system we have in this country. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

10 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

If we don't give the tories something to worry about with a credible threat that another party that isn't more left leaning than them might get in, nothing will ever change. 

I'm done with the two party system we have in this country. 

Yes so you keep saying, but until enough people find another way it will NOT change.

[Westward]

The only person in either party that I would call fully equipped to be PM is David Frost and he's just resigned from the cabinet. 

[bluesj]

15 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

If we don't give the tories something to worry about with a credible threat that another party that isn't more left leaning than them might get in, nothing will ever change. 

I'm done with the two party system we have in this country. 

What party would that be?

In all the time I have been able to vote I can't remember a time voting for a party in anticipation of them making  my life better but just in the hope that they wouldn't screw it up too much more and haven't even got that hope any more!

[toxo]

44 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Rules are for Plebs. Not Patricians. Get over it, move along and shut up and do as you're told.

Love it

 

4 minutes ago, bluesj said:

What party would that be?

In all the time I have been able to vote I can't remember a time voting for a party in anticipation of them making  my life better but just in the hope that they wouldn't screw it up too much more and haven't even got that hope any more!

This^

1 hour ago, TRINITY said:

If Labour are intent of gaining power I think that going after Boris will not help them that much. They will never get a sufficient majority without regaining all those Scots seat they have lost to SNP. Starmer must see this as his real battle ground because without winning that fight, he will never win the war. 

Interesting

[toxo]

On 23/12/2021 at 17:53, JohnfromUK said:

And to me

People who work together, sitting spread out outside, all fairly 'sensible'.  Wine a cheese - not a big issue,

 

Except that they'd just finished telling everyone that it's not allowed for the benefit of the country.

It's people like you that give these ********* the idea that they're above the rest of us.

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, toxo said:

It's people like you that give these ********* the idea that they're above the rest of us.

No one involved is claiming they are "above the rest of us" - that's just lefty opportunism speak from the opposition and their supporters. 

Just be a bit sensible and look at the actual facts and risks.  That's what it is about - minimising risk of transmission of Covid.  The sooner people engage their brains and behave sensibly - the sooner we shall see this 'pandemic' reduced to 'endemic' we can all live with.

Its people like me who want to see common sense prevail - and people who share a building and common work environment meeting outdoors in the same building garden ticks the common sense box - and prevents any infection risk to/from others outside that environment.

The people who should be investigated are the halfwits who spread the antivax propaganda, disrup and damage NHS testing and facilities, abuse NHS staff,  those who leak classified papers from Government premises and networks and those who want to sack the people who have probably had a hard time and are offered a safe and practical recreation in the same groups they have been working in in the same premises.

[Scully]

9 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

No one involved is claiming they are "above the rest of us" - that's just lefty opportunism speak from the opposition and their supporters. 

Just be a bit sensible and look at the actual facts and risks.  That's what it is about - minimising risk of transmission of Covid.  The sooner people engage their brains and behave sensibly - the sooner we shall see this 'pandemic' reduced to 'endemic' we can all live with.

Its people like me who want to see common sense prevail - and people who share a building and common work environment meeting outdoors in the same building garden ticks the common sense box - and prevents any infection risk to/from others outside that environment.

The people who should be investigated are the halfwits who spread the antivax propaganda, disrup and damage NHS testing and facilities, abuse NHS staff,  those who leak classified papers from Government premises and networks and those who want to sack the people who have probably had a hard time and are offered a safe and practical recreation in the same groups they have been working in in the same premises.

I’d go along with that. 

[clangerman]

7 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

No one involved is claiming they are "above the rest of us" - that's just lefty opportunism speak from the opposition and their supporters. 

Just be a bit sensible and look at the actual facts and risks.  That's what it is about - minimising risk of transmission of Covid.  The sooner people engage their brains and behave sensibly - the sooner we shall see this 'pandemic' reduced to 'endemic' we can all live with.

Its people like me who want to see common sense prevail - and people who share a building and common work environment meeting outdoors in the same building garden ticks the common sense box - and prevents any infection risk to/from others outside that environment.

The people who should be investigated are the halfwits who spread the antivax propaganda, disrup and damage NHS testing and facilities, abuse NHS staff,  those who leak classified papers from Government premises and networks and those who want to sack the people who have probably had a hard time and are offered a safe and practical recreation in the same groups they have been working in in the same premises.

now I know why the fat liar is giving everyone two fingers and laughing at us nothing but a bit of cheese and wine? talk about propaganda! 

[12gauge82]

34 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Yes so you keep saying, but until enough people find another way it will NOT change.

There's already other partys to vote for, it's people that need to change their thinking that's there's only two options at the ballet box. 

[12gauge82]

42 minutes ago, bluesj said:

What party would that be?

In all the time I have been able to vote I can't remember a time voting for a party in anticipation of them making  my life better but just in the hope that they wouldn't screw it up too much more and haven't even got that hope any more!

Who you vote for is up to you. 

I'm voting reform at the next election if possible. 

If the UK population doesn't change its voting habits, nothing will ever change and those that continue with the same binary voting habits can hardly complain about the same unresolved issues this country faces. 

[clangerman]

4 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

There's already other partys to vote for, it's people that need to change their thinking that's there's only two options at the ballet box. 

how right you are option one vote for a liar option two don’t vote at all 

[old man]

52 minutes ago, bluesj said:

What party would that be?

In all the time I have been able to vote I can't remember a time voting for a party in anticipation of them making  my life better but just in the hope that they wouldn't screw it up too much more and haven't even got that hope any more!

Ain't that just the truth, sums the situation perfectly?

[Mice!]

5 hours ago, Westward said:

 

I'm pretty old now and I can reasonably say that for at least 40 years the NHS has consistently bleated about staff shortages and, by implication, lack of adequate funding by tory governments. And it's exactly the same story with the police.

These inherently left leaning vast monolithic organisations need to focus more efforts on their own internal efficiency and less on playing politics and constantly shifting blame onto the tories.

Spot on.

2 hours ago, TRINITY said:

If Labour are intent of gaining power I think that going after Boris will not help them that much. They will never get a sufficient majority without regaining all those Scots seat they have lost to SNP. Starmer must see this as his real battle ground because without winning that fight, he will never win the war. 

Spot on, but its all labour can do, they have nothing else.

 

28 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

No one involved is claiming they are "above the rest of us" - that's just lefty opportunism speak from the opposition and their supporters. 

Just be a bit sensible and look at the actual facts and risks.  That's what it is about - minimising risk of transmission of Covid.  The sooner people engage their brains and behave sensibly - the sooner we shall see this 'pandemic' reduced to 'endemic' we can all live with.

Its people like me who want to see common sense prevail - and people who share a building and common work environment meeting outdoors in the same building garden ticks the common sense box - and prevents any infection risk to/from others outside that environment.

The people who should be investigated are the halfwits who spread the antivax propaganda, disrup and damage NHS testing and facilities, abuse NHS staff,  those who leak classified papers from Government premises and networks and those who want to sack the people who have probably had a hard time and are offered a safe and practical recreation in the same groups they have been working in in the same premises.

And spot on number 3.

I really do think some people are very blinkered in their opinions,  Labour were thrashed in the last GE, because they were a shambles and yet people seem to think they would have done better handling the covid crisis?? 

If all the opposition can do is say you had a party/parties then they are in a sorry state.

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, a prime minister who likes his beanie hats 🤔😁

[old man]

37 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

No one involved is claiming they are "above the rest of us" - that's just lefty opportunism speak from the opposition and their supporters. 

Just be a bit sensible and look at the actual facts and risks.  That's what it is about - minimising risk of transmission of Covid.  The sooner people engage their brains and behave sensibly - the sooner we shall see this 'pandemic' reduced to 'endemic' we can all live with.

Its people like me who want to see common sense prevail - and people who share a building and common work environment meeting outdoors in the same building garden ticks the common sense box - and prevents any infection risk to/from others outside that environment.

The people who should be investigated are the halfwits who spread the antivax propaganda, disrup and damage NHS testing and facilities, abuse NHS staff,  those who leak classified papers from Government premises and networks and those who want to sack the people who have probably had a hard time and are offered a safe and practical recreation in the same groups they have been working in in the same premises.

Have to take you to task on your second paragraph there John, The facts and risks have nothing to do with the fact that if this meeting took place in contravention of the covid rule at the time some form of the law was surely broken? Or do I misunderstand completely the law that restricted the actions of millions at the time?

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, old man said:

Have to take you to task on your second paragraph there John, The facts and risks have nothing to do with the fact that if this meeting took place in contravention of the covid rule at the time some form of the law was surely broken? Or do I misunderstand completely the law that restricted the actions of millions at the time?

I can't disagree - except that the law was introduced with the purpose to limit 'high risk gatherings' - and I don't think in this particular set of circumstances it was high risk.  Like all laws, it has to take a broad brush approach which doesn't allow practical interpretation.

I also can't disagree with the ideas that Boris presides over (or maybe his wife does?) a shambolic and disorganised No 10 where (at that time) competing factions (Carries cabal versus Cummings cronies) seem more interested in infighting than anything else.  Boris dithered in between.

I have incidentally never been a Boris 'fan'.  I think it fairly certain Cummings will engineer his downfall by a continuous stream of 'stolen' material.

37 minutes ago, Mice! said:

they are in a sorry state.

Which sums them up nicely!

 

[Mice!]

13 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

have incidentally never been a Boris 'fan'.  I think it fairly certain Cummings will engineer his downfall by a continuous stream of 'stolen' material.

It makes you wonder why Boris hasn't said to the spooks, find out who's behind these leaks and bury them?

[12gauge82]

41 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I can't disagree - except that the law was introduced with the purpose to limit 'high risk gatherings' - and I don't think in this particular set of circumstances it was high risk.  Like all laws, it has to take a broad brush approach which doesn't allow practical interpretation.

I also can't disagree with the ideas that Boris presides over (or maybe his wife does?) a shambolic and disorganised No 10 where (at that time) competing factions (Carries cabal versus Cummings cronies) seem more interested in infighting than anything else.  Boris dithered in between.

I have incidentally never been a Boris 'fan'.  I think it fairly certain Cummings will engineer his downfall by a continuous stream of 'stolen' material.

Which sums them up nicely!

 

The Conservatives have gone too far this time, although I'm not suggesting any other party would have acted better. The point is, they've locked people in their houses, stopped people from seeing their loved ones before they died, criminalised otherwise law abiding people, stopped people sending off loved ones at funerals, while ignoring the very laws they made. There is no excuse, the question now is why should anyone bother listening to the law? 

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

The Conservatives have gone too far this time, although I'm not suggesting any other party would have acted better. The point is, they've locked people in their houses, stopped people from seeing their loved ones before they died, criminalised otherwise law abiding people, stopped people sending off loved ones at funerals, while ignoring the very laws they made. There is no excuse, the question now is why should anyone bother listening to the law? 

The problem is that it was a hastily introduced law - and my interpretation of what was 'intended' in order to reduce risk is that 'gatherings' of people who wouldn't otherwise need to meet increased risk unnecessarily ....... so they ruled them 'out'.  E.g a group of friends and relatives who neither live as a unit or work in a group shouldn't meet up for a party/get together/social occasion.

People who live together as a family or extended family obviously are in a group together as a 'household' - so were exempt - and all of your 'household' could meet and share a meal, drinks etc within your household premises (which is rather obvious!).  They are already a close proximity grouping sharing premises and facilities.

Those who could work from home were supposed to and avoid the workplace/office.

The 'bubble' concept was introduced to support single isolated people who could join a single 'support bubble'.

Those who couldn't work from home went to their place of work where they formed a group where they had to work together - rather like a 'household' - and I suspect the risks are similar to a 'household'.  You might call it a 'workgroup'.  Like the 'household', the 'workgroup' are together for a purpose.  They are also already a close proximity grouping sharing premises and facilities - very similar to the household.

HAD there been time to work the rules out carefully, workgroups might well have been (and in my view should haver been) able to be exempted as households were - but they weren't.

[oowee]

19 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The problem is that it was a hastily introduced law - and my interpretation of what was 'intended' in order to reduce risk is that 'gatherings' of people who wouldn't otherwise need to meet increased risk unnecessarily ....... so they ruled them 'out'.  E.g a group of friends and relatives who neither live as a unit or work in a group shouldn't meet up for a party/get together/social occasion.

People who live together as a family or extended family obviously are in a group together as a 'household' - so were exempt - and all of your 'household' could meet and share a meal, drinks etc within your household premises (which is rather obvious!).  They are already a close proximity grouping sharing premises and facilities.

Those who could work from home were supposed to and avoid the workplace/office.

The 'bubble' concept was introduced to support single isolated people who could join a single 'support bubble'.

Those who couldn't work from home went to their place of work where they formed a group where they had to work together - rather like a 'household' - and I suspect the risks are similar to a 'household'.  You might call it a 'workgroup'.  Like the 'household', the 'workgroup' are together for a purpose.  They are also already a close proximity grouping sharing premises and facilities - very similar to the household.

HAD there been time to work the rules out carefully, workgroups might well have been (and in my view should haver been) able to be exempted as households were - but they weren't.

 whats that got to do with anything? They set the rules and then immediately broke them. 

This is simply one piece of effluent tipped over the gullible fawning public that so readily believe his fawning fat face. Get him out. 

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

whats that got to do with anything?

Everything; hastily made bad laws (or any bad laws) inevitably backfire and bring about loads of problems.

[12gauge82]

27 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The problem is that it was a hastily introduced law - and my interpretation of what was 'intended' in order to reduce risk is that 'gatherings' of people who wouldn't otherwise need to meet increased risk unnecessarily ....... so they ruled them 'out'.  E.g a group of friends and relatives who neither live as a unit or work in a group shouldn't meet up for a party/get together/social occasion.

People who live together as a family or extended family obviously are in a group together as a 'household' - so were exempt - and all of your 'household' could meet and share a meal, drinks etc within your household premises (which is rather obvious!).  They are already a close proximity grouping sharing premises and facilities.

Those who could work from home were supposed to and avoid the workplace/office.

The 'bubble' concept was introduced to support single isolated people who could join a single 'support bubble'.

Those who couldn't work from home went to their place of work where they formed a group where they had to work together - rather like a 'household' - and I suspect the risks are similar to a 'household'.  You might call it a 'workgroup'.  Like the 'household', the 'workgroup' are together for a purpose.  They are also already a close proximity grouping sharing premises and facilities - very similar to the household.

HAD there been time to work the rules out carefully, workgroups might well have been (and in my view should haver been) able to be exempted as households were - but they weren't.

Its not acceptable. They set some of the most draconian laws and imposed them on the population, making changes to some people's lives that can never be rectified or forgotten. The least they should have done is stuck to those laws themselves, but they didn't. 

[Mice!]

3 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Its not acceptable. They set some of the most draconian laws and imposed them on the population, making changes to some people's lives that can never be rectified or forgotten. The least they should have done is stuck to those laws themselves, but they didn't. 

They said stay at home, most folk got paid for it, and it definitely impacted a small percentage. I wouldn't exactly call it draconian.

11 minutes ago, oowee said:

 whats that got to do with anything? They set the rules and then immediately broke them. 

This is simply one piece of effluent tipped over the gullible fawning public that so readily believe his fawning fat face. Get him out. 

And when I saw you'd commented I expected something insightful?

The rules were brought in because average Joe public couldn't use common sense and not go out in their thousands on things like mothers day when we were being told hundreds of thousands could die.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, someone has obviously held on to these images for some time, images of people who work together in the garden,  unless there are more that I've missed, topless pictures of Boris with his tie on his head doing the conga?