|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 22, 2020 14:48:59 GMT
Matt Hancock facing a legal challenge. Probably won't come to much but it's something awkward for him. news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-daughter-of-suspected-covid-19-victim-begins-legal-action-against-matt-hancock-12012227"The daughter of an 88-year-old man who died of suspected COVID-19 in a care home has formally begun legal action against the health secretary. Sky News revealed earlier this month that Dr Cathy Gardner had served a pre-action letter on Matt Hancock demanding he retract his claim that he placed a "protective ring" around care homes, giving him 14 days to reply. She says that after failing to receive an adequate response, legal action for judicial review has begun against the health secretary, NHS England and Public Health England." Oops. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. May be a bit awkward for Matt Hancock for a while but I can't see any action being taken. Probably come down to the definition of protective ring and there is bound to be wriggle room built in to such a statement. Plus, the action is against 3 entities so that allows for weeks of discussion as to who might eventually have to provide the formal response.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 22, 2020 12:25:08 GMT
NiceSnatch
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 22, 2020 12:17:06 GMT
Hi Oldie
Based on a number of your previous posts I would have thought that the use of a not-often-used word like pusillanimous would have resonated quite well with you. And Blueridge was merely offering me words of advice rather than entering a debate. Maybe he should have done it via PM?
As for your post, what points are to be addressed?
I have addressed the fact that the statement made by armchair has no bearing on the initial link that was posted. If the statement now relates to the second link then that is fair enough and I don't believe many people would raise a counter view. Not from me anyway as I agree that it is dangerous if people are forced to work in conditions that may unnecessarily increase their risk of catching coronavirus. So I'm not sure there is anything to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 21, 2020 10:19:58 GMT
Happy to oblige. Now your week is complete. As for a beer I'll happily have one with you but don't get me chocolates. I'm a dog remember and the aftermath of eating chocolate is truly mind blowing. Yep we’ll definitely sort something out, but f**k knows when that’s gonna be? wasn’t it funny that the only 3 - 1 of the day was the sh**, and I managed to pick it out lol! Quality result. I could become a convert to the 3-1 bet as you seem to do quite well from it.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 21, 2020 10:06:17 GMT
So, the name calling starts in the very first post from you to me!! What a pathetic response though. You posted a link and made a false statement about it. You then posted a different link to try and back up your point which does use the phrase "forced to work" but has no bearing on the initial link that you posted. The two reports aren't even about the same area of the UK. Are you suggesting that every time you make a false claim to a link that you post the reader has to go trawling the internet to figure out what you are talking about? To use your own words who is really being wilfully stupid here?
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 21, 2020 10:00:06 GMT
Fair enough. Guess I misunderstood. Maybe, that's the problem with social media, things can be badly written or misread, then before you know it things get conflated. What were we taught? Only about 7% of communication is the actual words used, the rest is body language and verbal tone. Neither of which can be understood on a forum. Hope you are feeling better, I presume the vet is happy. Not really Stuart. Still waiting for a letter from the hospital. As they didn't have a theatre slot available at the time I am now in the system. Meanwhile things can only get worse. Ho hum.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 21, 2020 0:24:24 GMT
Maybe I am misunderstanding but by the highlighted text are you suggesting quotas? What happened to the best person gets the job? We've both worked for our present company for many years and I can still clearly remember the utter mess that arose in the late 80's/early 90's when our employer in a previous guise decided to follow the Govt directive of the time and introduced quotas. We were already a multi cultural employer but there was positive discrimination employed in favour of BAME or whatever the phrase was at the time. It didn't work, good candidates got passed over and people were taken on that really weren't suitable and then left of their own accord or were relieved of duty. The point is quotas don't solve the issue and I thought positive discrimination is banned under the Equality Act 2010.
I was referring to parliament and how it helped get more women into politics by having all women short lists. Wasn't keen at the time but it did get better representation. No, I don't want quotas. Whether the Rooney Law would help. Don't know, just making a suggestion. Fair enough. Guess I misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 21, 2020 0:06:41 GMT
It's actually getting interesting now, so thanks for the reply. Now we have the issue of our system of political representation and we are back to equality of opportunity. If that's what we are arguing for here then I'm stood shoulder-to-shoulder with you, if we are arguing for equality of outcome then someone is going to have to sell that concept to me. I used to be against positive discrimination, I still remember debates at school where the teacher was very much in favour, in that particular debate, on women getting key jobs. The funny thing was it was the girls in the class who were most against it. However, as time went by I started to appreciate the benefits of having to force the issue and the all women short lists helped. They still don't represent proportionately the levels in the country, something like a third at the moment compared to over half.The proportion of BAME MPs should be about 20%, but is only 10%. The question is why, is it lack of opportunity or is it something which prevents them. MPs are mostly from one of the main parties and many are in safe seats. Only a couple of hundred change at a GE. Of those candidates, they are selected by a few constituency members from a few people. Unless they are 'encouraged' to choose then law of averages would mean that the majority will be those engaged in politics and affiliated to that party. Any middle of the road person will be squeezed out, either during selection of candidates or if they stand as an independent, by the electoral system. The answer is in part, to encourage more to register with their party, which is fine if there is one they can affilate with. Until the system changes, we are stuck with a choice of two or three candidates in any constituency. No real choice. If you don't feel engaged in politics then you won't be wanting to take part. If one of the causes of that is being disenfranchised because you feel unrepresented then that is a turn off. Equality of opportunity is the target and opportunity of outcome the measurement. Sometimes it is necessary to work backwards to get to the goal. The more seen in parliament and in government and actively promoting issues, the more people will be willing to engage and to get the numbers applying in the first place. How many times have there been stories of lack of role models? Same in politics. Things are improving but very slowly and as a short term solution, I'd encourage it. Maybe I am misunderstanding but by the highlighted text are you suggesting quotas? What happened to the best person gets the job? We've both worked for our present company for many years and I can still clearly remember the utter mess that arose in the late 80's/early 90's when our employer in a previous guise decided to follow the Govt directive of the time and introduced quotas. We were already a multi cultural employer but there was positive discrimination employed in favour of BAME or whatever the phrase was at the time. It didn't work, good candidates got passed over and people were taken on that really weren't suitable and then left of their own accord or were relieved of duty. The point is quotas don't solve the issue and I thought positive discrimination is banned under the Equality Act 2010.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 20, 2020 23:19:04 GMT
Where does it say that anyone was forced to work? Please enlighten me as I couldn't see that in the report.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 20, 2020 19:35:59 GMT
Is that what you buy the man who already has everything? Scooby made me do it so I reckon I owe him a beer or 3. Scooby ain’t much fun on a night out mate. Bouncers turn you away left right and centre. Congrats on your win mate, enjoy your Sat night. You obviously haven't seen my chase-the tail party trick. Guaranteed to get me into any drinking establishment. The bitches love it
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 20, 2020 19:34:56 GMT
You can buy Gassy that box of Milk Tray you promised him now. Is that what you buy the man who already has everything? Scooby made me do it so I reckon I owe him a beer or 3. Happy to oblige. Now your week is complete. As for a beer I'll happily have one with you but don't get me chocolates. I'm a dog remember and the aftermath of eating chocolate is truly mind blowing.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 20, 2020 13:01:35 GMT
What a Dam lady garden that bloke is.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 20, 2020 12:22:08 GMT
If you stick your finger in Bolder's ring do you become invisible?
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 20, 2020 11:56:18 GMT
And that is fine but it can't be one rule for one and another rule for everyone else. And don't forget how Nobbygas was hounded. Smacks of double standards. Which rule are you referring to? That one poster must provide evidence to back up a statement (and be hounded for not doing so) but another poster feels that they do not need to provide evidence when challenged to do so. As I've said before, I am offering no opinion on whether any statement made on this forum is correct or not correct, comes with evidence or doesn't come with evidence. I do not wish to get involved in the shittery that comes with it. But I do feel that posters should all be treated the same regardless of what they have posted. If one is challenged, and pursued, for evidence then all should be allowed to be challenged, and pursued, for evidence. You may feel that I am going at you personally but I really am not. It just happens to be you that is the subject of the current furore.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 20, 2020 10:59:30 GMT
This sign above the entrance gates...
'Welcome to The Skull and Crossbones Bristol Rovers training ground'
And stick a few of these around too I'm loving this.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 20, 2020 10:58:16 GMT
Precisely. I reckon Jung is Oldie's nemesis. One can imagine that Oldie has lost a debate with Jung on the other forum and maybe felt a bit foolish and so won't engage with him on this forum for fear of it happening again. On here people no longer want to engage with Oldie as to do so means that you are rounded upon by his "gang" in the strange belief that a combination of the greater number of agreeing views coupled with the hounding of dissenting views somehow makes their view more important. Maybe Oldie didn't have the support on the other forum that he does on here. Or maybe he did but Jung won the debate anyway. Jung may be a dark horse but I have read nothing yet that suggests he wants anything other than to debate sensibly. Ok, he did say he was invited on here to challenge Oldie but that is not the same as coming on here to cause trouble. So my advice to Jung is not to get taken in by the deflection tactics, the use of strange quotes to try and change the subject, and to stay calm when others try to turn the tables and make out that you have said something you haven't.
As a regular reader of the other forum, I'd suggest that this is more to do with just not wanting to engage rather than losing a debate or not having support there. And that is fine but it can't be one rule for one and another rule for everyone else. And don't forget how Nobbygas was hounded. Smacks of double standards.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 20, 2020 10:21:14 GMT
Nah, that would make us sound like a cowboy outfit.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 20, 2020 9:54:41 GMT
This thread has become hilarious, a version of Dante's Divine Comedy. Convoluted distortions based upon personal prejudices and possible inferiority complexes. Dante had it right in his poem when (quote) "In the poem, Hell is depicted as nine concentric circles of torment located within the Earth; it is the "realm ... of those who have rejected spiritual values by yielding to bestial appetites or violence, or by perverting their human intellect to fraud or malice against their fellowmen" Recognise this anyone? 😂😂😂😂🤔🤔 Become hilarious? Jung has come on here, in a sober and reasonable manner, and invited you to defend the position that you took. And, instead, you quote a 14 th century poet. Been at the old Chateau Croesus again? I don`t know what your problem with Jung is. He doesn`t seem to bear you any animus, despite you losing your temper, and resorting to calling him names. Do you prefer the car crash that the Corona virus thread descended into, rather than the civilised exchange of facts that Jung has asked for? You said that you can`t see your original assertion is inflammatory. In this day and age, I`d say that asserting that people are being denied equal opportunity ( at least in the political sphere ) because of skin colour, is as inflammatory as it gets. It`s the sort of rhetoric that demagogues the world over, use to inflame passions. If you believe it what you wrote, then take up Jung`s offer to prove it. If there`s something not right about him, or his argument, I`m sure we`ll all soon see it. Just do it! Precisely. I reckon Jung is Oldie's nemesis. One can imagine that Oldie has lost a debate with Jung on the other forum and maybe felt a bit foolish and so won't engage with him on this forum for fear of it happening again. On here people no longer want to engage with Oldie as to do so means that you are rounded upon by his "gang" in the strange belief that a combination of the greater number of agreeing views coupled with the hounding of dissenting views somehow makes their view more important. Maybe Oldie didn't have the support on the other forum that he does on here. Or maybe he did but Jung won the debate anyway. Jung may be a dark horse but I have read nothing yet that suggests he wants anything other than to debate sensibly. Ok, he did say he was invited on here to challenge Oldie but that is not the same as coming on here to cause trouble. So my advice to Jung is not to get taken in by the deflection tactics, the use of strange quotes to try and change the subject, and to stay calm when others try to turn the tables and make out that you have said something you haven't.
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 20, 2020 9:23:30 GMT
SlyAndGobbo
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 20, 2020 0:16:07 GMT
Bob Marley song lyrics. Ban. 10cc surely Oh, did I get it wrong? Well, ban him for that then
|
|