• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

Sentences too harsh!

Teddy Eagle said:
A distinction without a difference.
Pre Covid the NHS waiting list was 4 m.
As of July this year the total was 6.39 m.
3.14 m had been waiting for more than 18 weeks.
290,300 had been waiting for more than a year.
The median waiting time was 14 weeks.
This after the UK spent between £300 & £400 bn supposedly to "protect" the NHS.
Click to expand...
There's a huge difference.

If the country had closed down then chaos would have resulted. The consequences would have been unimaginable and how many of us would have survived difficult to predict.

We didn't close. We managed on a restricted level of essential activities.

Describing it as "protecting the NHS" was shorthand for people, but it was much more than that. It was done because our very survival was being questioned. Now we know that was probably an unlikely scenario, but we didn't at the time.

Yes, the cost was enormous, but the alternative was even worse.

All of which is a diversion.

The accusation was that the country closed down. That isn't true.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
You claimed that the country closed down. It didn't. That was a lie.

I acknowledged there were restrictions, often quite severe restrictions. Some businesses did close whilst others were helped to survive by the various schemes that were introduced.

All you are doing is going off on another anti-lockdown rant. Fine, it's boring and pointless but you are entitled to it.

What you aren't entitled to is lie. The country did not close. It continued to operate in a restricted, different way and it survived. There were some very bad consequences which continue to impact us. Those in the NHS being especially bad. Whatever we did was going to be bad but that was never in doubt. What was decided was what was the least bad route through a minefield where we had no experience. We could have got that decision wrong, but I personally don't think so.

Spending on helping African nations grow their economies is an investment in our future as well as their's. If they have prosperity at home there will be no more need to seek it elsewhere.

This wasn't done because of any desire for "control"! Gaining control and ensuring observance was essential if it was going to work. It was the means to achieve the end.

Neither the previous nor the present government were responsible for the pandemic. Both have had to deal with the consequences of it and get unfairly blamed for many things.

Keyboard warriors, and opposition parties who are nowhere near actual responsibility, like Reform, always think they have all the answers. Answers which are theoretical, untested and usually completely impractical.
Click to expand...
Are we really investing in the prosperity of Africa with these expenditures? I doubt it. And anyway, if you’re waiting for that to significantly reduce the demand to migrate to Europe you’ll be waiting a long time.

Some of the draconian and nonsensical orders from government and the police were very authoritarian and completely ridiculous. The nonsense in parks, near beaches, wearing a mask while not eating or standing up etc. All of it encouraged by Sir Keir Starlin while wanting even more. It’s no wonder this landlord wanted him thrown out of his pub…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1829806625290666085
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0224.webp
    IMG_0224.webp
    224.9 KB · Views: 2
Wisbech Eagle said:
Assumption. You don't know if she is married or even if she is a Muslim.

Appearances can deceive.
Click to expand...
1. With Abubakar as a surname and wearing headdress like that it’s pretty obvious she is a Muslim.

2. Therefore it’s highly unlikely she had any children, let alone 4, out of wedlock.

But this is you disagreeing with anything.

‘Abū Bakr ({ ابو بكر }) is an Arabic given name meaning "Father of a Young Camel" (Abu meaning 'Father of' and Bakr meaning 'Young Camel') that is widely used by Sunni Muslims.’

en.m.wikipedia.org

Abu Bakr (name) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
There's a huge difference.

If the country had closed down then chaos would have resulted. The consequences would have been unimaginable and how many of us would have survived difficult to predict.

We didn't close. We managed on a restricted level of essential activities.

Describing it as "protecting the NHS" was shorthand for people, but it was much more than that. It was done because our very survival was being questioned. Now we know that was probably an unlikely scenario, but we didn't at the time.

Yes, the cost was enormous, but the alternative was even worse.

All of which is a diversion.

The accusation was that the country closed down. That isn't true.
Click to expand...

Not being allowed to meet family members or to go out of the house except for brief exercise, shops and hospitality venues shut, working from home, schools closed, etc but the country didn't close down.
Yes it did.
The financial cost was ruinous but the societal costs are still mounting up.
Even if you must persist in the belief that it was a decision taken when the options were unknown at least admit it was wrong.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Not being allowed to meet family members or to go out of the house except for brief exercise, shops and hospitality venues shut, working from home, schools closed, etc but the country didn't close down.
Yes it did.
The financial cost was ruinous but the societal costs are still mounting up.
Even if you must persist in the belief that it was a decision taken when the options were unknown at least admit it was wrong.
Click to expand...
I remember the video of a marshal bully who kicked off at a funeral service because someone got closer to someone than 2 metres away. It brought the worst out of these types. All the snitching too.
 
Rudi Hedman said:
1. With Abubakar as a surname and wearing headdress like that it’s pretty obvious she is a Muslim.

2. Therefore it’s highly unlikely she had any children, let alone 4, out of wedlock.

But this is you disagreeing with anything.

‘Abū Bakr ({ ابو بكر }) is an Arabic given name meaning "Father of a Young Camel" (Abu meaning 'Father of' and Bakr meaning 'Young Camel') that is widely used by Sunni Muslims.’

en.m.wikipedia.org

Abu Bakr (name) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
...and also putting her young daughter into one as well - but be prepared to be told that that's probably because it's cold and draughty in those cabins.......
 
becky said:
...and also putting her young daughter into one as well - but be prepared to be told that that's probably because it's cold and draughty in those cabins.......
Click to expand...
One of the many positives of western culture is children have freedom of choice, and speech for that matter. Not allowing that to future generations is at odds with western culture.
 
Still free to walk the streets. And to listen to some interesting Preachers thoughts on the correct punishment for Apostates. gays and blasphemers. Not to mention some potentially prejudiced dictates on whom can be allowed to have a relationship with who else ?

i wonder is she paying any tax into the exchequer ?

www.independent.ie

Convicted Islamic State member Lisa Smith back at Dundalk mosque where she claims she was radicalised as imam says ‘no reason to ban her’

Former Islamic State bride Lisa Smith is back attending the Dundalk mosque where she claimed she became radicalised.
www.independent.ie www.independent.ie
 
Last edited:
Rudi Hedman said:
Are we really investing in the prosperity of Africa with these expenditures? I doubt it. And anyway, if you’re waiting for that to significantly reduce the demand to migrate to Europe you’ll be waiting a long time.

Some of the draconian and nonsensical orders from government and the police were very authoritarian and completely ridiculous. The nonsense in parks, near beaches, wearing a mask while not eating or standing up etc. All of it encouraged by Sir Keir Starlin while wanting even more. It’s no wonder this landlord wanted him thrown out of his pub…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1829806625290666085
Click to expand...
Blaming Sir Keir Starmer for the lockdowns brings a whole new level to the concept of ridiculousness. He wasn’t in government, so supporting the approach was an indication of just how serious a problem it was.

That you think some of the measures were draconian merely confirms how little you, and those who agree with you, really understood the strategy.

It was necessary to introduce severe restrictions to get people to realise how serious things were and that action was required from everyone. Including the uncooperative, non compliant know it alls who thought they knew better or didn’t care. Discipline was necessary backed up by the occasional use of the law to publicise the impact on those unwilling to cooperate. It worked! People here moaned, but they complied. Only the total boneheads proudly claimed to be able to falsify documents much later.
 
Rudi Hedman said:
I meant that illegal migration results in significant cost to the taxpayer in the form of housing and all the other benefits. Perhaps you didn’t then.
Click to expand...
As many things result in significant cost to the taxpayer, what’s your point?

Everyone wants to stop illegal migration and along with it save the costs. It isn’t the desire that’s missing, it’s the practical method of achieving it.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Blaming Sir Keir Starmer for the lockdowns brings a whole new level to the concept of ridiculousness. He wasn’t in government, so supporting the approach was an indication of just how serious a problem it was.

That you think some of the measures were draconian merely confirms how little you, and those who agree with you, really understood the strategy.

It was necessary to introduce severe restrictions to get people to realise how serious things were and that action was required from everyone. Including the uncooperative, non compliant know it alls who thought they knew better or didn’t care. Discipline was necessary backed up by the occasional use of the law to publicise the impact on those unwilling to cooperate. It worked! People here moaned, but they complied. Only the total boneheads proudly claimed to be able to falsify documents much later.
Click to expand...
That interpretation is more ridiculous. Does that post blame Starmer or does it say he encouraged longer lockdowns?
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Not being allowed to meet family members or to go out of the house except for brief exercise, shops and hospitality venues shut, working from home, schools closed, etc but the country didn't close down.
Yes it did.
The financial cost was ruinous but the societal costs are still mounting up.
Even if you must persist in the belief that it was a decision taken when the options were unknown at least admit it was wrong.
Click to expand...
You are persisting with a lie.

The country did not close down. We were restricted in what we could do. Required to adopt different ways of behaving, but we could still do many things. We could stay in touch with our families, but by phone and video calling. We worked from home. Children got taught at home. So work and teaching weren’t closed. They were just done differently. We ate. We shopped. We got things delivered. The economy functioned. Some businesses closed, others survived with help.

I most certainly won’t admit it was wrong because it wasn’t wrong. I supported it then and i do today. The enquiry will inform us whether anything could have been done better and what lessons are to be learned but looking at what happened back then the only obvious one is timing. I think we should have gone harder earlier, which could have enabled the restrictions to have been released much earlier and limited the financial impact. Overall though it was the right choice in the circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top