The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Yes it is.

Cause I disagree with the usual band of brothers. Its a childs response. I would value Russell Martin's opinion on the long ball game more than his opinion on anything beyond this afternoon's programming on CBeebies. I challenged him once and he sent me a picture of an ars.

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Yes cause I disagree with the usual band of brothers. Its a childs response though and he struggles with more than 3 words. It would value Russell Martin's opinion on the long ball game more than his opinion on anything beyond this afternoon's programming on CBeebies 

Local Authority spending is mostly ring fenced, including Education, Adult and children's social care, and the Police. This accounts for nearly 80% of the  planned LA spending for the current financial year, ( approx £96Bn of a total of £127Bn ).. Add in transportation and highways, etc, where are the savings going to come from ?

Edited 4 hours ago by badgerx16

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Local Authority spending is mostly ring fenced, including Education, Adult and children's social care, and the Police. This accounts for nearly 80% of the  planned LA spending for the current financial year, ( approx £96Bn of a total of £127Bn ).. Where are the savings going to come from ?

It depends on authority to authority and how their individual systems and processes work. I'm talking about LA specific savings. As I said in my message, some LA's are well run but others are flabbier. Are you saying that there aren't some LA's who are badly run and where savings and efficiencies can't be made?  What about the other savings I mentioned? Do you think there is nowhere where public spending can be saved at all? 

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

It depends on authority to authority and how their systems work. I'm talking about LA specific savings.

My list was LA specific spending.

Speaking as a fully qualified "efficiency saving", there is fuck all fat left on the bone, despite what your mate with the obvious vested interest might claim.

 

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

My list was LA specific spending.

Speaking as a fully qualified "efficiency saving", there is fuck all fat left on the bone, despite what your mate with the obvious vested interest might claim.

 

if you are correct his job doesnt exist then cause he can't make any savings for LA's? With what I deal with on a day to day basis I see actions bordering on incompetence due to jobs being created out of bureaucracy and people who dont create anything, other than paperwork.  What about the other savings I mentioned? Do you think there is nowhere where public spending can be saved at all? 

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

22 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

 Cut the civil service, reduce the number of quangos and governmental bodies and reduce local authority wastage. A friend was senior in local authority and now has a business that helps authorities make savings (not redundancies) - he continues to highlight to me the wastage that could be saved in some local authorities, albeit I am aware that some are run much better than others. Some people I've spoken to have said that net zero spending could / should be reduced but I dont know enough about it. I also believe that there is a lot of wastage in the NHS from speaking to family members in it so I would target that too but again they know more about it than me.

What quangos and governmental bodies would you get rid of specifically?

[tdmickey3]

22 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Cause I disagree with the usual band of brothers. Its a childs response. I would value Russell Martin's opinion on the long ball game more than his opinion on anything beyond this afternoon's programming on CBeebies. I challenged him once and he sent me a picture of an ars.

You certainly are challenged but not in the way you want to admit.

 

🤯

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What quangos and governmental bodies would you get rid of specifically?

Rid off or seriously reform to avoid the billions of waste - non exhaustive list includes the HSE, multiple NHS quangos, Highways agency, HS2, Natural England......there are lotsof them that are actually a hindrance to business growth. To be fair to @badgerx16 LAs are much more stretched than these lot. 

Again, are we saying that Government spending is reasonable and savings cannot be made?

Edited 3 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, tdmickey3 said:

You certainly are challenged but not in the way you want to admit.

 

🤯

Brilliant. Chat GPT must have helped with that one.

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Rid off or seriously reform to avoid the billions of waste - non exhaustive list includes the HSE, multiple NHS quangos, Highways agency, HS2, Natural England......there are loads of them. To be fair to @badgerx16 LAs are much more stretched than these lot 

What about the business benefits from HS2? Waiting for updates benefits from 2019, but that seems a very business centric investment that surely you would want to keep? In relation to the rest, what changes do you want to make?

[badgerx16]

14 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

if you are correct his job doesnt exist then cause he can't make any savings for LA's? With what I deal with on a day to day basis I see actions bordering on incompetence due to jobs being created out of bureaucracy and people who dont create anything, other than paperwork.  What about the other savings I mentioned? Do you think there is nowhere where public spending can be saved at all? 

Perhaps some "savings" can be found, but they will be minimal compared to the overall spending that cannot be touched. In my case, my employer had their budget cut by over %40 in 6 years due to austerity, and the total head count reduced by %50 - not due to removing 'waste' but by necessity due to not having the money, and many services were as a consequence cut back or even shut down.

Specifically in relation to me, there was an enforced reduction in headcount at my level of management, which saw me axed as we went from 5 to 2 posts However there was no saving, as my job functions had to be outsourced because there was nobody left to do the statutory and legally required duties.

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What about the business benefits from HS2? Waiting for updates benefits from 2019, but that seems a very business centric investment that surely you would want to keep? In relation to the rest, what changes do you want to make?

Have you read about the wastage on HS2 as an example ? I didnt say get rid of it altogether, there are clearly business benefits but pissing tax payers money up the wall to that extent with that amount of incompetency is not ok.

Edited 3 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

28 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

It depends on authority to authority and how their individual systems and processes work. I'm talking about LA specific savings. As I said in my message, some LA's are well run but others are flabbier. Are you saying that there aren't some LA's who are badly run and where savings and efficiencies can't be made?  What about the other savings I mentioned? Do you think there is nowhere where public spending can be saved at all? 

No you're not. You're not talking about any specific savings. You've just said LA, also NHS. It's just a vague way of saying efficiencies. You've not identified one single specific spending cut you'd like to see. Not one. 

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Have you read about the wastage on HS2 as an example ? I didnt say get rid of it altogether, there are clearly business benefits but pissing tax payers money up the wall to that extent with that amount of incompetency is not ok.

So if you're not getting rid of it all together, what are you changing about it? I'm not sure at this stage there is much you can do to save money on it.

Edited 3 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Perhaps some "savings" can be found, but they will be minimal compared to the overall spending that cannot be touched. In my case, my employer had their budget cut by over %40 in 6 years due to austerity, and the total head count reduced by %50 - not due to removing 'waste' but by necessity due to not having the money, and many services were as a consequence cut back or even shut down.

Specifically in relation to me, there was an enforced reduction in headcount at my level of management, which saw me axed as we went from 5 to 2 posts However there was no saving, as my job functions had to be outsourced because there was nobody left to do the statutory and legally required duties.

Ah, but that sits under Capex, and not Opex, so they have clearly saved money...😆

[Gloucester Saint]

https://ifs.org.uk/articles/what-conspiracy-silence-surrounding-choices-facing-next-government

[Sir Ralph]

48 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

So if you're not getting rid of it all together, what are you changing about it? I'm not sure at this stage there is much you can do to save money on it.

I said the list was not exhaustive and listed a number of others. HS2 is an example of unchecked incompetency within a quango which shows that it is common. Within some of these quangos I have witnessed them at work. NHS quangos are notorious for being wasteful. Do you want me to prove future incompetency for some Of these quangos? There are clearly a number of these quangos that could be removed or be reformed. Assume you agree that civil service savings can be made too as well as welfare spending?

You seem to think that no spending saving can be made at all in the context of a government that has shown it has bugger all intention of taking a balanced approach.
 

As you are always very good at only asking questions please can you confirm why the government has only increased taxes so far and not reduced spending? Is your view that no savings can be made in respect of the matters I have mentioned and any other matters?

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

9 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I said the list was not exhaustive and listed a number of others. HS2 is an example of unchecked incompetency within a quango which shows that it is common. Within some of these quangos I have witnessed them at work. NHS quangos are notorious for being wasteful. Do you want me to prove future incompetency for some Of these quangos? There are clearly a number of these quangos that could be removed or be reformed. Assume you agree that civil service savings can be made too as well as welfare spending?

You seem to think that no spending saving can be made at all in the context of a government that has shown it has bugger all intention of taking a balanced approach.
 

As you are always very good at only asking questions please can you confirm why the government has only increased taxes so far and not reduced spending? Is your view that no savings can be made in respect of the matters I have mentioned and any other matters?

What taxes have they increased so far, other than ERS NI?

I'm not saying there are no savings to be made, never said anything like that, but you're the one saying that cuts need to be made and you can't substantiate that. Yet again, it's the lack of any substance. You specifically mentioned HS2 twice, and have yet to come up with what you would plan to save money on. Let's stick with that and get into what and how you want to save money.

Edited 2 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

16 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I said the list was not exhaustive and listed a number of others. HS2 is an example of unchecked incompetency within a quango which shows that it is common. Within some of these quangos I have witnessed them at work. NHS quangos are notorious for being wasteful. Do you want me to prove future incompetency for some Of these quangos? There are clearly a number of these quangos that could be removed or be reformed. Assume you agree that civil service savings can be made too as well as welfare spending?

You seem to think that no spending saving can be made at all in the context of a government that has shown it has bugger all intention of taking a balanced approach.
 

As you are always very good at only asking questions please can you confirm why the government has only increased taxes so far and not reduced spending? Is your view that no savings can be made in respect of the matters I have mentioned and any other matters?

By the way, I wouldn't put my neck out and say that savings can and should be made in certain areas without doing full process analysis and RCA. You'd be stupid to offer opinions on things like this without having a background in those areas. Otherwise you just look like your regurgitating what you've been told/read without thinking about it yourself, without the substance to be able to argue it. We've been through this with economics, tax and now Government efficiency savings. At some point you'll learn, but that doesn't seem to be yet.

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

Brilliant. Chat GPT must have helped with that one.

Perhaps you should use it, I might help you make less of a fool of yourself. 
You are being badly exposed for being wrong on here, it’s funny

[Sir Ralph]

17 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What taxes have they increased so far, other than ERS NI?

I'm not saying there are no savings to be made, never said anything like that, but you're the one saying that cuts need to be made and you can't substantiate that. Yet again, it's the lack of any substance. You specifically mentioned HS2 twice, and have yet to come up with what you would plan to save money on. Let's stick with that and get into what and how you want to save money.

Just NI, CG tax and inheritance meaning that an increase of only £40 billion in taxes so far that’s all!

I gave a list of savings some of which you challenged and others which you havent. I used HS2 as an example of wastage and there are lots of others, unless you dispute it. It is not possible for me to assess these quangos future wastage because I don’t have access to that information. You can’t prove they will be efficient either. You can only point to past performance to show they aren’t performing and therefore that there should be a serious review and reform of a number of them as they aren’t efficient. Do you agree that all quangos are efficient and savings can’t be made?

If you agree savings can be made more generally why isn’t the government making them and deciding to jump to taxing people to the tune of £40m to date with more to come?

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

11 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What taxes have they increased so far, other than ERS NI?

I'm not saying there are no savings to be made, never said anything like that, but you're the one saying that cuts need to be made and you can't substantiate that. Yet again, it's the lack of any substance. You specifically mentioned HS2 twice, and have yet to come up with what you would plan to save money on. Let's stick with that and get into what and how you want to save money.

Chat GPT is limited to what it can write. 

I too want to know where he wants to save. Are we slashing social care? Road maintenance? Getting rid of pricey nurses and their pensions? Perhaps cram a few more kids into classrooms? Reduce further the SEND budgets? Or is it just "spend less"? 

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Perhaps you should use it, I might help you make less of a fool of yourself. 
You are being badly exposed for being wrong on here, it’s funny

 No I’m not - respond to the question above

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[AlexLaw76]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Just NI, CG tax and inheritance meaning that an increase of only £40 billion in taxes so far that’s all!

I gave a list of savings some of which you challenged and others which you havent. I used HS2 as an example of wastage and there are lots of others, unless you dispute it. It is not possible for me to assess these quangos future wastage because I don’t have access to that information. You can’t prove they will be efficient either. You can only point to past performance to show they aren’t performing and therefore that there should be a serious review and reform of a number of them as they aren’t efficient. Do you agree that all quangos are efficient and savings can’t be made?

If you agree savings can be made more generally why isn’t the government making them and deciding to jump to taxing people to the tune of £40m to date with more to come?

The MoD is full of horrific waste, where significant injections/increases in funding offers nothing to the front line in comparison

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

 No I’m not - respond to the question above

@tdmickey3 go on try it will be funny

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

The MoD is full of horrific waste, where significant injections/increases in funding offers nothing to the front line in comparison

This is covered in my civil service comment which nobody has challenged

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Just NI, CG tax and inheritance meaning that an increase of only £40 billion in taxes so far that’s all!

I gave a list of savings some of which you challenged and others which you havent. I used HS2 as an example of wastage and there are lots of others, unless you dispute it. It is not possible for me to assess these quangos future wastage because I don’t have access to that information. You can only point to past performance to show they aren’t performing and therefore that there should be a serious review and reform of a number of them as they aren’t efficient. Do you agree that all quangos are efficient and savings can’t be made?

If you agree savings can be made more generally why isn’t the government making them and deciding to jump to taxing people to the tune of £40m to date with more to come?

£40m's not a lot to rake in...they'll be disappointed with that.

I have told you so many times why a lot of savings aren't being made. The analysis and investment that it takes to properly go though organisations to make them more efficient is fucking mind-blowing, and takes years. Years and years. Genuinely.

I'm not saying you don't do it, but I think we'd need to start with a £40bn investment in IT and Process analysis, and 5 years to get the job done. We'd need to increase taxes to get that money btw.

[tdmickey3]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

@tdmickey3 go on try it will be funny

Sweetheart, is it getting a bit much for you?

Just slink off and no one will make you look more stupid that way

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

This is covered in my civil service comment which nobody has challenged

Because nobody has said there isn't wastage??? We go back to Whelk's comment earlier...

"And please don’t say efficiencies like it is some magic bullet"

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

£40m's not a lot to rake in...they'll be disappointed with that.

I have told you so many times why a lot of savings aren't being made. The analysis and investment that it takes to properly go though organisations to make them more efficient is fucking mind-blowing, and takes years. Years and years. Genuinely.

I'm not saying you don't do it, but I think we'd need to start with a £40bn investment in IT and Process analysis, and 5 years to get the job done. We'd need to increase taxes to get that money btw.

I agree there will probably be a mix of immediate savings and longer terms savings. So where is the governments plan to make these savings to ensure a balanced budget? 

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

Will I believe there are immediate savings and longer terms savings. So where is the governments plan to make these savings to ensure a balanced budget?

Ok, what immediate savings and longer term savings?

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Ok, what immediate savings and longer term savings?

Let’s take some quangos, parts of the the civil service and welfare. There are obvious targets within these that haven’t been tackled. If the governments priority was minimising. Taxes it would have targeted these elements asap to reduce the tax burden as well as having a longer term strategy. I agree that LA spending would be more complicated. Otherwise you are saying that no immediate savings can be made.

As per my previous question wheee is the governments plans for these savings? The government has now been in power for 1.5 years

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

Let’s take some quangos, parts of the the civil service and welfare. There are obvious targets within these that haven’t been tackled. If the governments priority was minimising. Taxes it would have targeted these elements asap to reduce the tax burden as well as having a longer term strategy. I agree that LA spending would be more complicated. Otherwise you are saying that no immediate savings can be made.

As per my previous question wheee is the governments plans for these savings?

OMG - right, until you name some fucking immediate savings I'm tapping out as you're making this discussion a farce. You can't just say "savings" and "quango's".

Fucking joke.

Edited 2 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

OMG - right, until you name some fucking immediate savings I'm tapping out as you're making this discussion a farce. You can't just say "savings" and "quango's".

Fucking joke.

Ok welfare - why can’t that be cut now?

The civil service has a number of parts (MOD annd MHCLG to name an couple) are known to be bloated and inefficient - are you telling me that after 1.5 years savings can’t be made here?

the same with quangos which I have named. 
 

Do you want an efficiency report for each? 

lastly you haven’t answered my bloody question which is where is the PLAN?

You can say you’re tapping out but you are avoiding my questions cause you don’t like them. I’ve told you where changes can be made so unless you’re clear on specifics. The government is 1.5 years in a no savings.

It’s funny that whenever I ask you questions you go into a hole and I try and answer yours. Easy to ask less easy to respond to

[The Kraken]

The same dance but it’s very funny every time. Poor old Ralph, so many potential savings and yet cant be specific about a single one of them. 

HS2!!!!

Quangoes!!!

Welfare!!!

And not one specific reference of where the savings come from within those.

 

[egg]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok welfare - why can’t that be cut now?

The civil service has a number of parts (MOD annd MHCLG to name an couple) are known to be bloated and inefficient - are you telling me that after 1.5 years savings can’t be made here?

the same with quangos which I have named. 
 

Do you want an efficiency report for each? 

lastly you haven’t answered my bloody question which is where is the PLAN?

You can say you’re tapping out but you are avoiding my questions cause you don’t like them. I’ve told you where changes can be made so unless you’re clear on specifics. The government is 1.5 years in a no savings.

It’s funny that whenever I ask you questions you go into a hole and I try and answer yours. Easy to ask less easy to respond to

You're just repeating the same headlines mate. Give some details. 

Welfare. What? Pip? Fuck the unemployed and don't pay their rent? Maybe sack off child benefit? Be specific. 

Civil service. What? Maybe lay off some judges? Close a few courts? Reduce our military spend and forget our NATO pledge? Be specific. 

Honestly mate, either be more specific, or be quiet. 

[Farmer Saint]

28 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok welfare - why can’t that be cut now?

The civil service has a number of parts (MOD annd MHCLG to name an couple) are known to be bloated and inefficient - are you telling me that after 1.5 years savings can’t be made here?

the same with quangos which I have named. 
 

Do you want an efficiency report for each? 

lastly you haven’t answered my bloody question which is where is the PLAN?

You can say you’re tapping out but you are avoiding my questions cause you don’t like them. I’ve told you where changes can be made so unless you’re clear on specifics. The government is 1.5 years in a no savings.

It’s funny that whenever I ask you questions you go into a hole and I try and answer yours. Easy to ask less easy to respond to

Mate, I'm not the government, I don't work in any of the departments, I don't know the systems. I would not hazard a guess at what savings could be made, and why the Government hasn't done it yet, but I'd look at the massive investment figures it would take to do it. We all know about benefits, they wanted to cut it but weren't strong enough to qwell others within the party. That was a mistake.

What I did do is make a shit load of money from my IT company which was based around process and efficiency savings that could be made when upgrading across SAP architectures. To do that you have to do full process management. We charged a £4bn turnover company £25m to do that, and it took 3 years. What do you think those figures would look like for these government departments?

Anyway, I'm done with you, you've not answered the questions and you've embarrassed yourself more than enough today, and over the last 6 months. 

Laughable.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

50 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Quangoes!!!

Economy need a tangy refresh?

You know when you've been quangoed!

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

Mate, I'm not the government, I don't work in any of the departments, I don't know the systems. I would not hazard a guess at what savings could be made, and why the Government hasn't done it yet, but I'd look at the massive investment figures it would take to do it. We all know about benefits, they wanted to cut it but weren't strong enough to qwell others within the party. That was a mistake.

What I did do is make a shit load of money from my IT company which was based around process and efficiency savings that could be made when upgrading across SAP architectures. To do that you have to do full process management. We charged a £4bn turnover company £25m to do that, and it took 3 years. What do you think those figures would look like for these government departments?

Anyway, I'm done with you, you've not answered the questions and you've embarrassed yourself more than enough today, and over the last 6 months. 

Laughable.

Again your avoided my question cause you can’t answer it. Your rigid defence of the government position therefore isn’t justified. 

In terms of welfare their case was strong enough but they have a strong provision of socialists who are Politically adverse to any cuts regardless of the case - much like some of the posters here.
 

The thing you want a full breakdown of savings from government departments. I’ve given you areas where savings can be made but I don’t have the specific figures cause I’m not a government departments (exactly the same reason you used). Ive responded to all of your gangs questions but you want a dossier which isn’t possible.

You have still all failed to respond to my basic question which is why the government hasn’t made savings yet and is therefore prioritises taxes? No response whatsoever other than you don’t know - unsatisfactory because it’s not justifiable.

Also not impressed by you throwing figures around. Your table at the rugby was a puny one so they clearly value you

Edited 22 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

Remind you of anyone?

 

 

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, egg said:

You're just repeating the same headlines mate. Give some details. 

Welfare. What? Pip? Fuck the unemployed and don't pay their rent? Maybe sack off child benefit? Be specific. 

Civil service. What? Maybe lay off some judges? Close a few courts? Reduce our military spend and forget our NATO pledge? Be specific. 

Honestly mate, either be more specific, or be quiet. 

Like I said I don’t have a dossier on how to cut spending on each department. Why has the government not cut spending yet as it’s 1.5 years in? Can you help because your mates can’t

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

You have still all failed to respond to my basic question which is why the government hasn’t made savings yet and is therefore prioritises taxes?

 

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

Mate, I'm not the government, I don't work in any of the departments, I don't know the systems. I would not hazard a guess at what savings could be made, and why the Government hasn't done it yet

Just read the post fuckwit.

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

 

Just read the post fuckwit.

I did - so you agree you can’t explain it. So government policy to tax without looking into savings is ok?

Edited 20 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

I did - so you agree you can’t explain it

Yes. I never said I could explain it? You're having an argument with yourself.

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Like I said I don’t have a dossier on how to cut spending on each department. Why has the government not cut spending yet as it’s 1.5 years in? Can you help because your mates can’t

I'll tap out too. Utterly pointless discussion. 

You: make cuts

Us: what ones?

You: I don't know. Just cut something. 

Brilliant. Fucking brilliant. 

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Yes. I never said I could explain it? You're having an argument with yourself.

So as you’re unable to respond to my question I assume they haven’t looked into it. I assume you think they should have done before taxing people?

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

I'll tap out too. Utterly pointless discussion. 

You: make cuts

Us: what ones?

You: I don't know. Just cut something. 

Brilliant. Fucking brilliant. 

You just don’t like my responses and you still haven’t responded to my question. This is circular…

 

you: provide me an awnser

me: here’s the response

you: I don’t agree

me: ok answer my question

you: ignore

You all want to ask questions but never answer them yourselves

Edited 15 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

So as you’re unable to respond to my question I assume they haven’t looked into it. I assume you think they should have done before taxing people?

I don't work for the government, so how the fuck have you come to that conclusion? Why would I know what they've looked into? You are, frankly, an idiot.

Tapped out.

Edited 15 minutes ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

I don't work for the government, so how the fuck have you come to that conclusion? Why would I know what they've looked into? You are, frankly, an idiot.

Tapped out.

So are you - you support a government stance you can’t justify. Don’t accuse me of not answering a question (when I have) if you completely flunk it.

 

Edited 13 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

So are you - you support a government stance you can’t justify

Where have I supported them? Stupid, and a liar. Great combo.

Edited 12 minutes ago by Farmer Saint