Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2020 19:30:32 GMT
Stuart and I were discussing the differences in decision making whilst in government versus the ease with which opposition parties, without having to take responsibility, can make all sorts of suggestions. Why are you being so ontuse? Well yes, it’s identical to the way in which certain posters in this section of the board say with some authority “Well Corbyn would have been worse” thus transferring responsibility from an actual government to an imaginary one with ease. It's "Whataboutery" at it's finest 365. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Dec 21, 2020 19:34:23 GMT
UNICEF UK STATEMENT ON FUNDING OF UK FOOD PROGRAMMES In response to comments made in the Commons about Unicef UK’s funding of UK food programmes today, Anna Kettley, Unicef UK’s Director of Programmes and Advocacy, said: “Unicef UK is responding to this unprecedented crisis and building on our 25 years’ experience of working on children’s rights in the UK with a one-off domestic response, launched in August, to provide support to vulnerable children and families around the country during this crisis period. In partnership with Sustain, the food and farming alliance, over £700k of Unicef UK funds is being granted to community groups around the country to support their vital work helping children and families at risk of food insecurity during the coronavirus pandemic. Unicef will continue to spend our international funding helping the world’s poorest children. We believe that every child is important and deserves to survive and thrive no matter where they are born.” ENDSl Took me all of 30 secs 😮 Hmmm. The Guardian, 4 days ago, had this to say on the matter......https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/16/unicef-feed-hungry-children-uk-first-time-history It’s not like The Guardian to miss an opportunity to bash a Tory government, especially over something as emotive as child poverty. I would have thought the editor would have been standing on the office rooftop shouting his mouth off about this £700k. Which, in context is a paltry amount and stinks of political posturing. Never mind, that bastion of truth, the BBC can be relied on to give an accurate report, but no, they only mention £25k as well. The £25k was for one council which was the story involving JRM. The £700k is a wider UK programme. Both articles are correct, but I suspect you knew that and besides, that really isn't the point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2020 20:06:54 GMT
Hmmm. The Guardian, 4 days ago, had this to say on the matter......https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/16/unicef-feed-hungry-children-uk-first-time-history It’s not like The Guardian to miss an opportunity to bash a Tory government, especially over something as emotive as child poverty. I would have thought the editor would have been standing on the office rooftop shouting his mouth off about this £700k. Which, in context is a paltry amount and stinks of political posturing. Never mind, that bastion of truth, the BBC can be relied on to give an accurate report, but no, they only mention £25k as well. The £25k was for one council which was the story involving JRM. The £700k is a wider UK programme. Both articles are correct, but I suspect you knew that and besides, that really isn't the point. He has issues assimilating facts Stuart. |
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Dec 21, 2020 20:07:01 GMT
Stuart and I were discussing the differences in decision making whilst in government versus the ease with which opposition parties, without having to take responsibility, can make all sorts of suggestions. Why are you being so ontuse? So you critique Starmer and when you find out he did suggest the action on Wednesday you ask why he didn't enforce it and then for some bizarre reason pull Saville out of your psyche and on to the table. When reminded that Starmer isn't PM and cant enforce any of this, you have no answer. You been on the port or something? No, I don’t drink alcohol. Starmer may well have suggested a firebreak in the past, but he didn’t have to take the responsibility for the economic affect that would have so he never really did anything, did he? My point being that it’s easy to make suggestions and criticise when in opposition. However when he was DPP he was presented with the evidence about Saville but he chose to sit on his hands and do F all. So even when he had the power and opportunity to take and action a decision he bottled it. Had it been a prominent Conservative I have no doubt he would have been all over it like a cheap suit. Even though it’s supposed to be a non- political appointment. You have admitted by omission that you knew Stuart and I were discussing power without responsibility, so I ask again, why do you have to be so obtuse? |
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Dec 21, 2020 20:11:01 GMT
Hmmm. The Guardian, 4 days ago, had this to say on the matter......https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/16/unicef-feed-hungry-children-uk-first-time-history It’s not like The Guardian to miss an opportunity to bash a Tory government, especially over something as emotive as child poverty. I would have thought the editor would have been standing on the office rooftop shouting his mouth off about this £700k. Which, in context is a paltry amount and stinks of political posturing. Never mind, that bastion of truth, the BBC can be relied on to give an accurate report, but no, they only mention £25k as well. The £25k was for one council which was the story involving JRM. The £700k is a wider UK programme. Both articles are correct, but I suspect you knew that and besides, that really isn't the point. You’re probably right Stuart, but I can’t understand why the Guardian, BBC, even that comic the Mirror haven’t been all over this like a cheap suit. Christ, it’s the equivalent of Kane missing an open goal in the World Cup final, for them. Im sorry, but something doesn’t seem right. You must agree it’s suspicious. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2020 20:18:07 GMT
So you critique Starmer and when you find out he did suggest the action on Wednesday you ask why he didn't enforce it and then for some bizarre reason pull Saville out of your psyche and on to the table. When reminded that Starmer isn't PM and cant enforce any of this, you have no answer. You been on the port or something? No, I don’t drink alcohol. Starmer may well have suggested a firebreak in the past, but he didn’t have to take the responsibility for the economic affect that would have so he never really did anything, did he? My point being that it’s easy to make suggestions and criticise when in opposition. However when he was DPP he was presented with the evidence about Saville but he chose to sit on his hands and do F all. So even when he had the power and opportunity to take and action a decision he bottled it. Had it been a prominent Conservative I have no doubt he would have been all over it like a cheap suit. Even though it’s supposed to be a non- political appointment. You have admitted by omission that you knew Stuart and I were discussing power without responsibility, so I ask again, why do you have to be so obtuse? More Bollox from resident numb nut. What actually happened with Starmer re Savile. "Keir Starmer led the CPS when it did not charge Jimmy Savile, but he wasn’t the reviewing lawyer 26 JUNE 2020 WHAT WAS CLAIMED Keir Starmer stopped Jimmy Savile being charged in 2009. OUR VERDICT Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations. Since the election of Sir Keir Starmer as leader of the Labour party earlier this year, there has been a lot of discussion online and in the media about the role Mr Starmer played in the Jimmy Savile scandal and the decision not to prosecute him in 2009. Our readers have asked us to look into this. Mr Starmer was head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) when the decision not to prosecute Savile was made on the grounds of “insufficient evidence”. The allegations against Savile were dealt with by local police and a reviewing lawyer for the CPS. A later investigation criticised the actions of both the CPS and the police in their handling of the situation. It did not suggest that Mr Starmer was personally involved in the decisions made. The Labour party told us it could not comment on individual cases and the CPS said that records relating to the decision not to charge Savile were not kept, which the service said is in line with its data retention policy." Thus "In January 2013, after Savile’s death and when his abuse had been revealed, an investigation into whether the CPS had been right not to charge Savile in 2009 was published by Alison Levitt QC. She was asked to investigate this by Mr Starmer." So once again, Oldgas talking out of his ass. |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,491 
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Dec 21, 2020 20:32:23 GMT
Saville was a Tory ..... never forget .
|
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Dec 21, 2020 20:40:12 GMT
No, I don’t drink alcohol. Starmer may well have suggested a firebreak in the past, but he didn’t have to take the responsibility for the economic affect that would have so he never really did anything, did he? My point being that it’s easy to make suggestions and criticise when in opposition. However when he was DPP he was presented with the evidence about Saville but he chose to sit on his hands and do F all. So even when he had the power and opportunity to take and action a decision he bottled it. Had it been a prominent Conservative I have no doubt he would have been all over it like a cheap suit. Even though it’s supposed to be a non- political appointment. You have admitted by omission that you knew Stuart and I were discussing power without responsibility, so I ask again, why do you have to be so obtuse? More Bollox from resident numb nut. What actually happened with Starmer re Savile. "Keir Starmer led the CPS when it did not charge Jimmy Savile, but he wasn’t the reviewing lawyer 26 JUNE 2020 WHAT WAS CLAIMED Keir Starmer stopped Jimmy Savile being charged in 2009. OUR VERDICT Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations. Since the election of Sir Keir Starmer as leader of the Labour party earlier this year, there has been a lot of discussion online and in the media about the role Mr Starmer played in the Jimmy Savile scandal and the decision not to prosecute him in 2009. Our readers have asked us to look into this. Mr Starmer was head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) when the decision not to prosecute Savile was made on the grounds of “insufficient evidence”. The allegations against Savile were dealt with by local police and a reviewing lawyer for the CPS. A later investigation criticised the actions of both the CPS and the police in their handling of the situation. It did not suggest that Mr Starmer was personally involved in the decisions made. The Labour party told us it could not comment on individual cases and the CPS said that records relating to the decision not to charge Savile were not kept, which the service said is in line with its data retention policy." Thus "In January 2013, after Savile’s death and when his abuse had been revealed, an investigation into whether the CPS had been right not to charge Savile in 2009 was published by Alison Levitt QC. She was asked to investigate this by Mr Starmer." So once again, Oldgas talking out of his ass. Starmer was head of the CPS. Therefore the fault lies with him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2020 20:42:35 GMT
More Bollox from resident numb nut. What actually happened with Starmer re Savile. "Keir Starmer led the CPS when it did not charge Jimmy Savile, but he wasn’t the reviewing lawyer 26 JUNE 2020 WHAT WAS CLAIMED Keir Starmer stopped Jimmy Savile being charged in 2009. OUR VERDICT Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations. Since the election of Sir Keir Starmer as leader of the Labour party earlier this year, there has been a lot of discussion online and in the media about the role Mr Starmer played in the Jimmy Savile scandal and the decision not to prosecute him in 2009. Our readers have asked us to look into this. Mr Starmer was head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) when the decision not to prosecute Savile was made on the grounds of “insufficient evidence”. The allegations against Savile were dealt with by local police and a reviewing lawyer for the CPS. A later investigation criticised the actions of both the CPS and the police in their handling of the situation. It did not suggest that Mr Starmer was personally involved in the decisions made. The Labour party told us it could not comment on individual cases and the CPS said that records relating to the decision not to charge Savile were not kept, which the service said is in line with its data retention policy." Thus "In January 2013, after Savile’s death and when his abuse had been revealed, an investigation into whether the CPS had been right not to charge Savile in 2009 was published by Alison Levitt QC. She was asked to investigate this by Mr Starmer." So once again, Oldgas talking out of his ass. Starmer was head of the CPS. Therefore the fault lies with him. The Queen is Head of State |
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Dec 21, 2020 20:59:22 GMT
Starmer was head of the CPS. Therefore the fault lies with him. The Queen is Head of State You’re catching that obtuse bug Officer Dibble sffe4s from. it must be impregnated in the pages of the left-wing rags you all read. My oh my. Getting back to the subject of this thread, I see that nasty little Frenchman is doing a bit of sabre rattling by blocking lorries going to France. I wonder If your marvellous EU will tell him to stop acting like Napoleon and behave himself? And you want to keep us tied to the will of Assholes like him? |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,491
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Dec 21, 2020 21:05:46 GMT
The Queen is Head of State You’re catching that obtuse bug Officer Dibble sffe4s from. it must be impregnated in the pages of the left-wing rags you all read. My oh my. Getting back to the subject of this thread, I see that nasty little Frenchman is doing a bit of sabre rattling by blocking lorries going to France. I wonder If your marvellous EU will tell him to stop acting like Napoleon and behave himself? And you want to keep us tied to the will of Assholes like him? 40 plus countries have closed their borders to uk people. Only France has a tunnel to it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2020 21:07:00 GMT
The Queen is Head of State You’re catching that obtuse bug Officer Dibble sffe4s from. it must be impregnated in the pages of the left-wing rags you all read. My oh my. Getting back to the subject of this thread, I see that nasty little Frenchman is doing a bit of sabre rattling by blocking lorries going to France. I wonder If your marvellous EU will tell him to stop acting like Napoleon and behave himself? And you want to keep us tied to the will of Assholes like him? Your words have no relevance to the topic of this thread. Just incoherent drivel. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2020 21:08:01 GMT
You’re catching that obtuse bug Officer Dibble sffe4s from. it must be impregnated in the pages of the left-wing rags you all read. My oh my. Getting back to the subject of this thread, I see that nasty little Frenchman is doing a bit of sabre rattling by blocking lorries going to France. I wonder If your marvellous EU will tell him to stop acting like Napoleon and behave himself? And you want to keep us tied to the will of Assholes like him? 40 plus countries have closed their borders to uk people. Only France has a tunnel to it. Facts Yatton, he cannot assimilate facts. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Dec 21, 2020 21:08:27 GMT
The Queen is Head of State You’re catching that obtuse bug Officer Dibble sffe4s from. it must be impregnated in the pages of the left-wing rags you all read. My oh my. Getting back to the subject of this thread, I see that nasty little Frenchman is doing a bit of sabre rattling by blocking lorries going to France. I wonder If your marvellous EU will tell him to stop acting like Napoleon and behave himself? And you want to keep us tied to the will of Assholes like him? You mean the French President has control and is acting without instruction from Brussels? You'll be claiming they are a sovereign nation next. 😀 |
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Dec 21, 2020 21:17:50 GMT
You’re catching that obtuse bug Officer Dibble sffe4s from. it must be impregnated in the pages of the left-wing rags you all read. My oh my. Getting back to the subject of this thread, I see that nasty little Frenchman is doing a bit of sabre rattling by blocking lorries going to France. I wonder If your marvellous EU will tell him to stop acting like Napoleon and behave himself? And you want to keep us tied to the will of Assholes like him? You mean the French President has control and is acting without instruction from Brussels? You'll be claiming they are a sovereign nation next. 😀 But France isn’t a sovereign nation, it’s part of the EU and has to abide by EU rules. When it suits them. Hes jumped on this Coronavirus as an excuse to rattle his sabre about Brexit. I see that 3 other EU countries have this new strain, it will be interesting to see if he takes unilateral action against them.😘 |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Dec 21, 2020 21:39:06 GMT
You mean the French President has control and is acting without instruction from Brussels? You'll be claiming they are a sovereign nation next. 😀 But France isn’t a sovereign nation, it’s part of the EU and has to abide by EU rules. When it suits them. Hes jumped on this Coronavirus as an excuse to rattle his sabre about Brexit. I see that 3 other EU countries have this new strain, it will be interesting to see if he takes unilateral action against them.😘 When it suits them? You do realise you have just confirmed my point and contradicted your own. 😁 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2020 21:43:07 GMT
But France isn’t a sovereign nation, it’s part of the EU and has to abide by EU rules. When it suits them. Hes jumped on this Coronavirus as an excuse to rattle his sabre about Brexit. I see that 3 other EU countries have this new strain, it will be interesting to see if he takes unilateral action against them.😘 When it suits them? You do realise you have just confirmed my point and contradicted your own. 😁 Oh god, they shoot horses, don't they? |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,491
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Dec 21, 2020 22:09:19 GMT
But France isn’t a sovereign nation, it’s part of the EU and has to abide by EU rules. When it suits them. Hes jumped on this Coronavirus as an excuse to rattle his sabre about Brexit. I see that 3 other EU countries have this new strain, it will be interesting to see if he takes unilateral action against them.😘 When it suits them? You do realise you have just confirmed my point and contradicted your own. 😁 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Too stupid to even realise !! |
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Dec 21, 2020 22:18:36 GMT
But France isn’t a sovereign nation, it’s part of the EU and has to abide by EU rules. When it suits them. Hes jumped on this Coronavirus as an excuse to rattle his sabre about Brexit. I see that 3 other EU countries have this new strain, it will be interesting to see if he takes unilateral action against them.😘 When it suits them? You do realise you have just confirmed my point and contradicted your own. 😁 Oh dear. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Dec 21, 2020 22:36:23 GMT
When it suits them? You do realise you have just confirmed my point and contradicted your own. 😁 Oh dear. At least you have a sense of humour. 🤗 |
|
