How is the Tory Government Doing?

Oh dear!

You're either an idiot (which I rather believe you are) or a self confessed troll - which is a bannable offence on here (that's why I'm highly confident that I'm right about you actually being so stupid).

I'm not here to be trolled, which I've said numerous times before.

Seeing that I believe you are so dumb that you've happily admitted to something that carries an automatic ban, simply to brag that you got one over on me (you obviously didn't bother to think that through - in fact you clearly don't bother think full stop - as per usual for you of course!), that I won't ban you this time so everyone can laugh at how utterly stupid you've just been!

It would be unfair to rob our little online village of its idiot after the laugh you've just given to us all!!!

You moron!

Sluffy wrote:Oh dear!

You're either an idiot (which I rather believe you are) or a self confessed troll - which is a bannable offence on here (that's why I'm highly confident that I'm right about you actually being so stupid).

I'm not here to be trolled, which I've said numerous times before.

Seeing that I believe you are so dumb that you've happily admitted to something that carries an automatic ban, simply to brag that you got one over on me (you obviously didn't bother to think that through - in fact you clearly don't bother think full stop - as per usual for you of course!), that I won't ban you this time so everyone can laugh at how utterly stupid you've just been!

It would be unfair to rob our little online village of its idiot after the laugh you've just given to us all!!!

You moron!

Aaaahh. At last you get it, of course I'm a self confessed troll. I've been telling you that every night this week but you refuse to believe me. 
 
The last 3 You tube items I posted I haven't even watched myself but I knew you'd be up half the night researching stuff and typing up the usual insulting essays for me to ignore.

I was expecting to have to set you another little test tonight but you finally got there in the end. Well done mate.

It became very obvious to myself last week that I shouldn't have bothered coming back on here in the first place so ban away to your heart's content.    

Oh, one last thought before I go.

Would anyone buy a used car from Michael Green?



No, me neither.

Rishi, however, sees him as the ideal bloke to give a further boost  towards increasing his party's reputation for Integrity, Professionalism and Accountability, and so he's put him in charge of the Defence of our country.   

Them tories eh! What a wheeze they are. 

Hip Priest wrote:

Aaaahh. At last you get it, of course I'm a self confessed troll. I've been telling you that every night this week but you refuse to believe me. 
 
The last 3 You tube items I posted I haven't even watched myself but I knew you'd be up half the night researching stuff and typing up the usual insulting essays for me to ignore.

I was expecting to have to set you another little test tonight but you finally got there in the end. Well done mate.

It became very obvious to myself last week that I shouldn't have bothered coming back on here in the first place so ban away to your heart's content.    

The village wouldn't be the same without its idiot.

Sling your hook if you want to but I prefer laughing at you rather than banning you.

And fwiw I don't believe you, you may be telling the truth about not watching the last couple of videos but its clear to all that you habitually do watch anti-Tory vids frequently, and in the case of the bloke from Scunthorpe and the other nutjob from Southall, that you clearly don't check out  the facts or authenticity of who they are or what they are saying and swallow what they say without question.

It's your version of porn, it's clear that you just love it, can't get enough of it!

As for a politician telling a lie, well knock me down with a feather!

Don't you even think that Labour politician's do too?

Tony Blair took us to war on one!

If you've never seen it I highly recommend the film, Official Secrets - it's a true story about Blair's lie - it might even open your eyes a bit to see that all politicians are just the same irrespective of the party they support.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5431890/

You might actually learn something for a change.

I won't hold my breath though...

Hip Priest wrote:Go on, easy target this one Sluffy mate. Dive in.

Boncey, pleeeeease bring back the old nut job in the hat with a cat rather than a plastic 62 year old, boy loving milf posted by HP. As if she wasn’t so bad to have to endure she’s interviewed by another jumped up leftie nut job. Bring back the cat, bring back the cat.

Whitesince63 wrote:
Boncey, pleeeeease bring back the old nut job in the hat with a cat rather than a plastic 62 year old, boy loving milf posted by HP. As if she wasn’t so bad to have to endure she’s interviewed by another jumped up leftie nut job. Bring back the cat, bring back the cat.

Your wish, is my command.

boltonbonce wrote:
Your wish, is my command.

Thank you Bonce but now the cats on the bloody bed, how much worse can things get?

This arsehole really is out of his depth. He isn’t in touch with the real world at all.

Can’t wait till the Conservatives are out now!

Whitesince63 wrote:
Thank you Bonce but now the cats on the bloody bed, how much worse can things get?

It's 20. Cut it some slack.

Just for 63.

Laura Kuenssberg: State of Chaos - What really happened from the people who were there.

Watch and learn.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001qgwt/laura-kuenssberg-state-of-chaos-series-1-1-mayjohnson

Why should we listen to Laura?

According to GB News she's a woke leftie.

boltonbonce wrote:Why should we listen to Laura?

According to GB News she's a woke leftie.

Because you aren't listening to Laura, you are listening to the testimonies of politicians, their Special Advisors (Spads) and the Civil Servants who were there when all of this was happening, you get to learn how 'government' actually works (or in this case why it didn't) and from my personal point of view get to see how honest and genuinely, senior public servants go about their job with impartiality, integrity and certainly NOT as 'mere servants doing what we are told to do' in the way Wanderlust believes us to be. (He KNOWS how government works from his time he work in a NON Government Organisation he tells us ffs!!!)

And God help anyone who believes what they hear on GB News (and yes I do know W63 gets ALL his news from there!).

boltonbonce wrote:Just for 63.

Such a curates egg this gone. How can anyone consider that self righteous idiot Stephen Fry, the leftie London liberal of all liberals a national treasure?? Yet he’s bang in that May was a disaster, arguable along with Major the worst most duplicitous PM we’ve ever had and I include Boris and Truss in that. 

He’s right that we had two options on leaving, quickly with no deal or delayed whilst the effects were fully and properly examined, though I doubt that option would have been in any way acceptable to the majority at the time. So we are where we are, not because of leaving actually but the way we left and allowed the EU all the running.

Sluffy wrote:

Because you aren't listening to Laura, you are listening to the testimonies of politicians, their Special Advisors (Spads) and the Civil Servants who were there when all of this was happening, you get to learn how 'government' actually works (or in this case why it didn't) and from my personal point of view get to see how honest and genuinely, senior public servants go about their job with impartiality, integrity and certainly NOT as 'mere servants doing what we are told to do' in the way Wanderlust believes us to be. (He KNOWS how government works from his time he work in a NON Government Organisation he tells us ffs!!!)

And God help anyone who believes what they hear on GB News (and yes I do know W63 gets ALL his news from there!).

It doesn't really matter about the content for some people. If the presenter is deemed to be 'one of them' , they'll get it into their head that the whole programme is slewed in a certain way, to project the presenters perceived agenda.
Fry is, according to 63, 'a self righteous idiot'.
Clearly, the only way for Fry to become a National Treasure, is to agree with 63.
Sadly, that's how it works across the board.
I've disagreed with Sluffy here and there, but he's right in saying that what you can't dispute are facts. Hard though that sometimes is.
Believe me, I've tried. Hiding under the duvet until an inconvenient fact passes by has never worked. I've had to face it in the end.
Take the blinkers off 63, it's liberating. You see the oddest things. 

Whitesince63 wrote: Yet he’s bang in that May was a disaster, arguable along with Major the worst most duplicitous PM we’ve ever had and I include Boris and Truss in that. 

OMG!!!

Hahahahaha....

That's the best laugh I've had since Wanderlust last posted his lies on here...

May and Major more duplicitous than Boris (who lied to the Queen) broke the law by proroguing Parliament, lied repeatedly to Parliament, broke the Covid rules he himself announced to the country on live, national, TV, lied about where he got the money from to refurbish his flat in Downing Street, tried to get the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards sacked to save his mate Owen Paterson who had broken lobbying rules, his own Ethics Advisor Lord Geidt resign because Johnson had again broken the Ministerial Code (Lord Geidt had previously been the Queen's own private secretary for 10 years until he had retired from the post).

Geidt only took on the role as Johnson's Ethics advisor, because his previous one, Alex Allen quit when Johnson refused to back him when he had reported that his mate Pritti Patel had broken the Ministerial code for bullying Civil Servants.

Duplicity
noun

Deceitfulness.


Do you really, REALLY believe May and Major to have been more deceitful than Boris???




Fwiw May and Major were decent old fashioned politicians who played by the rules and not known to be at all deceitful by the vast majority of their peers, in both the Conservative and Labour parties.

boltonbonce wrote:It doesn't really matter about the content for some people. If the presenter is deemed to be 'one of them' , they'll get it into their head that the whole programme is slewed in a certain way, to project the presenters perceived agenda.
Fry is, according to 63, 'a self righteous idiot'.
Clearly, the only way for Fry to become a National Treasure, is to agree with 63.
Sadly, that's how it works across the board.
I've disagreed with Sluffy here and there, but he's right in saying that what you can't dispute are facts. Hard though that sometimes is.
Believe me, I've tried. Hiding under the duvet until an inconvenient fact passes by has never worked. I've had to face it in the end.
Take the blinkers off 63, it's liberating. You see the oddest things. 

https://2img.net/i/fa/twemoji/16x16/1f600.png

The trouble is bonce is that people have had their minds poisoned and their prejudices fed by the propaganda they read and want to believe.

Wanderlust (Tory hater) and 63 (Tory lover - or at least Libertarian policy lover) are from opposite sides in their political beliefs yet both 'hate' and are 'prejudicial' in their views which stem from what is known as Confirmation Bias.

In simple terms they have already made their minds up, often just on emotions and bias rather than facts and logic, and stick with them, look for others who are saying the same (even those who are doing so deliberately knowing it to be untrue or false - because they have their own agendas they intend to achieve) and become remote in their own bubble that what they believe is correct and everything else is untrue.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.[1] People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias cannot be eliminated, but it can be managed, for example, by education and training in critical thinking skills.

Biased search for information, biased interpretation of this information, and biased memory recall, have been invoked to explain four specific effects:

1 - attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence)
2 - belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false)
3 - the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series)
4 - illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of psychological experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another proposal is that people show confirmation bias because they are pragmatically assessing the costs of being wrong, [Why Wanderlust prefers to lie than by seen by others to have simply been wrong or had made a mistake] rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Flawed decisions due to confirmation bias have been found in a wide range of political, organizational, financial and scientific contexts. These biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. For example, confirmation bias produces systematic errors in scientific research based on inductive reasoning (the gradual accumulation of supportive evidence). Similarly, a police detective may identify a suspect early in an investigation, but then may only seek confirming rather than disconfirming evidence. A medical practitioner may prematurely focus on a particular disorder early in a diagnostic session, and then seek only confirming evidence. In social media, confirmation bias is amplified by the use of filter bubbles, or "algorithmic editing", which display to individuals only information they are likely to agree with, while excluding opposing views.

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

A similar way of describing this is Group Think

Groupthink
noun

The practice of thinking or making decisions as a group, resulting typically in unchallenged, poor-quality decision-making.

Sluffy wrote:

The trouble is bonce is that people have had their minds poisoned and their prejudices fed by the propaganda they read and want to believe.

Wanderlust (Tory hater) and 63 (Tory lover - or at least Libertarian policy lover) are from opposite sides in their political beliefs yet both 'hate' and are 'prejudicial' in their views which stem from what is known as Confirmation Bias.

In simple terms they have already made their minds up, often just on emotions and bias rather than facts and logic, and stick with them, look for others who are saying the same (even those who are doing so deliberately knowing it to be untrue or false - because they have their own agendas they intend to achieve) and become remote in their own bubble that what they believe is correct and everything else is untrue.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.[1] People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias cannot be eliminated, but it can be managed, for example, by education and training in critical thinking skills.

Biased search for information, biased interpretation of this information, and biased memory recall, have been invoked to explain four specific effects:

1 - attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence)
2 - belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false)
3 - the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series)
4 - illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of psychological experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another proposal is that people show confirmation bias because they are pragmatically assessing the costs of being wrong, [Why Wanderlust prefers to lie than by seen by others to have simply been wrong or had made a mistake] rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Flawed decisions due to confirmation bias have been found in a wide range of political, organizational, financial and scientific contexts. These biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. For example, confirmation bias produces systematic errors in scientific research based on inductive reasoning (the gradual accumulation of supportive evidence). Similarly, a police detective may identify a suspect early in an investigation, but then may only seek confirming rather than disconfirming evidence. A medical practitioner may prematurely focus on a particular disorder early in a diagnostic session, and then seek only confirming evidence. In social media, confirmation bias is amplified by the use of filter bubbles, or "algorithmic editing", which display to individuals only information they are likely to agree with, while excluding opposing views.

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

A similar way of describing this is Group Think

Groupthink
noun

The practice of thinking or making decisions as a group, resulting typically in unchallenged, poor-quality decision-making.

I agree. I'm as guilty as anyone.
And the most annoying thing is, I know I'm doing it.
I like to think I now have it under control, but, like an alcoholic, it's day to day.

I simply can't understand why anyone would not want to find out the truth for themselves but rather believe some utter bullshit simply because they are stupid enough to believe what they read on social media or because something or someone pissed on their chips 40 or 50 years ago and they can never forgive them - ever!

It's so easy just to put a few key words in Google and go to something like Wiki to give you a start in understanding the basics of things.

Ok not perfect research but it is a million miles better than believing the bullshit which some nutjob has posted from his mum's back bedroom in Scunthorpe (like Hip Priest once did!)

My view fwiw, is that people simply don't live in the present, they live in the past, and judge from how they felt back then.

They make no allowance that things have moved on - and no understanding that things can and do change over time - it was inconceivable that anyone would lie to Parliament without suffering the consequences. let alone a Prime Minister and sticking two fingers up to it as well!

Values and boundaries change but if you are stuck in the past you are left behind and not comprehending how things now are, how people now are - and that it is you who is out of step - not they out of step with you.

Not everything was better in the past but similarly not everything has changed for the worse today.

Even if it has, you can't do anything about it (See, Wanderlusts never ending hatred of Brexit).

You've got to let things go or get eaten up by them inside your head.

A couple of simple rules.

Politics and religion is all about control and power.

People will do anything to get control and power and hang on to it.

Don't believe anything you hear or read and only half of what you see - in other words don't believe anything on social media until you've fact checked it yourself.

And, football is just a game, an entertainment, an activity, it is not something to take seriously or to waste your life over.

Sluffy wrote:

OMG!!!

Hahahahaha....

That's the best laugh I've had since Wanderlust last posted his lies on here...

May and Major more duplicitous than Boris (who lied to the Queen) broke the law by proroguing Parliament, lied repeatedly to Parliament, broke the Covid rules he himself announced to the country on live, national, TV, lied about where he got the money from to refurbish his flat in Downing Street, tried to get the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards sacked to save his mate Owen Paterson who had broken lobbying rules, his own Ethics Advisor Lord Geidt resign because Johnson had again broken the Ministerial Code (Lord Geidt had previously been the Queen's own private secretary for 10 years until he had retired from the post).

Geidt only took on the role as Johnson's Ethics advisor, because his previous one, Alex Allen quit when Johnson refused to back him when he had reported that his mate Pritti Patel had broken the Ministerial code for bullying Civil Servants.

Duplicity
noun

Deceitfulness.


Do you really, REALLY believe May and Major to have been more deceitful than Boris???




Fwiw May and Major were decent old fashioned politicians who played by the rules and not known to be at all deceitful by the vast majority of their peers, in both the Conservative and Labour parties.

Sluffy, there’s no point in my conversing with you on this so I won’t waste my breath other than to say that if that’s your view then you’re entitled to it, I just disagree as I do on most things with you.