Jump to content

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

No he’s not. He’s a sopping wet pinko. 
 

Do you think we should ban smoking? 

 

from the nhs website 

 

Smoking is one of the biggest causes of death and illness in the UK.

Every year around 78,000 people in the UK die from smoking, with many more living with debilitating smoking-related illnesses.

Smoking increases your risk of developing more than 50 serious health conditions. 

Some may be fatal, and others can cause irreversible long-term damage to your health.

Unless smoking deaths have become contagious, that's a very daft point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

No he’s not. He’s a sopping wet pinko. 
 

Do you think we should ban smoking? 

 

from the nhs website 

 

Smoking is one of the biggest causes of death and illness in the UK.

Every year around 78,000 people in the UK die from smoking, with many more living with debilitating smoking-related illnesses.

Smoking increases your risk of developing more than 50 serious health conditions. 

Some may be fatal, and others can cause irreversible long-term damage to your health.

But smoking is a choice, which can be easily avoided now that we have laws against doing it in public, indoor places.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, egg said:

Unless smoking deaths have become contagious, that's a very daft point.

Course it’s not.

 

We are told lockdown is in place to stop people getting seriously ill or dying, and also to protect capacity in the NHS. Would a smoking ban not do the same?
 

You seem to want to lock people away to save them from a disease which the vast vast majority of sufferers will suffer mild or no ill effects. Yet you are perfectly happy to allow people to fill their lungs with a substance that is proven to cause most long term users serious illness & early death. It doesn’t make sense. 
 

 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Course it’s not.

 

We are told lockdown is in place to stop people getting seriously ill or dying, and also to protect capacity in the NHS. Would a smoking ban not do the same?
 

You seem to want to lock people away to save them from a disease which the vast vast majority of sufferers will suffer mild or no ill effects. Yet you are perfectly happy to allow people to fill their lungs with a substance that is proven to cause most long term users serious illness & early death. It doesn’t make sense. 

Long term being the key word there. If 20% of people who got a whiff of cigarette smoke were going to need hospital treatment within a week, they would be banned, yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Long term being the key word there. If 20% of people who got a whiff of cigarette smoke were going to need hospital treatment within a week, they would be banned, yes.

Are you trying to claim that 20% of people who have a whiff of contact with a Covid sufferer are hospitalised within a week? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saint Billy said:

Can anyone explain why pubs that serve meals are allowed to stay open and yet a pub that doesn’t have to shut down?.

Probably because people sitting down eating are less likely to spread it than a packed bar full of pissed up idiots acting like twats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, aintforever said:

Probably because people sitting down eating are less likely to spread it than a packed bar full of pissed up idiots acting like twats.

But you have to sit down even if you are just drinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Saint Billy said:

But you have to sit down even if you are just drinking.

Just buy a meal then.

People will moan whatever restrictions they bring in, they are just arbitrary rules aimed at reducing social contacts without completely destroying the restaurant industry. Why is a group of 6 safe and 7 not? Why is it safe to drink at 9.30pm but not at 10.45pm? None of the rules make sense if you look at it that way.

Edited by aintforever
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I am amazed at how many "sopping wet pinko"s there are in the Government.

Its what happens when the country elects Commies like Johnson to run the country and he gets advisors like that Trot Cummings.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Course it’s not.

 

We are told lockdown is in place to stop people getting seriously ill or dying, and also to protect capacity in the NHS. Would a smoking ban not do the same?
 

You seem to want to lock people away to save them from a disease which the vast vast majority of sufferers will suffer mild or no ill effects. Yet you are perfectly happy to allow people to fill their lungs with a substance that is proven to cause most long term users serious illness & early death. It doesn’t make sense. 
 

 

It really is a stupid point. You could go on - ban driving to avoid driving related deaths, etc. That's not contagious either. 

The government choice is either lockdown, crack on, or a fudged middle ground. Like most countries ,they're going for the latter and whatever they do will be open to scrutiny or criticism. 

For the record, I don't want lockdown and/or encourage smoking. Your bizarre diversion doesn't make your shit point any better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I am amazed at how many "sopping wet pinko"s there are in the Government.

Some days it feels like Michael Foot won the last election, it really does.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Saint Billy said:

Can anyone explain why pubs that serve meals are allowed to stay open and yet a pub that doesn’t have to shut down?.

Nobody can. There’s no logic to that or 10pm  shutting. I go to the ale house every weekend and there’s more “mingling” outside of pubs, taxi ranks & the Sainsbury’s than there ever was before this stupid curfew. It’s just a Government wanting to be seen to do something. Pathetic. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

I am amazed at how many "sopping wet pinko"s there are in the Government.

Why are you amazed? You can’t have been paying very much attention over the years. I guess you’ve fallen for the Brexit=Right wing pony.
 

Boris & Gove are from the pink wing, more in common with Little Johnnie Major and Call me Dave than the great lady & it comes to something when that posh wet Osborne was economically more sound. Apart from Brexit there’s not a ciggie paper between this lot & New labour. There’s the odd exception like the radiant Priti. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Why are you amazed? You can’t have been paying very much attention over the years. I guess you’ve fallen for the Brexit=Right wing pony.
 

Boris & Gove are from the pink wing, more in common with Little Johnnie Major and Call me Dave than the great lady & it comes to something when that posh wet Osborne was economically more sound. Apart from Brexit there’s not a ciggie paper between this lot & New labour. There’s the odd exception like the radiant Priti. 

Totally agree. The Party is some distance to the left of where it was under Maggie, unfortunately. But it seems that either the electorate don't agree, or that they preferred a right wing party, judging by the stonking majority they got at the last election. Or was that just because of the right wing Brexit vote?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

Totally agree. The Party is some distance to the left of where it was under Maggie, unfortunately. But it seems that either the electorate don't agree, or that they preferred a right wing party, judging by the stonking majority they got at the last election. Or was that just because of the right wing Brexit vote?

The shift is very deliberate. The current Tories are essentially"New Conservatives". New Labour were successful as they pulled in wavering Tories, liberals, and retained their core support. The Tories are doing the reverse, and took their lead from the demise of the liberal democrats and shifted left to steal their votes, as well as many new Labour voters who didn't like the Corbyn left wing approach  

The likes of duckie will whine about Pinko's etc but his vote has nowhere to go, and to appeal to the voters that put them back in, they can't move too far right.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

The Party is some distance to the left of where it was under Maggie

I would disagree. The Conservatives are much more right wing these days. Remember that the likes of Heseltine, Prior, Hurd, Clarke etc etc all played large roles in her Government. I am not even sure that Heseltine and Clarke are Conservatives nowadays! The likes of Patel, Rudd and Williamson are light years to the right of them.

Thatcher had Whitelaw next to her for much of her leadership. She was dependent upon his old fashioned one nation Toryism advice. Remember her phrase that "everyone needs a willie"? We all know that Johnson has a willie (😁)but perhaps he could do with advice from the likes of Whitelaw rather than Cummings. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

There’s no logic to that or 10pm  shutting. I go to the ale house every weekend and there’s more “mingling” outside of pubs, taxi ranks & the Sainsbury’s than there ever was before this stupid curfew. 

Isn't that more down to said minglers being as thick as mince rather than the policy being bad, per se?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, egg said:

The shift is very deliberate. The current Tories are essentially"New Conservatives". New Labour were successful as they pulled in wavering Tories, liberals, and retained their core support. The Tories are doing the reverse, and took their lead from the demise of the liberal democrats and shifted left to steal their votes, as well as many new Labour voters who didn't like the Corbyn left wing approach  

The likes of duckie will whine about Pinko's etc but his vote has nowhere to go, and to appeal to the voters that put them back in, they can't move too far right.

I think that you're largely correct, which confirms the assertion that the Conservatives and the leadership of the party has shifted to the left. I suspect that LD's vote is very much in the same territory as mine, in that it isn't the case that it has nowhere to go, as much as it has nowhere else to go, as parties to the right like UKIP/Brexit Party are mainly one issue parties. But nevertheless they are a useful deterrent on the right against the Conservatives going too far to the left and alienating a large section of the party who were formerly Thatcherites. I don't believe that the shift leftwards was an attempt particularly to steal Lib Dumb votes, as who could be sure of what their policies were anyway? They self-destructed by having a main policy in the GE of disregarding the democratic referendum decision to leave the EU and paid the price as a result.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

We are told lockdown is in place to stop people getting seriously ill or dying, and also to protect capacity in the NHS. Would a smoking ban not do the same?

You seem to want to lock people away to save them from a disease which the vast vast majority of sufferers will suffer mild or no ill effects. Yet you are perfectly happy to allow people to fill their lungs with a substance that is proven to cause most long term users serious illness & early death. It doesn’t make sense. 
 

 

Agree COVID is something we need to adapt to living with instead of pretending we can eliminate it.  However you do still need to manage demand on hospitals.

If 60 million people suddenly start smoking the  government will get a massive boost to the treasury and healthcare demand will be fairly evenly distributed over the next decades.  If 60 million catch COVID, even if 95% don't need hospital care that leaves 3 million people all turning up at A&E in a short 2-4 week window for a health service which has only c100,000 acute care beds    

Edited by buctootim
Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about the current Government having a left or right wing bent misses the point imo. The current policies have simply been cobbled together to get enough votes for Johnson to make himself PM - by bringing together the mostly right wing nationalists with the more socially liberal centre of the party in order to 'Get Brexit Done'.  The Tory 'left' has mostly been pushed out. Aside from a desire to avoid the Tory party splitting in two the factions don't really have anything much in common - it's just a temporary marriage of convenience. Who wins the inevitable fight after is what counts. 

Edited by buctootim
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

No he’s not. He’s a sopping wet pinko. 
 

Do you think we should ban smoking? 

 

from the nhs website 

 

Smoking is one of the biggest causes of death and illness in the UK.

Every year around 78,000 people in the UK die from smoking, with many more living with debilitating smoking-related illnesses.

Smoking increases your risk of developing more than 50 serious health conditions. 

Some may be fatal, and others can cause irreversible long-term damage to your health.

I think that you missed my original point Duckie. It was suggested that we look after the vulnerable and let everyone else go about their daily lives. The Health Secretary said yesterday that we are ALL vulnerable therefore no one gets to go about their normal daily lives in that case.

As for banning smoking. Yes I would, in a heartbeat. But that clearly isn’t going to happen as it would cause more grief than Brexit!  Smoking is the worst self inflicted deadly habit that humans have inflicted on themselves (apart from Rap music 😉) and if Walter Raleigh pitched up now and suggested we breathed the smoke of some dried leaves into our lungs for pleasure there is no way that would be allowed. However, I really don’t think that you can conflate smoking with an airborne virus spread by other humans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I think that you missed my original point Duckie. It was suggested that we look after the vulnerable and let everyone else go about their daily lives. The Health Secretary said yesterday that we are ALL vulnerable therefore no one gets to go about their normal daily lives in that case.

Correct, we are all vulnerable to catching it, that’s not the point. The point is, not everybody is vulnerable to serious illness or death if they catch it. For the  vast vast majority of working age people with no underlying health conditions, it’ll be no worse than many other illness’ we live with.

How many under 65’s have died having no previous health issues? And how many people will die of other illness’ or suffer mental health problems when the tsunami of job losses arrives? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Correct, we are all vulnerable to catching it, that’s not the point. The point is, not everybody is vulnerable to serious illness or death if they catch it. For the  vast vast majority of working age people with no underlying health conditions, it’ll be no worse than many other illness’ we live with.

How many under 65’s have died having no previous health issues? And how many people will die of other illness’ or suffer mental health problems when the tsunami of job losses arrives? 

Ask this of all the Governments around the world Duckie. Seriously, why would they f*ck their own economies if this virus was not serious and has the potential to do even more damage that it has done so far? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Ask this of all the Governments around the world Duckie. Seriously, why would they f*ck their own economies if this virus was not serious and has the potential to do even more damage that it has done so far? 

Perhaps they should follow the example of the President of Tanzania, who claims that he has beaten Coronavirus through prayer. Mind you, as it is against the law to question official statistics, his claim may be difficult to scrutinise.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Correct, we are all vulnerable to catching it, that’s not the point. The point is, not everybody is vulnerable to serious illness or death if they catch it. For the  vast vast majority of working age people with no underlying health conditions, it’ll be no worse than many other illness’ we live with.

How many under 65’s have died having no previous health issues? And how many people will die of other illness’ or suffer mental health problems when the tsunami of job losses arrives? 

You just don’t want the government to pay people’s Furlough because, like most Tories, your greatest fear is the terrifying thought of paying a bit more tax.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, aintforever said:

You just don’t want the government to pay people’s Furlough because, like most Tories, your greatest fear is the terrifying thought of paying a bit more tax.

So you want to pay more tax do you? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I'm more than happy to pay what is needed to help out the unfortunate people who face redundancy.

Good to hear, look forward to your positive reaction to tax increases. What a great guy you are. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aintforever said:

I'm more than happy to pay what is needed to help out the unfortunate people who face redundancy.

People that want to pay more tax can already do so voluntarily. However, I prefer to give my 'spare' cash direct to people in need or organisations that are more adept than  governments at distributing wealth (yes, I know we've had this conversation before which went around in the usual futile internet forum circles ;) ) 

Edited by trousers
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, aintforever said:

You just don’t want the government to pay people’s Furlough because, like most Tories, your greatest fear is the terrifying thought of paying a bit more tax.

It’s funny how for years lefties like you have been telling us that poverty, unemployment & austerity kills people and affects their mental & physical health. Yet you want the government to follow policies that are guaranteed to cost a lot of people their jobs, throw some on the scrap heap for the rest of their working lives, and bankrupt thousands of viable businesses. For what? To save us from catching a virus that  nearly everyone under 65 recovers from? 
 

The tax rises won’t affect me, I’ll be retired by the time someone has the balls to sort the mess out. So paying more tax is the least of my worries. 

 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s funny how for years lefties like you have been telling us that poverty, unemployment & austerity kills people and affects their mental & physical health. Yet you want the government to follow policies that are guaranteed to cost a lot of people their jobs, throw some on the scrap heap for the rest of their working lives, and bankrupt thousands of viable businesses. For what? To save us from catching a virus that  nearly everyone under 65 recovers from? 
 

The tax rises won’t affect me, I’ll be retired by the time someone has the balls to sort the mess out. So paying more tax is the least of my worries. 

 


 

The idea of just letting it spread whilst shielding the vulnerable sounds great in principle but would just be catastrophic in terms of lives lost. Anyone who knows they are high-risk will more than likely already be shielding themselves yet the death rate is going up even with the current restrictions. Letting it run rampant just before the Flu season (which already stretched the NHS prior to Covid) would be suicide.

If the current localised approach brings cases down then I think it's the best way, along as the right job safeguarding is in place. Furloughing is expensive but it makes more sense than letting good businesses fail. There is plenty of people with money out there who can chip in afterwards. Some people have been hit hard by the lockdowns but plenty who have kept working are better off, I know I am.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s funny how for years lefties like you have been telling us that poverty, unemployment & austerity kills people and affects their mental & physical health. Yet you want the government to follow policies that are guaranteed to cost a lot of people their jobs, throw some on the scrap heap for the rest of their working lives, and bankrupt thousands of viable businesses. For what? To save us from catching a virus that  nearly everyone under 65 recovers from? 
 

The tax rises won’t affect me, I’ll be retired by the time someone has the balls to sort the mess out. So paying more tax is the least of my worries. 

 


 

Lucky we've got people like aintforver round who are happy to pay as much tax as possible then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trousers said:

People that want to pay more tax can already do so voluntarily. However, I prefer to give my 'spare' cash direct to people in need or organisations that are more adept than  governments at distributing wealth (yes, I know we've had this conversation before which went around in the usual futile internet forum circles ;) ) 

When my accountant does my tax returns i lie to them so that i get a big tax bill every year you help out those more unfortunate, it's what us nice people do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Brilliant.

its true though, you said it, no one else. 

 

3 hours ago, aintforever said:

I'm more than happy to pay what is needed to help out the unfortunate people who face redundancy.

Are you backtracking now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

its true though, you said it, no one else. 

 

Are you backtracking now?

I never said I wanted to pay more tax, just happy to do what it takes to fight the virus and stop the economy collapsing. Not cry like a little baby because someone is being paid Furlough and it might effect my bank balance in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aintforever said:

I never said I wanted to pay more tax, just happy to do what it takes to fight the virus and stop the economy collapsing. Not cry like a little baby because someone is being paid Furlough and it might effect my bank balance in the future.

"I'm more than happy to pay what is needed to help out the unfortunate people who face redundancy."

So that statement wasn't quite what you claimed it was when you used it to respond to to bash tory duckhunter for being "terrified" about paying more tax. You're now saying you dont want to pay more tax either. SO are you happy to pay what is need or dont you want to pay any more tax? You dont seem to be able to make your mind up. 

Edited by Turkish
Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to settling the tax bill for the pay-outs by the government because of hardship caused by the Chinese virus, a few billion of it apparently will be to cover criminal claims for furlough payments. But some of it will to settle the cost of Arts Council grants like this one:-

 I'm seriously worried for the UK when we pay taxpayer's money on things like this and putting up illegal immigrants arriving on our shores in four star hotels. We appear to have gone stark staring bonkers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more good news :)

Assuming that there wasn't a 'false positive' either time, it looks like even the very fittest athletes can be infected more than once - not looking good for the majority of the unfit population!

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/giro-ditalia/giro-ditalia-2020-fernando-gaviria-tests-positive-for-coronavirus-for-second-time-this-year-473197

Quote

Fernando Gaviria has tested positive for coronavirus for the second time this year, forcing him to pull out of the Giro d’Italia.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

When it comes to settling the tax bill for the pay-outs by the government because of hardship caused by the Chinese virus, a few billion of it apparently will be to cover criminal claims for furlough payments. But some of it will to settle the cost of Arts Council grants like this one:-

 I'm seriously worried for the UK when we pay taxpayer's money on things like this and putting up illegal immigrants arriving on our shores in four star hotels. We appear to have gone stark staring bonkers.

Brilliant.

I bet that wound up the Daily Mail mob (in fact, that's probably why they did it).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Turkish said:

"I'm more than happy to pay what is needed to help out the unfortunate people who face redundancy."

So that statement wasn't quite what you claimed it was when you used it to respond to to bash tory duckhunter for being "terrified" about paying more tax. You're now saying you dont want to pay more tax either. SO are you happy to pay what is need or dont you want to pay any more tax? You dont seem to be able to make your mind up. 

Fuck me it's not rocket science. If saving lives and businesses means paying more tax in the future I don't have a problem with it. That doesn't mean I want to pay more tax, but if it is necessary I am happy to chip in and do my bit.

Is that clear enough for you or do I need to get the crayons out and draw you a diagram?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

Brilliant.

I bet that wound up the Daily Mail mob (in fact, that's probably why they did it).

 

I'm glad that you approve of this sort of waste of taxpayer's money. I expect that in order to receive such a copious sum of money, he must have ticked several boxes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a ridiculous thing to do and not sure how the Welsh are going to police it!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54662795

Quote

Supermarkets have started covering up non-essential goods as Wales prepares to start a national lockdown.

It looks like electricals and clothing will not be allowed to be sold in the supermarkets as they aren't 'essential' and other shops selling them have to close, so that small businesses are protected.  Meanwhile those essential cakes and pastries are fine in supermarkets, despite local bakeries being closed.

The Welsh lockdown basically just looks like a complete leisure closedown for a couple of weeks to ensure the badly damaged hospitality industry doesn't make any money during half term!

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Fuck me it's not rocket science. If saving lives and businesses means paying more tax in the future I don't have a problem with it. That doesn't mean I want to pay more tax, but if it is necessary I am happy to chip in and do my bit.

Is that clear enough for you or do I need to get the crayons out and draw you a diagram?

What if the lives are still lost and the businesses don't get saved?  Still happy to pay more taxes to fund the failed experiments or is there a line you'd draw?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aintforever said:

Fuck me it's not rocket science. If saving lives and businesses means paying more tax in the future I don't have a problem with it. That doesn't mean I want to pay more tax, but if it is necessary I am happy to chip in and do my bit.

Is that clear enough for you or do I need to get the crayons out and draw you a diagram?

Dont get all angry it's you that that started spouting off how terrified others are are of paying more tax, turns out that despite your boasts you’re not that keen on it yourself, nothing wrong with that, but funny how quick you were to dig people out for not wanting to do the same thing you dont want to do. But then we all know it's a difficult tightrope youre walking on wanting to be seen as such a great guy all the time.

Edited by Turkish
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})