Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Coronavirus - the political argument

Coronavirus - the political argument

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 11 ... 18, 19, 20, 21  Next

Go down  Message [Page 19 of 21]

541Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun May 17 2020, 15:39

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@okocha wrote:
@Sluffy wrote:
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Read it again if you haven’t understood, they have failed to act on calls to scrap the surcharge. Hardly supporting all of our heroic NHS workers is it?

I won’t be dragged into one of your never ending arguments Sluffy, so consider this my last word on the story.

They haven't though!

I repeat this again from the article -

The Home Office tweeted on Saturday afternoon: “It is wrong to suggest the home secretary said there would be a formal review into this policy. All government policies are continuously kept under review.”

The policy is continuously under review and is subject to change at any time - it doesn't need a formal review.

Currently and for next four months there is an exemption - so nothing needs doing urgently at this point - and there is absolutely NO suggestion that this exemption won't either be extended or indeed made permanent in the months to come.

Yet again another non story - in order to sell a few more papers on the back of a clearly untruthful banner headline.

If it was a TRUE story then why do you think the rest of the national press and the opposition party aren't banging on about it today???

The Independent cover the same story as the Guardian, with the same criticism

The Independent is the "rest of the national press and the opposition party" then?

If it really was such an issue I'm sure the Home Secretary would have been wheeled out today rather than the Business Secretary, don't you?

Certainly the story isn't even mentioned in any of the BBC, ITV or Sky News headlines!!!

https://news.sky.com/uk
https://www.itv.com/news/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news

542Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun May 17 2020, 15:39

wessy

wessy
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
In terms of kids back to school, your first priority is the safety of your child, It seems one of the main reasons they want kids back is to protect them from mental health issues and because some are from vulnerable backgrounds, My grandchildren are not in that position they have a loving environment and fortunate to have mum at home.

 So that does not apply in some cases like mine. So isi t it safe ? possibly but can they guarantee my childs safety, the answer is hell no, so on all counts i would go for caution and not allow my child to be used as a guinea pig to get the economy rolling.

The Unions have concerns, The Medical people are against, The three other UK countries are against, as are certain ares in England. My daughter recieved a survey asking what concerns they have, and if they would send the child to school, got to be in by tomorrow, On a walk they came across her teacher and she said if she had a year 1 child she would not send her. 

Finally what message does it send out to a 5 year old when an adult needs to wear a mask and give constant negative instructions re social distancing. It could scar a kid for sometime at that age.

543Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun May 17 2020, 15:46

xmiles

xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha
@Sluffy wrote:

If it really was such an issue I'm sure the Home Secretary would have been wheeled out today rather than the Business Secretary, don't you?


Do you really think they would put Patel in front of the media if it was a story? They would do the exact opposite of that (as would any political party).

544Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun May 17 2020, 16:21

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@xmiles wrote:
@Sluffy wrote:

If it really was such an issue I'm sure the Home Secretary would have been wheeled out today rather than the Business Secretary, don't you?


Do you really think they would put Patel in front of the media if it was a story? They would do the exact opposite of that (as would any political party).

Nah.

They wheeled her out when people started to ask why she wasn't in front of the cameras - and would do again in a heartbeat to show they have nothing to hide.

She'd be fully briefed as to what to say and not say before she stepped in front of the cameras/autocues.

This really isn't a story.

Maybe later - but definitely not now and probably if they change the 'rules' in some way or other (maybe NHS staff costs surcharge in future are borne by the NHS as the employer rather than the individual employees as now, as part of their new/revised contracts) never again (and even not having need to change the existing legislation).



545Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 00:06

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Scandal in Scotland?

Not really understanding the full story but from what it seems is that Sturgeon/SNP was aware of a coronavirus outbreak in Scotland BEFORE the first 'officially' reported outbreak of the virus!

Claims are being made if they had acted sooner numerous deaths would have been avoided (80% of them it is claimed!).

A Nike conference was held in a hotel in Scotland with delegates flying in from all over the world.  It seems one of them brought the virus with them unfortunately.  Nike staff fell ill after the event and the outbreak was traced back to the conference.

The problem is though, the hotel were hosting other company conferences at the time and many of the Nike people mixed with people from the other groups (thus spreading the virus unknowingly) and although the outbreak was soon tracked back to the hotel, the people from all the other conferences, many who had mixed with the Nike people were NOT told and consequently spread the virus in the community when something at that early stage could have been done about it.

Sturgeon seems to be putting up a lame excuse for taking no action - report here -

Coronavirus: Sturgeon hits back at Nike conference 'cover up' claims

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52711995

...and there is also a 'Panorama' type half hour video on it if anyone is interested -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000j6ry/disclosure-series-2-10-scotlands-lockdown

546Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 13:54

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Professor Martin Green, the chief executive of Care England which represents care home providers in England.
Professor Green has just told MPs:
- "We have still got to the get the PPE situation sorted out". And personal protective equipment remains "extremely problematic"
- "We need a national strategy. We need some central direction"
- There is "endless guidance from various different agencies that has been changing by the day"
- Some services "might go under"

547Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 14:08

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
13:06

Jeremy Hunt 'holds hands up' for UK's response

Former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt says he takes some responsibility for the UK government not being sufficiently prepared for a coronavirus pandemic.

The Conservative MP told the BBC: "We were preparing hard for a pandemic of flu – I have to hold my hands up as I was health secretary for six years when those pandemic preparations were done – and we weren’t thinking hard enough about pandemic coronaviruses like Sars."

He says coronaviruses have a long “incubation period” when people can spread the virus without showing any symptoms, adding that this means testing becomes "much more important".

He says it's for that reason that European countries and America, who were focusing on flu, have had "a less effective response" compared to countries in Asia which “really had their fingers burnt with Sars”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52717664

548Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 14:15

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Been regretting a lot recently has Hunt.



Shame Hunt couldn't realise the immense damage he and the did while he was in the job. Although, let's be honest he probably did realise but put his career ahead of doing the right thing.

549Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 14:40

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Been regretting a lot recently has Hunt.



Shame Hunt couldn't realise the immense damage he and the did while he was in the job. Although, let's be honest he probably did realise but put his career ahead of doing the right thing.

Any proof of your last sentence?

I think this is more the case with him as it is with everyone - even you...

Retrospect
/ˈrɛtrəspɛkt/

noun: retrospect; plural noun: retrospects
a survey or review of a past course of events or period of time.
"a full retrospect of the battle"


Hindsight
/ˈhʌɪn(d)sʌɪt/

noun: hindsight
understanding of a situation or event only after it has happened or developed.
"with hindsight, I should never have gone"

550Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 14:47

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
A “pivotal” decision by the Government to stop testing for Covid-19 in the community  in early March had “significant consequences” including allowing the virus to spread rampantly through care homes , a cross-party committee of MPs concludes.
In a series of findings presented to Boris Johnson , Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee criticises Public Health England for failing to explain its decision to scale back testing - despite repeated requests by the MPs since 25 March.  (Source: Today's i online newspaper)

551Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 14:49

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
@Sluffy wrote:
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Been regretting a lot recently has Hunt.



Shame Hunt couldn't realise the immense damage he and the did while he was in the job. Although, let's be honest he probably did realise but put his career ahead of doing the right thing.

Any proof of your last sentence?

I think this is more the case with him as it is with everyone - even you...

Retrospect
/ˈrɛtrəspɛkt/

noun: retrospect; plural noun: retrospects
a survey or review of a past course of events or period of time.
"a full retrospect of the battle"


Hindsight
/ˈhʌɪn(d)sʌɪt/

noun: hindsight
understanding of a situation or event only after it has happened or developed.
"with hindsight, I should never have gone"

Look up the word probably while you're crawling through the dictionary you pedantic twerp.

552Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 15:02

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Look up the word probably while you're crawling through the dictionary you pedantic twerp.

Maybe you should have done so yourself first otherwise you wouldn't have made yourself look stupid in posting what you have!

Probably
/ˈprɒbəbli/

adverb: probably
almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.

553Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 15:05

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Yes, as far as I can tell that's what he was doing. Instead of trying to create an argument over semantics, why don't you give your own opinion on it? Who do you think wants to read you copy and pasting dictionary definitions??

554Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 15:26

xmiles

xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha
@okocha wrote:A “pivotal” decision by the Government to stop testing for Covid-19 in the community  in early March had “significant consequences” including allowing the virus to spread rampantly through care homes , a cross-party committee of MPs concludes.
In a series of findings presented to Boris Johnson , Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee criticises Public Health England for failing to explain its decision to scale back testing - despite repeated requests by the MPs since 25 March.  (Source: Today's i online newspaper)

Sluffy must be too busy arguing* with TROY to have commented on this. Smile

* 1. give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.
2. exchange or express diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way.
[Oxford]

555Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 16:16

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Yes, as far as I can tell that's what he was doing. Instead of trying to create an argument over semantics, why don't you give your own opinion on it? Who do you think wants to read you copy and pasting dictionary definitions??

Eh???

I have, multiple times!!!

When the last Labour government left power we were in a major a major world recession not seen since the end of WWII.

The prevailing view at the time by many countries - most notably the EU (who remember were bailing out the PIIGS at the time Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) - was to deal with their economies by using 'austerity' measures.

The government introduced these policies in the public sector with all the ramifications it has had today in terms of how ready we were to deal with a coronavirus pandemic.

Clearly we were greatly underprepared - so too was much the rest of the world also.

In hindsight and retrospect we wouldn't have chosen the path we did - obviously!!

We can't turn the clock back however.

People can't seem to accept this though and many seem to think everything was somehow done deliberately and intentionally to cause so many deaths in this country.

It wasn't.

If we could go back and do things differently the government would - we all would - but real life is just doing what we believe to be the right thing at the current time (whilst balancing everything else that's going on in the country and the world at the same time).

Nobody expects to get everything right - sometimes unexpected things happen that throw you off course, sometimes you simply make mistakes or simply bad decisions.  Why then do some people believe the government should have had a 'perfect' record on everything they had done over the last decade?  No one can achieve that.

Fair play if anything for Hunt to even express his regret that he was part of decisions made at the time that looking back now were wrong - I don't recall anyone else involved in those decisions saying the same such as Cameron, Osborn, May, etc - maybe they have but I've simply not seen them though?

I don't think he sleeps well at night, maybe even feels personally responsible for many deaths that have occurred as a result of decisions he was involved in over that times (why else is he saying his regrets in public?) but I doubt for one moment he ever believed he was simply doing things to progress his career at the cost of peoples lives.

Sometimes/often I think people simply lose touch with reality in some of the things say/claim/proclaim - it's so easy to make such snap judgements based/fuelled on social media hysteria and bias - everything is black or white in their eyes, when the reality is really somewhere in between.

The only good that can come from the pandemic is to learn lessons on how to be better prepared for future ones.

Let's hope we do learn and implement them though.

556Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 18:12

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
@Sluffy wrote:If we could go back and do things differently the government would - we all would

You honestly believe this? Austerity was a political choice, i think you are way out of touch with politics in this country if you do believe this.

557Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 18:40

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:
@Sluffy wrote:If we could go back and do things differently the government would - we all would

You honestly believe this? Austerity was a political choice, i think you are way out of touch with politics in this country if you do believe this.

Am I?

Or you just automatically politically prejudice against the government?

After all even after 10 years of austerity the country decided to vote the government back into power in 2019 and give Labour (with it's anti-austerity stance) it's greatest election defeat since 1935!!!

Would they have done 'austerity' in hindsight, now looking back?  Maybe, maybe not - that's what hindsight and retrospective views are about - fwiw I think anyone would rather than see 100,000 of it's population killed just to stick with political/economic thinking at the time - but Germany still thinks it is the right policy apparently -

Germany to return to austerity after coronavirus crisis - minister

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-altmaier/germany-to-return-to-austerity-after-coronavirus-crisis-minister-idUSKBN21B0QN

...and they are the financial powerhouse of Europe and widely praised for how they've dealt with the pandemic.

Anyway, a potted summary of Government austerity policy and reasons seen for it taken from Wiki.  All the reference documents underlying the wiki article to look at if you turn your nose up at the accuracy of what wiki is saying.

History[edit]
A UK government budget surplus in 2001–2 was followed by many years of budget deficit[7] and after the financial crisis of 2007–2008 a period of economic recession began in the country. The first austerity measures were introduced in late 2008.[8] In 2009, the term age of austerity, which had previously been used to describe the years immediately following World War II,[9] was popularised by Conservative Party leader David Cameron. In his keynote speech to the Conservative Party forum in Cheltenham on 26 April 2009 he declared that "the age of irresponsibility is giving way to the age of austerity" and committed to end years of what he characterised as excessive government spending.[10][11][12] Conservative Party leaders also promoted the idea of budget cuts bringing about the Big Society, a political ideology involving reduced government, with grass-roots organizations, charities and private companies delivering public services more efficiently.[5]
The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, the Chancellor George Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would be falling. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[8] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending reductions and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[13] The end of the forecast period was 2015–16.
Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[14] Growth remained low during this period, while unemployment rose.[13] In a speech in 2013, David Cameron indicated that his government had no intention of increasing public spending once the structural deficit had been eliminated and proposed that the public spending reduction be made permanent.[15] In 2014, the Treasury extended the proposed austerity period until at least 2018.[16] By 2015, the deficit, as a percentage of GDP, had been reduced to half of what it was in 2010, and the sale of government assets (mostly the shares of banks nationalised in the 2000s) had resulted in government debt as a proportion of GDP falling.[8] By 2016, the Chancellor was aiming to deliver a budget surplus by 2020, but following the result of the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, he expressed the opinion that this goal was no longer achievable.[17]
Osborne's successor as Chancellor, Philip Hammond, retained the aim of a balanced budget[18] but abandoned plans to eliminate the deficit by 2020.[19] In Hammond's first Autumn statement in 2016, there was no mention of austerity, and some commentators concluded that the austerity programme had ended.[20][21] However, in February 2017, Hammond proposed departmental budget reductions of up to 6% for the year 2019–20,[14] and Hammond's 2017 budget continued government policies of freezing working-age benefits.[22] Following the 2017 snap general election, Hammond confirmed in a speech at Mansion House that the austerity programme would be continued[23] and Michael Fallon, the Secretary of State for Defence, commented: "we all understand that austerity is never over until we've cleared the deficit".[24] Government spending reductions planned for the period 2017–2020 are consistent with some departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice, experiencing funding reductions of approximately 40% in real terms over the decade 2010–2020.[25] During 2017 an overall budget surplus on day-to-day spending was achieved for the first time since 2001. This fulfilled one of the fiscal targets set by George Osborne in 2010, which he had hoped to achieve in 2015.[26]
In 2018 the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) predicted that in 2018–19 public sector debt would fall as a share of national income for the first time since 2001–02, while tax revenues would exceed public spending. Hammond's 2018 Spring Statement suggested that austerity measures could be reduced in the Autumn Budget of that year. However, according to the Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), the OBR's forecasts for borrowing and debt were based on the assumption that the government continued with the planned spending reductions that were announced after the 2015 general election. By 2018 only 25% of the proposed reductions in welfare spending had been implemented. The Resolution Foundation calculated that the proposed reduction in spending on working-age benefits amounted to £2.5 billion in 2018–19 and £2.7 billion in 2019–20, with the households most affected being the poorest 20%. The IFS calculated that the OBR's figures would require spending on public services per person in real terms to be 2% lower in 2022–23 than in 2019–20.[27]
The deficit in the first quarter of the 2018–19 financial year was lower than at any time since 2007[28] and by August 2018 it had reached the lowest level since 2002–3. Hammond's aim at this time was to eliminate the deficit entirely by the mid-2020s.[7] At the Conservative Party conference in October 2018 Prime Minister Theresa May indicated her intention to end the austerity programme following Brexit in 2019[29] and opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn said that austerity could not be ended without significant increases in public spending.[30] The IFS calculated that funding an end to austerity would require an additional £19 billion per year raised through higher government borrowing or tax increases.[31] Hammond's preference was to reduce the national debt with more years of austerity[32] but in the October 2018 budget he agreed to defer the target date for eliminating the deficit, abandoning plans to achieve a surplus in 2022–23 to allow an increase in health spending and tax cuts. The Resolution Foundation described the step as a "significant easing of austerity".[33] Hammond said that the "era of austerity is finally coming to an end"[34] but that there would be no "real terms" increase in public spending apart from on the NHS.[35]

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

558Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 18:52

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Ye my politics definitely don't align with the governments, if you want to describe that as prejudice then that's your choice.

No idea how posting an article about German economic policy relates to our conversation though. Any why wiki links about what the austerity policy was? We lived through it, I'm well aware of what the policy was. 

None of what you've dumped on here proves that the Conservatives regret austerity as a policy. If I had the time or will I'm sure I could find plenty of examples where they say the complete opposite, even claiming it was a necessity.

559Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 19:23

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Ye my politics definitely don't align with the governments, if you want to describe that as prejudice then that's your choice.

No idea how posting an article about German economic policy relates to our conversation though. Any why wiki links about what the austerity policy was? We lived through it, I'm well aware of what the policy was. 

None of what you've dumped on here proves that the Conservatives regret austerity as a policy. If I had the time or will I'm sure I could find plenty of examples where they say the complete opposite, even claiming it was a necessity.

Simple enough you believe austerity is wrong, the biggest economy in Europe apparently disagrees with you.  

You might automatically believe that I talk out of my arse and ignore everything I might say as bollocks but it certainly seems to works for Germany - and they've managed to both grow their economy during it and still be amongst the very best in the world in dealing with the pandemic too - whilst pursuing austerity!!!  

Hunt clearly has regrets about austerity in view of what's happened with the pandemic and how ill prepared we were for it.

If you're looking for a full page apology for it from the government, well that won't be happening but if you think people would rather save 100,000 lives knowing what they know now or do everything they did over again without changing a single thing whatsoever, then I believe most would irrespective if they are/were in government or not.

If you truly believe differently based just on your political view point of the government then I think you've completely lost sight of humanity in people.

560Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 19:57

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Read back over my posts Sluffy, you have created something to argue about. You're the one saying that the government regret austerity, I don't think they do. There's no more to this conversation than that.

Whatever else you've managed to manufacture here is an argument with yourself, im not going to engage with you on it - it's a waste of time, you dodge points that disprove you and and then post essay after essay on something slightly different - im genuinely bored of doing this with you.

561Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 20:11

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Read back over my posts Sluffy, you have created something to argue about. You're the one saying that the government regret austerity, I don't think they do. There's no more to this conversation than that.

Whatever else you've managed to manufacture here is an argument with yourself, im not going to engage with you on it - it's a waste of time, you dodge points that disprove you and and then post essay after essay on something slightly different - im genuinely bored of doing this with you.

You actually said that you believed that it was almost certain that Hunt knowingly put lives in danger just to progress his political career.

You must be very bitter to believe stuff like that.

Given a chance to turn back time and change things so they wouldn't, I believe nearly everyone (even those in a Conservative government) would.

I believe humanity is more powerful than any politics.

I pity you if you truly believe differently.

562Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 21:01

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
I never said anything of the sort. Attributing deaths to austerity is very messy so not once have I done that. That’s all you.

Why are you inventing things yet again? What I’ve written is in black and white on this thread. Are you so desperate to have an argument on here you need to do that? Honestly this is odd behaviour even by your standards.

563Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 21:26

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:I never said anything of the sort. Attributing deaths to austerity is very messy so not once have I done that. That’s all you.

Why are you inventing things yet again? What I’ve written is in black and white on this thread. Are you so desperate to have an argument on here you need to do that? Honestly this is odd behaviour even by your standards.

Did you not?

@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Been regretting a lot recently has Hunt.

Video here about Jeremy Hunt on #Newsnight saying he regrets cutting social care, and not training more doctors & nurses.

Shame Hunt couldn't realise the immense damage he and the did while he was in the job. Although, let's be honest he probably did realise but put his career ahead of doing the right thing.

I really believe you did!

@Sluffy wrote:You actually said that you believed that it was almost certain that Hunt knowingly put lives in danger just to progress his political career.

564Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 21:42

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
I read those posts and don’t see what you’re accusing me of. Increasingly I feel like I’m talking to somebody who is having a rough time and not making much sense - so I’m just going to leave this chat. If it’s me being unclear I apologise.

565Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Tue May 19 2020, 23:23

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:I read those posts and don’t see what you’re accusing me of. Increasingly I feel like I’m talking to somebody who is having a rough time and not making much sense - so I’m just going to leave this chat. If it’s me being unclear I apologise.

Just to set your mind at ease I'm absolutely fine, thank you.

I wasn't accusing you of anything, just merely disagreeing with some of the things you posted.

No need for any apology whatsoever - it's only friendly chat on an internet forum after all - no nastiness or abuse from either of us.

Fwiw I genuinely hope you are well and in good spirits too, as I hope all 'Nutters' are.

Keep safe and well.

566Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Wed Jun 03 2020, 13:24

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Whilst I'm about I thought I'd post this link from Associated Press about what really happened with China from the outbreak of the virus (which apparently can now be traced back to the 1st December, 2019 in China) to WHO declaring an international health emergency on the 30th January.

It is a very long read and many of the sources it quotes refuse to be identified for fear of reprisals but I think it gives a true picture of what went on - and how China's state involvement and 'embargoing' of all the information subsequently led to a factor of the worldwide pandemic being a factor up to 200 times worse than it needed to have been.

A brief synopsis for those not wishing to plough through it all is that the Chinese doctors were extremely quick off the mark to identify a previously unknown coronavirus and 'decoded' its makeup within in days (rather than months for previously unknown coronaviruses).

Unfortunately when the Chinese state was notified of this, they suppressed all this information, seemingly because they wanted to show the world that China was a world medical power and the first on its own in the world to deal 'successfully' with a new coronavirus.

It seems it wanted the 'prestige' of giving the world the 'answers' to the virus, rather than what they should have been doing, namely sharing with the world what information they had and allowing collaboration worldwide to work on dealing with what and how the virus was and how dangerous/not dangerous it really was.

Crucially although the initial Chinese doctors did fantastically well to sequence the virus (thus allowing for tests to be done to see if people had caught it) they did not have to hand the specialist medical experts who could have advised them about how fast the virus 'reproduces' - the critical 'R' rate we've heard so much about.

With the Chinese state 'sitting' on the information, WHO was left hanging in the wind because it thought that demanding information from China would make them close the door to them, so instead they went along the road of 'praising' them hoping they would open up more to them about what they knew about the virus.

It's pretty clear that the Chinese doctors did extremely well initially but the state wanted to control everything and kept the WHO and the rest of the world in the dark.

It seems it only became more open when it was shocked to learn that Thailand had identified a coronavirus patient arriving from China and had partially sequenced the virus themselves.

The bottom line I guess was that WHO depends totally from all country's being open and honest to them, so pandemics like this can be faced as soon as they can by all the best medical brains in the world but China seemed to want be seen as some sort of world medical leader rather than need the help of others to take on the virus - with the issue of the R rate not having the required expert guidance to fully grasp how reproductive this thing actually was.

The deliberate delay by the Chinese state led to the virus needlessly spreading worldwide for a number of weeks, with the belief at the time that it really wasn't much to be bothered about as such.

Maybe China thought they had let the cat out of the bag in the first place and wanted to put it back in it again before anyone had noticed but whatever their thinking was the plain truth is that they failed to cooperate with the rest of the world when there was more time to put a lid on it - with all the subsequent and needless deaths occurring and the ruining of much of the worlds economy.

https://apnews.com/3c061794970661042b18d5aeaaed9fae

567Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Wed Jun 03 2020, 13:33

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Welcome back Sluffy. Nice to see you posting again. The search party sent out to find KP has yet to report.

568Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Wed Jun 03 2020, 15:06

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@boltonbonce wrote:Welcome back Sluffy. Nice to see you posting again. The search party sent out to find KP has yet to report.

I'm not back.

That horse has already bolted.

I've grown sick to my back teeth dealing with trolls and those with mental health issues in trying to keep this site going - and fun for all.

It just wasn't worth all the aggravation to me anymore.

I might though chip in with stuff that interests me from time to time though like the following which I'll post whilst I'm here.

Fwiw I don't fully believe FV's statement about Rubin's recent charge on assets, as if the land and stadium was free of lien's and ownership passed to FV back in August last year, there would have been nothing to stop the charge being made at that stage along with the charge they did make at that time.

As I had expected I note that Fildraw has yesterday also placed a charge against the stadium too (not surprisingly Iles has missed this so far!).

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/12090433/charges

The reason why I thought this might happen is as follows.

On the 12th March Fildraw placed a charge against Bolton Sporting Ventures Ltd (one of the subsidiary companies under Burnden Leisure - now FV ownership).

This was done before lockdown started so could have been done for a number of reasons - but certainly was to safeguard Fildraw's financial position - and one would have thought the charges they had made in August would have done that?

So to have Rubin's to register a charge on Monday to safeguard their financial position seemed strange (we are talking about a representative of the court when all said and done) unless they believed they had somehow become exposed to no longer having their full debt secured anymore?

My guess is simply with all that is happening with the virus that land values have fallen and Rubin's have simply taken out a further charge to compensate for this - so it followed to my mind anyway that the other major debtor - Fildraw would be doing something similar also - and hey presto, they have.

I don't think it is anything to be alarmed at in them both doing so but it does underline the vulnerability of FV in the current financial climate - not only have they no revenue coming in but their assets have depreciated also.

They can't be in a happy place financially and no doubt the last thing they want is for the like of the ST and Iles sticking their noses in wanting to know all their financial business all the time.

Is it any wonder both are totally ignored by FV - and always will be?

569Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Wed Jun 03 2020, 15:14

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Bit tasteless to say accuse posters of having mental health issues in my opinion.

570Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 19 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Wed Jun 03 2020, 15:45

Cajunboy

Cajunboy
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Bit tasteless to say accuse posters of having mental health issues in my opinion.
Surely we all have mental health conditions.

Back to top  Message [Page 19 of 21]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 11 ... 18, 19, 20, 21  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum