How is the Tory government doing?

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:I have no idea what you think you are proving by quoting numbers showing 3m people from the EU moving here compared to 2m British moving the other way. Since the population of the EU excluding the UK is 380m and the UK population is 67m your figures show proportionately far more UK citizens moving to the EU than the other way round i.e. the exact opposite of what you appear to be arguing.

And incidentally it is vice versa not visa-versa.

Think you proved my point actually.

Out of 67m UK people only 2m think the 'freedoms' to go to EU countries is so worthwhile and more so that out of 380m EU citizens only 3m think it's worth bothering about coming here to reside?

Out of a total of just short of 450m people only 5m (0.2%) think the freedom is actually worth acting upon!!!

What's the point of it really if you look at it that way?

You said "You might even wish to consider if those choices we had whilst we were in the EU for all those years were indeed so 'good' and 'free' then why has{sic} more people immigrated into GB from the EU than visa-versa?"

So when I demonstrate that proportionately the exact opposite to what you said is true you claim that I proved your point.  

Yes you did - you gave the population sizes - which allowed me to show the context of it all - namely that only 0.2% of everybody who could do so - actually did!

How is 'losing' that such a 'devastating loss' to anyone other than for those 0.2% who actually bothered to take advantage of it?

PS - I'm dyslexic.

If the best comebacks you can make are just pointing out the grammatical errors I make, then maybe it is better that you keep them to yourself.

Have a nice day.

Sluffy wrote:

If the best comebacks you can make are just pointing out the grammatical errors I make, then maybe it is better that you keep them to yourself.

Maybe you shouldn't point out errors that other posters make then.

People who live in glass houses ...

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

If the best comebacks you can make are just pointing out the grammatical errors I make, then maybe it is better that you keep them to yourself.

Maybe you shouldn't point out errors that other posters make then.

People who live in glass houses ...

There's a significant factual difference in the meaning of a government 'inquiry' and that of a government 'enquiry'.

That was why I pointed it out.

If it has caused you to react so petulantly ever since then I suggest it says far more about you as a poster than what my dyslexia says about me.

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

If the best comebacks you can make are just pointing out the grammatical errors I make, then maybe it is better that you keep them to yourself.

Maybe you shouldn't point out errors that other posters make then.

People who live in glass houses ...

There's a significant factual difference in the meaning of a government 'inquiry' and that of a government 'enquiry'.

That was why I pointed it out.

If it has caused you to react so petulantly ever since then I suggest it says far more about you as a poster than what my dyslexia says about me.

First of all I said official enquiry not government enquiry. Second there is no room for misunderstanding my meaning even though I typed enquiry not inquiry. Try googling either term if you don't believe me.

So I very much doubt that your correction was designed to clarify matters.

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

If the best comebacks you can make are just pointing out the grammatical errors I make, then maybe it is better that you keep them to yourself.

Maybe you shouldn't point out errors that other posters make then.

People who live in glass houses ...

There's a significant factual difference in the meaning of a government 'inquiry' and that of a government 'enquiry'.

That was why I pointed it out.

If it has caused you to react so petulantly ever since then I suggest it says far more about you as a poster than what my dyslexia says about me.

First of all I said official enquiry not government enquiry. Second there is no room for misunderstanding my meaning even though I typed enquiry not inquiry. Try googling either term if you don't believe me.

So I very much doubt that your correction was designed to clarify matters.

Enquiry is to 'ask'.

Inquiry is to 'investigate'.

An 'official' is a member of a public office or institution, therefore an official enquiry (as you wrote) could be as mundane as say the British Museum (which is a public institution) contacting you to ask if you found your visit there to be enjoyable.

A public inquiry on the other hand is an official review ordered by a government department.

As only those in elected power have the authority to authorise such governmental departmental official reviews (inquiries) it automatically follows that they are also commonly referred to as government inquiries as a colloquialism thereof.

If you want to continue acting in such a childish, brooding and utterly petty way simply because I corrected you over your clear misunderstood/misinformed point you made, then we might as well pull the plug on the forum now and be done with it as there are precious few of us posting on here these days and even fewer (if anyone at all) who wants to be bothered with what clearly seems to be an ongoing and seemingly growing grievance with me because of it.

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

If the best comebacks you can make are just pointing out the grammatical errors I make, then maybe it is better that you keep them to yourself.

Maybe you shouldn't point out errors that other posters make then.

People who live in glass houses ...

There's a significant factual difference in the meaning of a government 'inquiry' and that of a government 'enquiry'.

That was why I pointed it out.

If it has caused you to react so petulantly ever since then I suggest it says far more about you as a poster than what my dyslexia says about me.

First of all I said official enquiry not government enquiry. Second there is no room for misunderstanding my meaning even though I typed enquiry not inquiry. Try googling either term if you don't believe me.

So I very much doubt that your correction was designed to clarify matters.

Enquiry is to 'ask'.

Inquiry is to 'investigate'.

An 'official' is a member of a public office or institution, therefore an official enquiry (as you wrote) could be as mundane as say the British Museum (which is a public institution) contacting you to ask if you found your visit there to be enjoyable.

A public inquiry on the other hand is an official review ordered by a government department.  

As only those in elected power have the authority to authorise such governmental departmental official reviews (inquiries) it automatically follows that they are also commonly referred to as government inquiries as a colloquialism thereof.

If you want to continue acting in such a childish, brooding and utterly petty way simply because I corrected you over your clear misunderstood/misinformed point you made, then we might as well pull the plug on the forum now and be done with it as there are precious few of us posting on here these days and even fewer (if anyone at all) who wants to be bothered with what clearly seems to be an ongoing and seemingly growing grievance with me because of it.

You obviously did not google either term. I did not misunderstand or misinform as the context clearly demonstrates. What do you think I meant by writing "an official enquiry appointed by this government"? What would anybody understand this to mean? It is synonymous with "an official review ordered by a government department".

You are simply being pedantic purely to avoid admitting you are wrong. What is worse you then resort to abusing me for continuing to try to reason with you.

Sadly the person being petty is you. If you use this as an excuse to take the forum down that is very much your choice but it will be a pity.

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

If the best comebacks you can make are just pointing out the grammatical errors I make, then maybe it is better that you keep them to yourself.

Maybe you shouldn't point out errors that other posters make then.

People who live in glass houses ...

There's a significant factual difference in the meaning of a government 'inquiry' and that of a government 'enquiry'.

That was why I pointed it out.

If it has caused you to react so petulantly ever since then I suggest it says far more about you as a poster than what my dyslexia says about me.

First of all I said official enquiry not government enquiry. Second there is no room for misunderstanding my meaning even though I typed enquiry not inquiry. Try googling either term if you don't believe me.

So I very much doubt that your correction was designed to clarify matters.

Enquiry is to 'ask'.

Inquiry is to 'investigate'.

An 'official' is a member of a public office or institution, therefore an official enquiry (as you wrote) could be as mundane as say the British Museum (which is a public institution) contacting you to ask if you found your visit there to be enjoyable.

A public inquiry on the other hand is an official review ordered by a government department.  

As only those in elected power have the authority to authorise such governmental departmental official reviews (inquiries) it automatically follows that they are also commonly referred to as government inquiries as a colloquialism thereof.

If you want to continue acting in such a childish, brooding and utterly petty way simply because I corrected you over your clear misunderstood/misinformed point you made, then we might as well pull the plug on the forum now and be done with it as there are precious few of us posting on here these days and even fewer (if anyone at all) who wants to be bothered with what clearly seems to be an ongoing and seemingly growing grievance with me because of it.

You obviously did not google either term. I did not misunderstand or misinform as the context clearly demonstrates. What do you think I meant by writing "an official enquiry appointed by this government"? What would anybody understand this to mean? It is synonymous with "an official review ordered by a government department".

You are simply being pedantic purely to avoid admitting you are wrong. What is worse you then resort to abusing me for continuing to try to reason with you.

Sadly the person being petty is you. If you use this as an excuse to take the forum down that is very much your choice but it will be a pity.

I'm being petty???

Your the one whose been following me around for the last week or so acting like a petulant child, looking for my grammar errors and gleefully pointing them out as and when you find them - which, as I'm dyslexic, will be ongoing and often - and all because I put you right on a mistake you made (no doubt which was borne out of ignorance).

You're even still banging on that you were correct but you weren't, an "official enquiry appointed by the government" means ASKING a question - so for instance it would mean say sending every household a questionnaire form next year to fill in for a one off study they are doing to see what we thought about being in lockdown.  That is significantly different from what you had intended to say.

If you desperately want a link from Google then here you are - 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=ivbEXv-PFbGIhbIPkqyV6AQ&q=public+inquiry&oq=public+inquiry&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgAMggIABCDARCRAjIFCAAQgwEyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADoECAAQRzoECAAQDVDVV1iEW2CndGgAcAF4AIABPIgBb5IBATKYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab

A tribunal of inquiry is an official review of events or actions ordered by a government body. In many common law countries, such as the United Kingdom...

Typical events for a public inquiry are those that cause multiple death...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_inquiry

As for abusing you???

If you mean saying that I think you are being petulant, childish and petty over this, then I do - I'm sure no one considers that to be abusive in the slightest - and most if not all reading through this will no doubt be having similar thoughts.

Quite frankly I've had more than enough of it all now.

This place hasn't been fun since Brexit and Ken Anderson and the hatred from Bread and Wanderlust and the endless arguments deliberately engendered by a certain few for their own amusement at a cost to everybody else's enjoyment on here.

It's turned into a massive chore logging into Nuts for me to continually deal with the trolls and those with mental issues, why would I want to continue to keep paying out of my own pocket to do that?

The site's paid up until October and it's up to whoever's left to pay for it from then on - or simply let it fold.

Adios and keep well.

Time for me to go.

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

If the best comebacks you can make are just pointing out the grammatical errors I make, then maybe it is better that you keep them to yourself.

Maybe you shouldn't point out errors that other posters make then.

People who live in glass houses ...

There's a significant factual difference in the meaning of a government 'inquiry' and that of a government 'enquiry'.

That was why I pointed it out.

If it has caused you to react so petulantly ever since then I suggest it says far more about you as a poster than what my dyslexia says about me.

First of all I said official enquiry not government enquiry. Second there is no room for misunderstanding my meaning even though I typed enquiry not inquiry. Try googling either term if you don't believe me.

So I very much doubt that your correction was designed to clarify matters.

Enquiry is to 'ask'.

Inquiry is to 'investigate'.

An 'official' is a member of a public office or institution, therefore an official enquiry (as you wrote) could be as mundane as say the British Museum (which is a public institution) contacting you to ask if you found your visit there to be enjoyable.

A public inquiry on the other hand is an official review ordered by a government department.  

As only those in elected power have the authority to authorise such governmental departmental official reviews (inquiries) it automatically follows that they are also commonly referred to as government inquiries as a colloquialism thereof.

If you want to continue acting in such a childish, brooding and utterly petty way simply because I corrected you over your clear misunderstood/misinformed point you made, then we might as well pull the plug on the forum now and be done with it as there are precious few of us posting on here these days and even fewer (if anyone at all) who wants to be bothered with what clearly seems to be an ongoing and seemingly growing grievance with me because of it.

You obviously did not google either term. I did not misunderstand or misinform as the context clearly demonstrates. What do you think I meant by writing "an official enquiry appointed by this government"? What would anybody understand this to mean? It is synonymous with "an official review ordered by a government department".

You are simply being pedantic purely to avoid admitting you are wrong. What is worse you then resort to abusing me for continuing to try to reason with you.

Sadly the person being petty is you. If you use this as an excuse to take the forum down that is very much your choice but it will be a pity.

I'm being petty???

Your the one whose been following me around for the last week or so acting like a petulant child, looking for my grammar errors and gleefully pointing them out as and when you find them - which, as I'm dyslexic, will be ongoing and often - and all because I put you right on a mistake you made (no doubt which was borne out of ignorance).

You're even still banging on that you were correct but you weren't, an "official enquiry appointed by the government" means ASKING a question - so for instance it would mean say sending every household a questionnaire form next year to fill in for a one off study they are doing to see what we thought about being in lockdown.  That is significantly different from what you had intended to say.

If you desperately want a link from Google then here you are - 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=ivbEXv-PFbGIhbIPkqyV6AQ&q=public+inquiry&oq=public+inquiry&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgAMggIABCDARCRAjIFCAAQgwEyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADoECAAQRzoECAAQDVDVV1iEW2CndGgAcAF4AIABPIgBb5IBATKYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab

A tribunal of inquiry is an official review of events or actions ordered by a government body. In many common law countries, such as the United Kingdom...

Typical events for a public inquiry are those that cause multiple death...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_inquiry

As for abusing you???

If you mean saying that I think you are being petulant, childish and petty over this, then I do - I'm sure no one considers that to be abusive in the slightest - and most if not all reading through this will no doubt be having similar thoughts.

Quite frankly I've had more than enough of it all now.

This place hasn't been fun since Brexit and Ken Anderson and the hatred from Bread and Wanderlust and the endless arguments deliberately engendered by a certain few for their own amusement at a cost to everybody else's enjoyment on here.

It's turned into a massive chore logging into Nuts for me to continually deal with the trolls and those with mental issues, why would I want to continue to keep paying out of my own pocket to do that?

The site's paid up until October and it's up to whoever's left to pay for it from then on - or simply let it fold.

Adios and keep well.

Time for me to go.

Pedantic means excessively concerned with minor details.

Synonymous means having the same meaning as another word or phrase.

Abusive means offensive and insulting, treating someone badly.

Once again Sluffy blows his top because someone doesn't agree with him and is now going to let the forum close 

How much does is cost to keep this site going? If Sluffy wants to go then i'm sure KP, BTID and others like myself would be prepared to contribute to keep it going.

I blame the ST.

I genuinely believe there is some truth to what Sluffy says. Some posters on here, have changed rather a lot, and few are exempt. It all began during the Brexit debate/discussion/disagreements/ arguments/general abuse/and finally to personal insults. 
It began with Brexit, but continued with the election, and rather stupidly, is continuing with the virus. Very few comments are placed for information or interest, or even humour. Its all about politics, and nobody is giving an inch, on anything. Its killing the forum. Its hitting Sluffy badly as he's got a lot invested in Nuts, in time and effort alone, never mind financially. No wonder he's completely pissed off.

gloswhite wrote:I genuinely believe there is some truth to what Sluffy says. Some posters on here, have changed rather a lot, and few are exempt. It all began during the Brexit debate/discussion/disagreements/ arguments/general abuse/and finally to personal insults. 
It began with Brexit, but continued with the election, and rather stupidly, is continuing with the virus. Very few comments are placed for information or interest, or even humour. Its all about politics, and nobody is giving an inch, on anything. Its killing the forum. Its hitting Sluffy badly as he's got a lot invested in Nuts, in time and effort alone, never mind financially. No wonder he's completely pissed off.

Nuts was much more fun when Breadman, Scott, AD, Magoo, Martin, Boggers, Nat et al, were running riot, and the loss of many of those mentioned has had a detrimental effect.
We've become po faced in the extreme, and it's not a good look. Racism, sexism, ageism, bring it on.
If horses are welcome, everyone should be.

i agree with Boncey 100%, bring them all back and lets get this forum alive and kicking again.

Agree we need more posters (and more variety).

I never 'got' the whole Boggers/Scott thing, but I knew most people did and found it entertaining so I shut up. I think part of the problem here has been if a poster doesn't like reading something they start demanding that others pack it in or move to another thread to continue. 

We can't all find everything interesting, different strokes for different folks and all that. Scroll past comments you don't like, even block posters if you really want to. But suppressing conversation has always seemed a backwards step to me.

I agree with TROY. I am not interested in some posts and just ignore them. Obviously we are all missing the football and not much is happening at the moment apart from the corona crisis so we should just make the best of it.

boltonbonce wrote:

gloswhite wrote:I genuinely believe there is some truth to what Sluffy says. Some posters on here, have changed rather a lot, and few are exempt. It all began during the Brexit debate/discussion/disagreements/ arguments/general abuse/and finally to personal insults. 
It began with Brexit, but continued with the election, and rather stupidly, is continuing with the virus. Very few comments are placed for information or interest, or even humour. Its all about politics, and nobody is giving an inch, on anything. Its killing the forum. Its hitting Sluffy badly as he's got a lot invested in Nuts, in time and effort alone, never mind financially. No wonder he's completely pissed off.

Nuts was much more fun when Breadman, Scott, AD, Magoo, Martin, Boggers, Nat et al, were running riot, and the loss of many of those mentioned has had a detrimental effect.
We've become po faced in the extreme, and it's not a good look. Racism, sexism, ageism, bring it on.
If horses are welcome, everyone should be.

Save us from the puritans, they get on my fcuking tits.

I agree with Cajun, lets shake it up a bit, but more than anything, bring back the humour

Well this isn't funny.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52779356

xmiles wrote:Well this isn't funny.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52779356

Must fare favourably in the will.

Isn't he the actual PM and Boris just the frontman?