The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[egg]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Deflects from Starmer's problems and gives him a chance to look decisive.

Yep. Agreed. 

[Farmer Saint]

29 minutes ago, whelk said:

It’s all mental - news cycle obsessed with it, man with no political power says something mildly offensive, PM responds and demands an apology and so everyone jumps on it, everyone asked for quotes, man apologises, man must be investigated. 

Feels like Starmer looking to shift the focus TBH with you.

[LuckyNumber7]

5 hours ago, whelk said:

FWIW as a screaming leftie I do think what Jim was trying to say does resonate with many - not teh specific wording. Easy capitalist bogey man but you can’t have 9 million people on benefits. And immigration has been stupidly high and is affecting communities.

Akin to Gordon Brown calling that woman a racist. 

Welcome to the far right.

[sadoldgit]

“Jim” makes Reform noises and gets jumped on. Break out the world’s smallest violin.

Apparently his “colonisation” of Monaco is saving him some £4b in taxes. Just think what the NHS could do with that.

Meanwhile he is trying to get more of our money to shore up his businesses. No sympathy from me. He brought the grief on himself.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/25/sir-jim-ratcliffe-uks-richest-person-moves-to-tax-free-monaco-brexit-ineos-domicile

[AlexLaw76]

9 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

“Jim” makes Reform noises and gets jumped on. Break out the world’s smallest violin.

Apparently his “colonisation” of Monaco is saving him some £4b in taxes. Just think what the NHS could do with that.

Meanwhile he is trying to get more of our money to shore up his businesses. No sympathy from me. He brought the grief on himself.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/25/sir-jim-ratcliffe-uks-richest-person-moves-to-tax-free-monaco-brexit-ineos-domicile

I wonder if those emigrating to Monaco are an immediate drain on the public purse?

Meanwhile, on immigrant island.....

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

“Jim” makes Reform noises and gets jumped on. Break out the world’s smallest violin.

Apparently his “colonisation” of Monaco is saving him some £4b in taxes. Just think what the NHS could do with that.

Meanwhile he is trying to get more of our money to shore up his businesses. No sympathy from me. He brought the grief on himself.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/25/sir-jim-ratcliffe-uks-richest-person-moves-to-tax-free-monaco-brexit-ineos-domicile

From a personal perspective he will have paid multiple times in tax more than any of us ever will. Why would he want to pay more tax here when he just explained that the welfare bill is too high.

Maybe if those who blamed others for not paying more than they already do, had worked harder and taken risks they could have contributed more. 

Edited 17 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[The Kraken]

Yeah I don’t really have a problem with someone having a go at Brexit Jim. The geezer has used his platform to push a narrative that we’d be stronger outside of the EU, including immigration, and he’s been proved wrong. Like Dyson, the bloke deserves any flak he gets. Cry me a river in your tax free haven.

[Turkish]

17 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

You supported what Ratcliffe said which was partly lies and partly disingenuous. You seem to get your ing

formation from Trump, his administration, Musk, Farage and his cronies. Where in the UK are there areas that are not run by democratically elected officials. Starmer, Burnham and anyone who opposes racist rhetoric stuck their noses in as you put it because Ratcliffe was taking the same bollocks that Farage talks.

The use of words like invasion and colonisation are what gives the motive away. You are no different, along with the laughing emoji nic. 

Funny isn’t it. When Brits go abroad and settle and take their full English breakfasts and fish n chip shops with them they are called ex Pats not immigrants and you don’t hear complaints about them not learning the language or integrating. Maybe because we have a previous history of Imperialism/colonisation?

If you want to talk about integration then do so. Don’t use the same language used by proven racists and pretend you mean something different.
 

What Ratcliffe said was just clumsy language, no?

[Turkish]

10 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

“Jim” makes Reform noises and gets jumped on. Break out the world’s smallest violin.

Apparently his “colonisation” of Monaco is saving him some £4b in taxes. Just think what the NHS could do with that.

Meanwhile he is trying to get more of our money to shore up his businesses. No sympathy from me. He brought the grief on himself.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/25/sir-jim-ratcliffe-uks-richest-person-moves-to-tax-free-monaco-brexit-ineos-domicile

I’m sure he’s devastated 😂😂

[AlexLaw76]

All very woke with the FA 'investigating' his comments...we have an owner in the premier league that had a journalist chopped up with a bone saw...but that is fine.

 

[Turkish]

57 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

All very woke with the FA 'investigating' his comments...we have an owner in the premier league that had a journalist chopped up with a bone saw...but that is fine.

 

John Barnes was talking about it just now with Ranvir and Kate he made some very valid points. He only really had an issue with him using the word colonised, which was fair. Also doesn’t think FA should get involved as it’s nothing to do with football. So refreshing to hear people talk intelligently with balance rather than screaming how disgusting it is.

[east-stand-nic]

15 minutes ago, Turkish said:

John Barnes was talking about it just now with Ranvir and Kate he made some very valid points. He only really had an issue with him using the word colonised, which was fair. Also doesn’t think FA should get involved as it’s nothing to do with football. So refreshing to hear people talk intelligently with balance rather than screaming how disgusting it is.

I note that it is OK for the FA to insist on kneeling to black lives matter (proven a fraud and scam) and forcing players to wear LGBTQ stuff but not allowing poppies etc. But it is not OK for someone at aN FC to have an opinion.

Cue all the people telling me how different it is when it is NOT. I will not engage with you.

Edited 8 hours ago by east-stand-nic

[sadoldgit]

3 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

I note that it is OK for the FA to insist on kneeling to black lives matter (proven a fraud and scam) and forcing players to wear LGBTQ stuff but not allowing poppies etc. But it is not OK for someone at a FC to have an opinion.

Cue all the people telling me how different it is when it is NOT. I will not engage with you.

Do you think it is ok to spout lies as facts? Of course you do, you never call them out. Ratcliffe totally misrepresented the population figure growth.

Anyone is entitled to an opinion just as others are entitled to call those opinions out (or post laughing emojis). Lies are not opinions. They are lies.

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Do you think it is ok to spout lies as facts? Of course you do, you never call them out. Ratcliffe totally misrepresented the population figure growth.

Anyone is entitled to an opinion just as others are entitled to call those opinions out (or post laughing emojis). Lies are not opinions. They are lies.

The premise of what Radcliffe says is entirely accurate, the wording is, as YOU would say - Clumsy!

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Do you think it is ok to spout lies as facts? Of course you do, you never call them out. Ratcliffe totally misrepresented the population figure growth.

Anyone is entitled to an opinion just as others are entitled to call those opinions out (or post laughing emojis). Lies are not opinions. They are lies.

They aren’t investigating him for the figures he quoted. From the Independent: Should the FA decide to launch a formal investigation, the focus is likely to be on Rule E3.1, which governs general conduct within the sport. This rule mandates that: "A participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour."
 

The FA are a bunch of woke snowflakes. As an owner of Salford, did they investigate Gary Neville for his racist comments?

Edited 8 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[sadoldgit]

10 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

From a personal perspective he will have paid multiple times in tax more than any of us ever will. Why would he want to pay more tax here when he just explained that the welfare bill is too high.

Maybe if those who blamed others for not paying more than they already do, had worked harder and taken risks they could have contributed more. 

He has also received more money in subsidies from the Government (our taxes) than we will get from them. So what? You kick off about child benefits but are quite happy for very rich people who can afford it to pay less than their fair share in tax. Says it all. One rule for the rich, one for the rest of us. The sad thing about it is the number of “the rest of us” who think that this is perfectly ok and vote in governments who allow this to happen.
 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, sadoldgit said:

He has also received more money in subsidies from the Government (our taxes) than we will get from them. So what? You kick off about child benefits but are quite happy for very rich people who can afford it to pay less than their fair share in tax. Says it all. One rule for the rich, one for the rest of us. The sad thing about it is the number of “the rest of us” who think that this is perfectly ok and vote in governments who allow this to happen.
 

Do you belie the levels of immigration, along with the escalating benefit culture, is sustainable.

Don't bother answering..we know what you will say

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

He has also received more money in subsidies from the Government (our taxes) than we will get from them. So what? You kick off about child benefits but are quite happy for very rich people who can afford it to pay less than their fair share in tax. Says it all. One rule for the rich, one for the rest of us. The sad thing about it is the number of “the rest of us” who think that this is perfectly ok and vote in governments who allow this to happen.
 

I referred to his personal tax specifically as that is what he moved to  monaco (which you were attacking). His business setup is separate. Do you know how much tax he paid before? If you’re a net taker it’s easy to point the finger at others and tell them to pay more

[Farmer Saint]

13 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Do you think it is ok to spout lies as facts? Of course you do, you never call them out. Ratcliffe totally misrepresented the population figure growth.

Anyone is entitled to an opinion just as others are entitled to call those opinions out (or post laughing emojis). Lies are not opinions. They are lies.

Stop fucking quoting him! Why are you even engaging?

[sadoldgit]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

They aren’t investigating him for the figures he quoted. From the Independent: Should the FA decide to launch a formal investigation, the focus is likely to be on Rule E3.1, which governs general conduct within the sport. This rule mandates that: "A participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour."
 

The FA are a bunch of woke snowflakes

You are the snowflake. You are not remotely bothered that he lied about the figure in order to make his argument. You and people like you are the reason we have people like Trump in power. Why do get so offended when racism gets called out for what it is? 

 

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, sadoldgit said:

You are the snowflake. You are not remotely bothered that he lied about the figure in order to make his argument. You and people like you are the reason we have people like Trump in power. Why do get so offended when racism gets called out for what it is? 

 

When did Neville get investigated by the FA?

[Farmer Saint]

9 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The premise of what Radcliffe says is entirely accurate, the wording is, as YOU would say - Clumsy!

That's the only issue anyone has had, the wording, which he has apologised for. It should be done now.

The fact he's a Brexit loving prick who moved to Monaco after fucking this country is neither here nor there.

[Sir Ralph]

 

As an owner of Salford, when did the FA investigate Gary Neville for his racist comments? Remember “angry middle aged white men”. 

Edited 8 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

 

As an owner of Salford, when did the FA investigate Gary Neville for his racist comments? Remember “angry middle aged white men”. 

Sorry, what's racist about what he said?

[Turkish]

14 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

He has also received more money in subsidies from the Government (our taxes) than we will get from them. So what? You kick off about child benefits but are quite happy for very rich people who can afford it to pay less than their fair share in tax. Says it all. One rule for the rich, one for the rest of us. The sad thing about it is the number of “the rest of us” who think that this is perfectly ok and vote in governments who allow this to happen.
 

You whinged like fuck about not getting benefits you weren't entitled to because your missus chose not to work. Dont start spouting off about one rule for them when you've tried to have your snout in the benefits trough. Had to go down to one car? How does it go? No sympathy from me.

[Turkish]

9 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

That's the only issue anyone has had, the wording, which he has apologised for. It should be done now.

The fact he's a Brexit loving prick who moved to Monaco after fucking this country is neither here nor there.

Precisely. 

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Sorry, what's racist about what he said?

He singled out a group of people based on their age and skin colour. He said “the division is being created by angry middle aged white men”. You don’t think that’s racist based on today’s standards? He is the owner of a Manchester football club

Edited 7 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[east-stand-nic]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Sorry, what's racist about what he said?

Neville said: “angry middle-aged white men” for creating political division.

So, is it OK for someone (farage etc) to say “iIllegal Brown Immigrants” for creating political division.

Once again you have shown idiocy. 

[AlexLaw76]

7 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Precisely. 

got to love how soggy (and his ilk) are screaming about him living in Monaco, the language he used etc, to completely drown-out the entirely correct point raised.

The levels of immigration is completely unsustainable, the levels of benefits is completely unsustainable, and the notion of immigrants coming in to immediately consume benefits is completely unsustainable and fucking insane.

What makes it worse, all those in power do is tinker around the edges whilst displaying their moral (faux) outrage when someone uses language that has political currency to be cashed  in.

The population in the UK has exploded since the year 2000 (not 2020), and that is the point. Something like a 20% increase in 25 years. How the fuck is the country (and us as individuals) supposed to exploit public serves at an expected high level with that...

Anyway, DoEs JiM rEaLlY KnOw wHat CoLOniSaTiOn MeaNs!!!

Edited 7 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

He singled out a group of people based on their age and skin colour. He said “the division is being created by angry middle aged white men”. You don’t think that’s racist based on today’s standards? He is the owner of a Manchester football club

He didn't say all angry middle aged white men though did he? He was literally describing the demographic of people hanging up flags and painting roundabouts.

It's like saying the grooming gangs up North were groups of Pakistani men. It's not racist, it's literally describing the people involved. It's not all Pakistani men, but the majority of those in the grooming gangs are.

How would you describe the people using the St George's flag to create division in this country?

[whelk]

23 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

He has also received more money in subsidies from the Government (our taxes) than we will get from them. So what? You kick off about child benefits but are quite happy for very rich people who can afford it to pay less than their fair share in tax. Says it all. One rule for the rich, one for the rest of us. The sad thing about it is the number of “the rest of us” who think that this is perfectly ok and vote in governments who allow this to happen.
 

With all due respect you know fuck all about INEOS financial investments and teh chemical industry. If you think they are a net receiver of government money then highlights how uninformed you are. 

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

got to love how soggy (and his ilk) are screaming about him living in Monaco, the language he used etc, to completely drown-out the entirely correct point raised.

The levels of immigration is completely unsustainable, the levels of benefits is completely unsustainable, and the notion of immigrants coming in to immediately consume benefits is completely unsustainable and fucking insane.

What makes it worse, all those in power do is tinker around the edges whilst displaying their moral (faux) outrage when someone uses language that has political currency to be cashed  in.

The population in the UK has exploded since the year 2000 (not 2020), but that the point. Something like a 20% increase in 25 years. How the fuck is the country (and us as individuals) supposed to exploit public serves at an expected high level with that...

Anyway, DoEs JiM rEaLlY KnOw wHat CoLOniSaTiOn MeaNs!!!

Sorry, can you point to someone who's denying this?

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

Sorry, can you point to someone who's denying this?

I am not suggesting anyone has, just replying to Turkish and his exchange with Soggy

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

He didn't say all angry middle aged white men though did he? He was literally describing the demographic of people hanging up flags and painting roundabouts.

It's like saying the grooming gangs up North were groups of Pakistani men. It's not racist, it's literally describing the people involved. It's not all Pakistani men, but the majority of those in the grooming gangs are.

How would you describe the people using the St George's flag to create division in this country?

We are talking about the FA investigating a football club owner for comments that they perceive could bring the game into disrepute.

i use the Neville example of an owner of a football who targeted a group of people based on their colour and age. The fa didn’t investigate as I understand it. Why is that if they want to investigate ratcliffe?

If Ratcliffee had replaced the words that Neville said with a different colour or religion he would be hung drawn and quartered by the FA (which he may well still be) and politicians. I’d argue that Neville’s word are actually more offensive than Ratcliffes as Neville targeted a specific race of people
 

My Point is these are similar positions for football club owners. One is called out by the FA and the PM, the other conveniently ignored. In normal society that’s called “double standards”

Edited 7 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

10 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

We are talking about the FA investigating a football club owner for comments that they perceive could bring the game into disrepute.

i use the Neville example of an owner of a football who targeted a group of people based on their colour and age. The fa didn’t investigate as I understand it. Why is that if they want to investigate ratcliffe?

If Ratcliffee had replaced the words that Neville said with a different colour or religion he would be hung drawn and quartered by the FA (which he may well still be) and politicians. I’d argue that Neville’s word are actually more offensive than Ratcliffes as Neville targeted a specific race of people
 

My Point is these are similar positions for football club owners. One is called out by the FA and the PM, the other conveniently ignored. In normal society that’s called “double standards”

He didn't target a specific race of people. If he had said "all" then yes, it would be racially motivated, but he didn't. 

Not all angry middle aged white men are putting up flags and painting roundabouts, but everyone who is putting up flags and painting roundabouts is an angry middle aged white man.

How would you describe them?

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

He didn't target a specific race of people. If he had said "all" then yes, it would be racially motivated, but he didn't. 

Not all angry middle aged white men are putting up flags and painting roundabouts, but everyone who is putting up flags and painting roundabouts is an angry middle aged white man.

How would you describe them?

So if I call someone “(fill in the colour) c-bomb” that’s not racist because I’m not saying all people of that race are?! That logic doesn’t follow to me at all particularly in relation to why ratcliffe is being investigated. My point is unrelated to putting flags up it’s about Radcliffe, Neville and the FA

Edited 7 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Turkish]

31 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

got to love how soggy (and his ilk) are screaming about him living in Monaco, the language he used etc, to completely drown-out the entirely correct point raised.

The levels of immigration is completely unsustainable, the levels of benefits is completely unsustainable, and the notion of immigrants coming in to immediately consume benefits is completely unsustainable and fucking insane.

What makes it worse, all those in power do is tinker around the edges whilst displaying their moral (faux) outrage when someone uses language that has political currency to be cashed  in.

The population in the UK has exploded since the year 2000 (not 2020), and that is the point. Something like a 20% increase in 25 years. How the fuck is the country (and us as individuals) supposed to exploit public serves at an expected high level with that...

Anyway, DoEs JiM rEaLlY KnOw wHat CoLOniSaTiOn MeaNs!!!

he got a date wrong and used the wrong language but his fundamental point is correct as you say. Once again though any discussion it overshadowed by bullshit and yeah buts from SOG and co. I dont really know much about Jim Ratcliffe or have any interest in him but i see he's being rounded on because he lives in Monaco and voted Brexit 

[Farmer Saint]

20 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

So if I call someone “(fill in the colour) c-bomb” that’s not racist because I’m not saying all people of that race are?! That logic doesn’t follow to me at all particularly in relation to why ratcliffe is being investigated. My point is unrelated to putting flags up it’s about Radcliffe, Neville and the FA

I'll ask you for the third time, how would you describe them?

Agree that what you would say above is racist, but that's because you're using the colour as a way to insult them. He's not insulting anyone.

Is the sentence below racist?

"The most populous English race is white."

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I'll ask you for the third time, how would you describe them?

Agree that what you would say above is racist, but that's because you're using the colour as a way to insult them. He's not insulting anyone.

Is the sentence below racist?

"The most populous English race is white."

Well I disagree and by today’s standard (not mine) what Neville said is more racist than Radcliffe but the FA and PM seem to want to target only one. In fact I don’t think either comment is that bad but in today’s snowflake society people can’t deal with robust discussion.
 

I’m not getting into a description of people putting flags up as I can’t comment on it. I imagine people have their different reasons. My personal view is that I agree with it in principle if people are doing it for patriotic purposes. I think Neville was wrong to say what he said. 
 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Well I disagree and by today’s standard (not mine) what Neville said is more racist than Radcliffe but the FA and PM seem to want to target only one. In fact I don’t think either comment is that bad but in today’s snowflake society people can’t deal with robust discussion.
 

I’m not getting into a description of people putting flags up as I can’t comment on it. I imagine people have their different reasons. My personal view is that I agree with it in principle if people are doing it for patriotic purposes. I think Neville was wrong to say what he said. 
 

 

But it's not more racist, it's not racist at all, even by today's standards

So what ethnicity do you think the majority of people putting up flags/painting roundabouts are? Why will you never, ever answer questions?

Edited 6 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But it's not more racist, it's not racist at all, even by today's standards

So what ethnicity do you think the majority of people putting up flags/painting roundabouts are? Why will you never, ever answer questions?

I do - you make bizarre points that are frankly difficult to follow to suit you’re predetermined view.

i imagine they are mainly Caucasian based on the demographics of the area where the flags are located. Not sure how this is related to why Ratcliffe is investigated and Neville isn’t but I’m sure you will find a contrived way to justify it

[Turkish]

13 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But it's not more racist, it's not racist at all, even by today's standards

So what ethnicity do you think the majority of people putting up flags/painting roundabouts are? Why will you never, ever answer questions?

It wasn't racist. Again his use of language and the assumption that everyone doing it was angry and middle aged was perhaps questionable but people getting their knickers in a twist over it is a bit odd. 

[Farmer Saint]

14 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I do - you make bizarre points that are frankly difficult to follow to suit you’re predetermined view.

i imagine they are mainly Caucasian based on the demographics of the area where the flags are located. Not sure how this is related to why Ratcliffe is investigated and Neville isn’t but I’m sure you will find a contrived way to justify it

How is it a bizarre point? You're saying Neville should be investigated if Ratcliffe is because what Neville said is more racist - and yet you agree with what Neville said.

The problem with "colonised" is the implications and historical connotations of the word, hence why what he said is worse.

Either way, neither should be charged with anything.

[Farmer Saint]

9 minutes ago, Turkish said:

It wasn't racist. Again his use of language and the assumption that everyone doing it was angry and middle aged was perhaps questionable but people getting their knickers in a twist over it is a bit odd. 

That's it's. It's more ageist and misogynistic in my eyes, but I have no doubt that the people doing it are white.

[Turkish]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

That's it's. It's more ageist and misogynistic in my eyes, but I have no doubt that the people doing it are white.

Im not really sure why anyone gives a shit anyway. If you were going to list the top 10 peoples whose opinions you are interested in on race, immigration or anything else for that matter Jim Ratcliffe and Gary Neville wouldn't be in it for the vast majority of people. 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

With all due respect you know fuck all about INEOS financial investments and teh chemical industry. If you think they are a net receiver of government money then highlights how uninformed you are. 

I think you'll find Chris Mcdonald and Sarah Jones were recently Kent attending a village brunch where they were quite about open government subsidies in the chemical industry.

Edited 6 hours ago by Turkish

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Im not really sure why anyone gives a shit anyway. If you were going to list the top 10 peoples whose opinions you are interested in on race, immigration or anything else for that matter Jim Ratcliffe and Gary Neville wouldn't be in it for the vast majority of people. 

100%, it was clumsy language, but he apologised for it. End of.

[Sir Ralph]

40 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

How is it a bizarre point? You're saying Neville should be investigated if Ratcliffe is because what Neville said is more racist - and yet you agree with what Neville said.

The problem with "colonised" is the implications and historical connotations of the word, hence why what he said is worse.

Either way, neither should be charged with anything.

I agree neither should be charged. I think people can say this stuff in robust conversation which is why I referred to applying this to peoples standards today and not mine. We disagree which was worse as a comment. My point is that if the standard of the FA is to charge people for meeting a certain threshold it needs to apply it across the board and not selectively. Maybe leave it there without ripping strips out of each other

Edited 5 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Lord Duckhunter]

I don’t know why anyone is surprised, Sir Jim has some pretty weird views. 
 

 

[trousers]

59 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I don’t know why anyone is surprised, Sir Jim has some pretty weird views. 
 

 

Does Sir Jim think we're an "island of strangers" too, I wonder...? 😉