More Tory lies

[JamboX2]

2 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

Around 10 years ago a change was made by the then Labour Government to place an onus on employers to verify that employees were British Citizens or had a right to remain and work in the U.K.

 

You might remember having to produce your Passport or Birth Certificate to your employer at the time and it is the reason that Passport or Birth Certificate now form part of the necessary documents to take to a job interview. 

 

Hefty fines could be imposed for employing unentitled individuals and these checks unearthed quite a few individuals who could not prove their status and could not then remain in employment.

 

Sometimes these would be straightforward chancers but other times they would be children of immigrants or adoptees who innocently thought that the correct paperwork would have been obtained by their natural or adoptive parents. 

 

Not it sure if the same now applies to benefits but, if it does, these individuals could find themselves between a rock and a hard place. 

 

I recall a briefing at that time which suggested that the “innocents” could expect to be granted a right to remain but that it would take time to conduct checks - during which time that individual could not work. 

 

Bureaucratic shortcomings or a directed campaign? My money is on the former and no doubt exacerbated by cutbacks. 

 

 

 

The laws you mention date from 2006 and are a legacy if previous Tory legislstion of 1996 not being enforced.

 

This was all then turbo-charged by May in 2012 with the not to be welcoming to illegal migrants. As Dominic Grieve on Newsnight said this policy of May's and the ever gradual racheting up of rhetoric on immigration leads inexorably to injustices such as this.

 

The fact Rudd can't answer basic questions on numbers is incredible. Heads need to roll here and imo it should be May's. She's shown a tin ear to certain parts of society and a hollowness to her big play om being an empathetic leader. It's also her emphasis here which has seen the extremes of this.

 

Hopefully this will reverse the trend in anti-immigrant rhetoric. In all honesty - an amnesty is needed. Bring all illegal migrants into the system properly. And at the same time disband or over overhaul the Home Office.

Edited April 16, 2018 by JamboX2

[JamboX2]

29 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

There's a thread that centers around SNP and bottled water.  I was simply highlighting the stench of double standards that faux outrage is reserved for such trivial matters when the fabric of society is being torn apart by unchallenged right-wing tories.

 

I think the issue with the SNP is the outrage at the minutiae of bottled water in canteens. And the loud talk and little follow up from the SNP. See Brexit - against it but why no SNP MPs joining the Lab, Lib, Green and Tories recent launch of a cross party movement for a second vote.

 

I agree with you otherwise.

[deesidejambo]

7 hours ago, Hunky Dory said:

There's a thread that centers around SNP and bottled water.  I was simply highlighting the stench of double standards that faux outrage is reserved for such trivial matters when the fabric of society is being torn apart by unchallenged right-wing tories.

Unchallenged?   Correct.   Try this.

 

at the recent budget the Chancellor slipped in a £30000 increase in the tax free lifetime allowance for pensions.  This increase only benefits those whose pension pot is over a million pounds.    That is, the very rich.

 

now the evil Tories will obviously do this because they are evil, on KB, but my point is - why did nobody from any of the opposition parties attack this?  Here’s why - they all are very likely to benefit themselves as they are likely to hit the million pound limit themselves.

 

they are all of them, all, with their snouts in the feeding tray.    It’s a disgrace that nobody stood against this.     

[Thunderstruck]

1 hour ago, deesidejambo said:

Unchallenged?   Correct.   Try this.

 

at the recent budget the Chancellor slipped in a £30000 increase in the tax free lifetime allowance for pensions.  This increase only benefits those whose pension pot is over a million pounds.    That is, the very rich.

 

now the evil Tories will obviously do this because they are evil, on KB, but my point is - why did nobody from any of the opposition parties attack this?  Here’s why - they all are very likely to benefit themselves as they are likely to hit the million pound limit themselves.

 

they are all of them, all, with their snouts in the feeding tray.    It’s a disgrace that nobody stood against this.     

 

It wasn’t attacked because it wasn’t really news as it was signaled years ago. 

 

The very same Tories reduced the same Lifetime Allowance from £1.8m to £1.0m with the proviso that it would then increase by rate of inflation with the recent increase being just that - 3%. It is now routine, not news. The drop from £1.8m to £1.0m is surely not something that the Tories would do if they were engineering this to benefit themselves. 

 

It is not something that will affect the “very rich” who will find alternative means of providing a pension such as income from property investments. This mainly affects those in occupational pension schemes - admittedly those on above average salaries but not the super rich. In other words, a group of individuals who might be more likely than not to vote Tory. 

 

The Lifetime Allowance is not “cash in hand” it is a notional value - the notional value of the amount of investment necessary to return the income. It is calculated by taking the annual pension and any AVC pension income and multiplying it by 20 and then adding the cash value of lump sums. Any value that exceeds the limit is taxed at 55%.

[deesidejambo]

1 minute ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

It wasn’t attacked because it wasn’t really news as it was signaled years ago. 

 

The very same Tories reduced the same Lifetime Allowance from £1.8m to £1.0m with the proviso that it would then increase by rate of inflation with the recent increase being just that - 3%. It is now routine, not news. The drop from £1.8m to £1.0m is surely not something that the Tories would do if they were engineering this to benefit themselves. 

 

It is not something that will affect the “very rich” who will find alternative means of providing a pension such as income from property investments. This mainly affects those in occupational pension schemes - admittedly those on above average salaries but not the super rich. In other words, a group of individuals who might be more likely than not to vote Tory. 

 

The Lifetime Allowance is not “cash in hand” it is a notional value - the notional value of the amount of investment necessary to return the income. It is calculated by taking the annual pension and any AVC pension income and multiplying it by 20 and then adding the cash value of lump sums. Any value that exceeds the limit is taxed at 55%.

Thanks but my point remains.

 

This only benefits those who reach the one million threshold who now can add £30000 into their pot tax-free.

 

this widens the rich-poor gap, something that I see as becoming unsustainable 

[Cade]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jamaica-government-deported-home-office-guide-accent-windrush-a8307701.html

 

 

[deesidejambo]

13 minutes ago, Cade said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jamaica-government-deported-home-office-guide-accent-windrush-a8307701.html

 

 

W

 

 

T

 

 

F

 

 

Cant make this up etc

[Boris]

14 hours ago, Victorian said:

Target driven inhumanity.

 

Yay capitalism!

[Pans Jambo]

16 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

Ok if it’s confirmed that some have already been deported I agree it’s shameful.   But it seems strange that this happened without publicity.

 

They should be allowed to return

Publicity in this country from the MSM is a joke. If it doesn't suit their (or their pals) agenda then it gets buried. No way the media would announce their Tory darlings have made a horrible mistake (or that they are in fact, just horrible people).

 

It just wouldn't do to have the Daily Mail et-al bashing Mrs May's governance.

 

Spreading mis-truths and lies on the other hand...

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Pans Jambo

[deesidejambo]

11 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Publicity in this country from the MSM is a joke. If it doesn't suit their (or their pals) agenda then it gets buried. No way the media would announce their Tory darlings have made a horrible mistake (or that they are in fact, just horrible people).

 

It just wouldn't do to have the Daily Mail et-al bashing Mrs May's governance.

 

Spreading mis-truths and lies on the other hand...

 

Not sure this is the case.  As yet not a single deportation of Windrush migrants has been identified.

 

That doesn’t absolve the Govt from the shambles and we may find out some have been deported, but those claiming thousands of Windrush people have already been deported  are just as equally misleading as the MSM that you accuse.

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, deesidejambo said:

Not sure this is the case.  As yet not a single deportation of Windrush migrants has been identified.

 

That doesn’t absolve the Govt from the shambles and we may find out some have been deported, but those claiming thousands of Windrush people have already been deported  are just as equally misleading as the MSM that you accuse.

Thing is Deeside, we wont find out because the MSM wont print it and you wont see it on the BBC either.

 

The MP asked questions in the Commons about people in his constituency about it so there must be something there.

[deesidejambo]

49 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Thing is Deeside, we wont find out because the MSM wont print it and you wont see it on the BBC either.

 

The MP asked questions in the Commons about people in his constituency about it so there must be something there.

Indeed the facts will come out.

 

but my issue is about the claim of lies and misinformation.  

 

Imo the Govt have admitted they haven’t a scooby what is going on. Not good for them, but not misinfo.  

 

The press have also reported that the whole issue is currently not determined and the number, if any,  who have been deported is unknown.    Again not misinfo.

 

but someone who posts that thousands of Windrush migrants have already been deported is, IMO, spreading misinfo.  Unless there is evidence to confirm that.

 

So it goes both ways.    Every newspaper, including The National, prints what their readers want to read.   In fact it go so far as to say anyone who blindly buys and follows any specific newspaper lacks the ability to think for themselves.

[JamboX2]

2 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Thing is Deeside, we wont find out because the MSM wont print it and you wont see it on the BBC either.

 

The MP asked questions in the Commons about people in his constituency about it so there must be something there.

 

...yet it was the MSM who broke this story.

 

Again from watching last night's news and reading what I can in the press it appears this has come about from a set of harsh immigration policies and further to that a total bureaucratic melt down at the Home Office.

Edited April 17, 2018 by JamboX2

[Pans Jambo]

1 hour ago, deesidejambo said:

Indeed the facts will come out.

 

but my issue is about the claim of lies and misinformation.  

 

Imo the Govt have admitted they haven’t a scooby what is going on. Not good for them, but not misinfo.  

 

The press have also reported that the whole issue is currently not determined and the number, if any,  who have been deported is unknown.    Again not misinfo.

 

but someone who posts that thousands of Windrush migrants have already been deported is, IMO, spreading misinfo.  Unless there is evidence to confirm that.

 

So it goes both ways.    Every newspaper, including The National, prints what their readers want to read.   In fact it go so far as to say anyone who blindly buys and follows any specific newspaper lacks the ability to think for themselves.

Not so sure that the government OR the MSM will 'come clean' although I accept your point about the poster stating facts without backing it up (although theres no smoke and all that).

 

Where I disagree is your point about the MSM printing what their readers 'want to read'. My opinion is that they print what they want their readers to think. Its a propaganda machine (National included) and its slick.

 

Would be nice to have a proper newspaper with honest investigative journalists that print the facts and not their opinions and agendas. We can but dream!

[Victorian]

May could not be more right (rare example) to resist the ridiculous moves to bind the hands of all future governments with mandatory commons votes on all military action.    

 

On occasions of sensitive intelligence playing a large part in the decision to deploy forces,    the MPs in the commons would naturally be voting whether or not to take military action without being informed of all of the important facts.    A blind vote.     If the government decided to take military action without bothering to study intelligence there would be an outcry.    All hell would break loose. 

 

So how come MPs who are not privy to the intelligence are in a position to form an informed decision on the same basis?

 

When circumstances are different and allow,    a debate and/or vote will be much more relevant and valid.    But there can easily be other times when the decision must be reserved.     Any needless simplification is insanity.

[Cade]

And now it turns out that the Home Office destroyed all of the Windrush original immigration and landing documentation when Theresa May was Home Secretary

 

 

What an absolute shambles.

 

[shaun.lawson]

12 minutes ago, Victorian said:

May could not be more right (rare example) to resist the ridiculous moves to bind the hands of all future governments with mandatory commons votes on all military action.    

 

On occasions of sensitive intelligence playing a large part in the decision to deploy forces,    the MPs in the commons would naturally be voting whether or not to take military action without being informed of all of the important facts.    A blind vote.     If the government decided to take military action without bothering to study intelligence there would be an outcry.    All hell would break loose. 

 

So how come MPs who are not privy to the intelligence are in a position to form an informed decision on the same basis?

 

When circumstances are different and allow,    a debate and/or vote will be much more relevant and valid.    But there can easily be other times when the decision must be reserved.     Any needless simplification is insanity.

 

All of which seems to make sense - but ignores the political context. Which is that ever since Iraq, there has been a rupture between politicians and people. Not only because Iraq was a disaster - but because the people warned the politicians what would happen, the politicians ignored them, and the people were right. Spectacularly, horrendously right, and for the very reasons they warned about. 

 

Now, there is an instinctive deep scepticism among the public about any form of military action taken by the UK. This wasn't the case prior to Iraq. Not for the Falklands, not for the 1990/1 Gulf War, not for Desert Fox 1998, nor for Sierra Leone or Afghanistan. Not for Kosovo either. But then, everything changed. The vote against military action in Syria in 2013 reflected that change.

 

May's point yesterday - that requiring a UNSC resolution is to hand Russia a veto over our foreign policy - was a very powerful one. Since 2001, international law has flat out stopped working; it's frequently more hindrance than help, though the obvious lack of understanding of international law by our leaders, even the Attorney General, is stupefying. Without Security Council backing, this action was illegal.

 

But that scarcely matters in the great scheme of things. What does matter is that the institutions set up to ensure stability aren't working, and that the public simply doesn't trust the executive or the legislature to get it right. Removing any check on the executive's ability to go to war, regardless of the reasons behind it, will only make that worse. A comprehensive rethink across the board regarding British foreign policy, how we project it, and the role of international institutions, is very urgent.

Edited April 17, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Ministry]

10 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

Thanks but my point remains.

 

This only benefits those who reach the one million threshold who now can add £30000 into their pot tax-free.

 

this widens the rich-poor gap, something that I see as becoming unsustainable 

Sorry Dee but Thunderstruck is right. Tories heavily cut the lifetime allowance, and are now only increasing it by an inflationary amount. 

 

There is no big scandal there. 

[shaun.lawson]

8 minutes ago, Cade said:

And now it turns out that the Home Office destroyed all of the Windrush original immigration and landing documentation when Theresa May was Home Secretary

 

 

What an absolute shambles.

 

 

This should be a resignation issue for both Rudd and May. But of course, it won't be.

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

All of which seems to make sense - but ignores the political context. Which is that ever since Iraq, there has been a rupture between politicians and people. Not only because Iraq was a disaster - but because the people warned the politicians what would happen, the politicians ignored them, and the people were right. Spectacularly, horrendously right, and for the very reasons they warned about. 

 

Now, there is an instinctive deep scepticism among the public about any form of military action taken by the UK. This wasn't the case prior to Iraq. Not for the Falklands, not for the 1990/1 Gulf War, not for Desert Fox 1998, nor for Sierra Leone or Afghanistan. Not for Kosovo either. But then, everything changed. The vote against military action in Syria in 2013 reflected that change.

 

May's point yesterday - that requiring a UNSC resolution is to hand Russia a veto over our foreign policy - was a very powerful one. Since 2001, international law has flat out stopped working; it's frequently more hindrance than help, though the obvious lack of understanding of international law by our leaders, even the Attorney General, is stupefying. Without Security Council backing, this action was illegal.

 

But that scarcely matters in the great scheme of things. What does matter is that the institutions set up to ensure stability aren't working, and that the public simply doesn't trust the executive or the legislature to get it right. 

 

Iraq was a disaster and was utterly shameful for the protagonists of that time.     Who would disagree?     But any notion of a subsequent breakdown in trust between the public and today's political protagonists... and those to come... being something that should decide how governments act is not really sensible.     These matters are much too serious to be practically affected by any need to pander to the sensibilities of the public.

 

It wasn't all and all future politically powerful people who shafted the country over Iraq.    We know who it was.     The effective governments of the future can't suffer any loss of flexibility because of what a tiny number of chancers did.

[Ministry]

5 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Not so sure that the government OR the MSM will 'come clean' although I accept your point about the poster stating facts without backing it up (although theres no smoke and all that).

 

Where I disagree is your point about the MSM printing what their readers 'want to read'. My opinion is that they print what they want their readers to think. Its a propaganda machine (National included) and its slick.

 

Would be nice to have a proper newspaper with honest investigative journalists that print the facts and not their opinions and agendas. We can but dream!

I never understand this argument. Why shouldn’t a paper, or the individual journalists who write for it be allowed to put across their opinion within their articles. 

 

We have an odd idea in this country that papers should be completely neutral and show no bias towards any side, and further should express no opinions regarding what they are writing about. 

[shaun.lawson]

18 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Iraq was a disaster and was utterly shameful for the protagonists of that time.     Who would disagree?     But any notion of a subsequent breakdown in trust between the public and today's political protagonists... and those to come... being something that should decide how governments act is not really sensible.     These matters are much too serious to be practically affected by any need to pander to the sensibilities of the public.

 

It wasn't all and all future politically powerful people who shafted the country over Iraq.    We know who it was.     The effective governments of the future can't suffer any loss of flexibility because of what a tiny number of chancers did.

 

In theory, I agree, and I think you've made the case powerfully and effectively. In practice, I don't - because while war should never be a popularity contest (imagine if the public had had a vote in May 1940? "Keep fighting and risk everything, or sue for peace?" They'd have chosen the latter in a heartbeat), there's such a deficit in legitimacy now that it has to be ameliorated in some way.

 

In my judgement, it is inconceivable that Parliament would fail to back a clear, demonstrable casus belli. And of course, none of this would apply if either, perish the thought, we were attacked first, or if our interests were in clear, imminent danger. 

 

More broadly: most interesting about this intervention from a British point of view is that we've started taking the fight to Russia. May pointedly linked Assad's use of chemical weapons with Putin's use of them in Salisbury. This is long overdue - but I'd hardly be surprised if Russia has plenty of damaging information about our leaders and polity which starts mysteriously emerging into the public domain. In other words, as ever, we need to be careful who we pick fights with, and to be fully prepared for what they'll do in response.

Edited April 17, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[shaun.lawson]

9 minutes ago, Ministry said:

I never understand this argument. Why shouldn’t a paper, or the individual journalists who write for it be allowed to put across their opinion within their articles. 

 

We have an odd idea in this country that papers should be completely neutral and show no bias towards any side, and further should express no opinions regarding what they are writing about. 

 

I don't expect neutrality from newspapers. I do expect objectivity (which is completely different), and above all, I do expect facts. Otherwise, they're not reporting the news at all - but lies, intended to benefit not the public, but their tax dodging owners. That's no mere trifle; it has the most serious implications for future policy.

 

Below, a comment on Facebook from shortly before the referendum by the former Brussels correspondent for The Times. It explains in stark terms how lies, once repeated often enough, become the truth - with dramatic consequences for policy and people alike.

 

 

 

 

 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

In theory, I agree, and I think you've made the case powerfully and effectively. In practice, I don't - because while war should never be a popularity contest (imagine if the public had had a vote in May 1940? "Keep fighting and risk everything, or sue for peace?" They'd have chosen the latter in a heartbeat), there's such a deficit in legitimacy now that it has to be ameliorated in some way.

 

In my judgement, it is inconceivable that Parliament would fail to back a clear, demonstrable casus balli. And of course, none of this would apply if either, perish the thought, we were attacked first, or if our interests were in clear, imminent danger. 

 

More broadly: most interesting about this intervention from a British point of view is that we've started taking the fight to Russia. May pointedly linked Assad's use of chemical weapons with Putin's use of them in Salisbury. This is long overdue - but I'd hardly be surprised if Russia has plenty of damaging information about our leaders and polity which starts mysteriously emerging into the public domain. In other words, as ever, we need to be careful who we pick fights with, and to be fully prepared for what they'll do in response.

 

Indeed.     And it's now time for a long ranging look into effective sanctions on the people and money residing in the UK.     Something that has been sidelined for too long.      You would have to hope that there is also an urgent and exhaustive investigation into what pre-emptive measures can be enacted to mitigate against the coming cyber- pie in the face from Russia.     All possible protections and safeguards.

[deesidejambo]

1 hour ago, Ministry said:

Sorry Dee but Thunderstruck is right. Tories heavily cut the lifetime allowance, and are now only increasing it by an inflationary amount. 

 

There is no big scandal there. 

There is.    It should have been reduced to a lot less than one million in the first place.  

 

Also inflation is meant to reflect the cost of living so people earning high salaries already have that covered so massive inflation increases based on percentage of total to people already earning a fortune is not fair to others

 

a pension pot of a million buys you a pension way more than the current average working persons salary.   And no NICs.

 

I object a bit to pensioners getting this amount of money, and the state pension is added on top of this also.

 

ach maybe I’m just jealous.

[Pans Jambo]

1 hour ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I don't expect neutrality from newspapers. I do expect objectivity (which is completely different), and above all, I do expect facts. Otherwise, they're not reporting the news at all - but lies, intended to benefit not the public, but their tax dodging owners. That's no mere trifle; it has the most serious implications for future policy.

 

Below, a comment on Facebook from shortly before the referendum by the former Brussels correspondent for The Times. It explains in stark terms how lies, once repeated often enough, become the truth - with dramatic consequences for policy and people alike.

 

 

 

 

 

This is the typical shite I’m talking about. Lies & misinformation is lapped up. 

Folk find out and they either dont care or we are hit with the ‘post truth’ shit because its too late. 

 

Modern politics eh?

[Geoff the Mince]

The Tories are scumbags

 

Labour are run by a bunch of wannabe marxists

 

and the SNP are a bunch of glorified civil servants . 

 

Politics really suck . 

[deesidejambo]

7 minutes ago, Geoff the Mince said:

The Tories are scumbags

 

Labour are run by a bunch of wannabe marxists

 

and the SNP are a bunch of glorified civil servants . 

 

Politics really suck . 

You forgot the Greens.

 

vote Independent candidate next time.  They are the only ones with the whip to make them into robots.

[Victorian]

It now transpires that these evil ***** have caused the death of a 58 year old man who lost his whole life as a consequence of not being able to prove he was British,  despite living here for 50 years.    Job gone.  House gone.  Homeless and depression.   Found dead last month.

 

That ****ing witch in the commons today making jibes about Labour overseeing the loss of documentation,  which they did not order.    More whataboutery about anti-semitism.

 

****ing psychopath.

 

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

22 minutes ago, Victorian said:

It now transpires that these evil ***** have caused the death of a 58 year old man who lost his whole life as a consequence of not being able to prove he was British,  despite living here for 50 years.    Job gone.  House gone.  Homeless and depression.   Found dead last month.

 

That ****ing witch in the commons today making jibes about Labour overseeing the loss of documentation,  which they did not order.    More whataboutery about anti-semitism.

 

****ing psychopath.

 

 

 

 

Not just whataboutery. Lying to Parliament. That was a resignation offence for ministers and prime ministers not so long ago. 

[shaun.lawson]

 

[Victorian]

25 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Not just whataboutery. Lying to Parliament. That was a resignation offence for ministers and prime ministers not so long ago. 

 

May's had quite a week.    She's gone from a rare high point of looking quite strong and decisive,    back down to being savagely exposed for what she is.    A rancid,  narcissistic,  inhumane psycho.

 

Government's response to Dexter Bristol (deceased).     To glibly state they have no record of an active deportation case.     But that's not the issue as they well know.     He lost his job as a consequence of the tighter immigration legislation on employers and his world caved in.      They killed this guy from one of those 'unintended consequences'.     One of those things that are dismissed as something not the deliberate fault of anyone.    Like an act of god.     

 

Utter filth.

[Space Mackerel]

Ross Thomson’s latest holiday snaps everyone. He’s in Iraq for whatever reason, getting on with the day job I presume. 

 

 

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

 

[SwindonJambo]

On 17/04/2018 at 22:07, Geoff the Mince said:

The Tories are scumbags

 

Labour are run by a bunch of wannabe marxists

 

and the SNP are a bunch of glorified civil servants . 

 

Politics really suck . 

 

This is where I am. In the past I’ve usually voted Labour but won’t touch the current iteration with a shitty stick for the reason you’ve stated. At the next election Unless a novelty candidate like Lord Buckethead Or Mr FishFinger stands then I’ll spoil my ballot paper. Not that it would make any difference anyway because where I live, a hamster in a blue rosette would be elected.

[JamboX2]

12 hours ago, Victorian said:

It now transpires that these evil ***** have caused the death of a 58 year old man who lost his whole life as a consequence of not being able to prove he was British,  despite living here for 50 years.    Job gone.  House gone.  Homeless and depression.   Found dead last month.

 

That ****ing witch in the commons today making jibes about Labour overseeing the loss of documentation,  which they did not order.    More whataboutery about anti-semitism.

 

****ing psychopath.

 

 

Forget the witch stuff it's gross incompetence. How did she not think that would come out?

 

Beggars belief. Sooner she goes the better.

[JamboX2]

9 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

Ross Thomson’s latest holiday snaps everyone. He’s in Iraq for whatever reason, getting on with the day job I presume. 

 

 

 

 

 

He's on a parliamentary visit to Iraq. Which I'd argue is part of his day job.

[Space Mackerel]

44 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

He's on a parliamentary visit to Iraq. Which I'd argue is part of his day job.

 

Ah, right, getting paid for dicking around in another country is part of the official visit ?

[JamboX2]

13 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Ah, right, getting paid for dicking around in another country is part of the official visit ?

 

Well aye it is. 

 

Take it you've never had to go elsewhere for work and gone for a pint after the work stuff has been done?

[Boris]

26 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Well aye it is. 

 

Take it you've never had to go elsewhere for work and gone for a pint after the work stuff has been done?

 

A fair point, but perhaps you could expect better of a parliamentarian?

 

 

[jack D and coke]

11 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

Ross Thomson’s latest holiday snaps everyone. He’s in Iraq for whatever reason, getting on with the day job I presume. 

 

 

 

 

Why does every single Tory look like someone you’d never tire of beating up?

[doctor jambo]

On ‎17‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 21:00, deesidejambo said:

There is.    It should have been reduced to a lot less than one million in the first place.  

 

Also inflation is meant to reflect the cost of living so people earning high salaries already have that covered so massive inflation increases based on percentage of total to people already earning a fortune is not fair to others

 

a pension pot of a million buys you a pension way more than the current average working persons salary.   And no NICs.

 

I object a bit to pensioners getting this amount of money, and the state pension is added on top of this also.

 

ach maybe I’m just jealous.

With you on this one

we now have a generation of pensioners- a fair number very well off- who are beyond touchable and their gold plated benefits are being sustained at the cost of the workers who are seeing drops in income , low wages, rising costs

the working poor are stuffed

the middle classes are stuffed

those with kids are stuffed

anyone paying tax is stuffed

now into year 10 of real terms pay cuts

and people wonder why there are no feckin GP's left

and the new GP contract is utterly cack

Gp work is now so poorly paid relative to consultants (we have fallen so far behind its not even in the same ball park) that no-one wants to be a GP anymore

Ayrshire has had 4 surgeries taken over by the health board as there are no GP's left

recruitment has utterly collapsed, everyone is retiring as soon as they can to get out due to falling wages and spiralling hours, workload and stress

games a bogey

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

A fair point, but perhaps you could expect better of a parliamentarian?

 

Not in this day and age no.

[doctor jambo]

4 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Not in this day and age no.

Indeed

labour themselves have been complicit in the windrush scandal

not that their "holier than thou " posturing would indicate that

 

Credit where due, at least the SNP have taken a pro-migration stance at all times, and been quite open about it

the other 2 just pretend

it was labour who ordered the destruction of boarding cards (pretty disgusting)

Words cannot express my revulsion for May

Nor Jeremy "lovin dem terrorists" Corbyn, whose capitulation over Salisbury and douma has been disgusting

[Boris]

32 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Not in this day and age no.

 

Perhaps, but no reason you shouldn't!

[JamboX2]

53 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Indeed

labour themselves have been complicit in the windrush scandal

not that their "holier than thou " posturing would indicate that

 

Credit where due, at least the SNP have taken a pro-migration stance at all times, and been quite open about it

the other 2 just pretend

it was labour who ordered the destruction of boarding cards (pretty disgusting)

Words cannot express my revulsion for May

Nor Jeremy "lovin dem terrorists" Corbyn, whose capitulation over Salisbury and douma has been disgusting

 

Eh? Why am I getting this? 

 

What's the complicity? 

 

Corbyn - in fairness - hasn't really done more or less on Douma or Salisbury than anyone else. He parroted the UN line over Douma on the OPCW and access and his party are calling for sanctions on Russian money in the UK. More than May has or will do.

 

Today it's announced Lycamobile investigations by the French were rejected in the UK by May - a firm who is a major Tory donor.

 

Corbyn is ineffective. But he's not grossly unfit for his job unlike May is fast becoming.

 

Neither - imo - is in the right jobs mind.

[jack D and coke]

3 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Eh? Why am I getting this? 

 

What's the complicity? 

 

Corbyn - in fairness - hasn't really done more or less on Douma or Salisbury than anyone else. He parroted the UN line over Douma on the OPCW and access and his party are calling for sanctions on Russian money in the UK. More than May has or will do.

 

Today it's announced Lycamobile investigations by the French were rejected in the UK by May - a firm who is a major Tory donor.

 

Corbyn is ineffective. But he's not grossly unfit for his job unlike May is fast becoming.

 

Neither - imo - is in the right jobs mind.

Corbyn, Abbot, McDonnell are completely and utterly unelectable. 

Faced with the choice of the two id pick the nasty tories. 

[deesidejambo]

4 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Corbyn, Abbot, McDonnell are completely and utterly unelectable. 

Faced with the choice of the two id pick the nasty tories. 

Why not LibDem?  

[JamboX2]

28 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Corbyn, Abbot, McDonnell are completely and utterly unelectable. 

Faced with the choice of the two id pick the nasty tories. 

 

The Tories are utterly and totally morally bankrupt atm.

 

It is a massive shame for the LibDems that they're ignored now. Any other time we'd be looking at them perhaps pushing over 100 seats.

[XB52]

29 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Corbyn, Abbot, McDonnell are completely and utterly unelectable. 

Faced with the choice of the two id pick the nasty tories. 

The right wing media have been carrying out a campaign for ages now, to try and make Corbyn unelectable. It is an affront to our so-called democracy