More Tory lies

[Japan Jambo]

10 hours ago, Lone Striker said:

 Isn't the quality (or purity)  of supermarket petrol a bit below what Shell & BP sell ?  And thats why its cheaper ?

 

Shell at Kildean in Stirling today was 1.95 for E10.  

 

It's true to say that certain branded petrols/diesels have additives that may give marginally better mpg and keep the fuel system cleaner but I believe this isn't that meaningful in comparison to the cost difference.

 

Reason it's cheaper is volume/economics.

 

[inspector]

Petrol standard is RON 95, with higher grades up to 97-98.  I believe we are changing to E10 which will be the default unleaded petrol but not all cars can run on it. There's a site which lets you know if your car is suitable or not

[Don Dan]

Plans by the Government to burn £4bn of unusable personal protective equipment (PPE) to generate power have been criticised by MPs.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) lost 75 per cent of the £12bn it spent on PPE in the first year of the coronavirus pandemic to inflated prices and faulty kit. This included £4bn worth which could not be used because it did not meet NHS standards.

In what was dubbed “a shameful episode” Ministers approved £4bn spent on PPE which didn’t meet NHS standards and has remained unused.

It also bought 817 million items of PPE costing £673m which are defective and cannot be used, donated or sold to anyone. This includes masks identified as being counterfeit; and gowns that are not water-repellent.

A further £2.6bn of PPE purchased have not been used in the NHS as, while meeting technical standards, it is not the type or standard preferred for use by NHS workers. An additional £4.7bn was written down to reflect the market price at the year-end was lower than the price paid at the height of the pandemic.

The Health Department now needs to pay for the disposal of millions of items of PPE and is appointing two commercial waste companies to help them dispose of 15,000 pallets a month via a combination of recycling and burning to generate power.

The costs and environmental effects of disposing of the excess and unusable PPE is unclear the PAC concluded.

MPs found that as a result of DHSC’s “haphazard purchasing strategy”, nearly a quarter (24 per cent) of the PPE contracts awarded are now in dispute – including contracts for products that were not fit for purpose and one contract for 3.5 billion gloves where there are allegations of modern slavery against the manufacturer.

Kit was bought from new suppliers including companies with no previous experience in such products and where full physical product quality inspection could not always be done in advance. The Department’s subsequent review of the 364 PPE contracts entered into identified concerns about 176 (48 per cent) contracts.

The PAC found the Health Department has still to decide on what level of stockpile it will hold for future pandemics and whether it should buy PPE from British manufacturers to avoid relying on lengthy international supply chains.

PAC chair Dame Meg Hillier said the DHSC had done little to “put its house in order” after wasting “huge amounts” of public money in what the Labour MP called “perhaps the most shameful episode in the UK Government response to the pandemic”.

“At the start of the pandemic, health service and social care staff were left to risk their own and their families’ lives due to the lack of basic PPE. In a desperate bid to catch up, the Government splurged huge amounts of money, paying obscenely inflated prices and payments to middlemen in a chaotic rush, during which they chucked out even the most cursory due diligence,” she said.

“This has left us with massive public contracts now under investigation by the National Crime Agency or in dispute because of allegations of modern slavery in the supply chain.”

The PAC urged the DHSC to clarify its plan to dispose of unusable and excess PPE.

[Ray Gin]

£9 billion wasted.

 

Getting the big decisions right.

 

[Lone Striker]

42 minutes ago, Imaman said:

Plans by the Government to burn £4bn of unusable personal protective equipment (PPE) to generate power have been criticised by MPs.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) lost 75 per cent of the £12bn it spent on PPE in the first year of the coronavirus pandemic to inflated prices and faulty kit. This included £4bn worth which could not be used because it did not meet NHS standards.

In what was dubbed “a shameful episode” Ministers approved £4bn spent on PPE which didn’t meet NHS standards and has remained unused.

It also bought 817 million items of PPE costing £673m which are defective and cannot be used, donated or sold to anyone. This includes masks identified as being counterfeit; and gowns that are not water-repellent.

A further £2.6bn of PPE purchased have not been used in the NHS as, while meeting technical standards, it is not the type or standard preferred for use by NHS workers. An additional £4.7bn was written down to reflect the market price at the year-end was lower than the price paid at the height of the pandemic.

The Health Department now needs to pay for the disposal of millions of items of PPE and is appointing two commercial waste companies to help them dispose of 15,000 pallets a month via a combination of recycling and burning to generate power.

The costs and environmental effects of disposing of the excess and unusable PPE is unclear the PAC concluded.

MPs found that as a result of DHSC’s “haphazard purchasing strategy”, nearly a quarter (24 per cent) of the PPE contracts awarded are now in dispute – including contracts for products that were not fit for purpose and one contract for 3.5 billion gloves where there are allegations of modern slavery against the manufacturer.

Kit was bought from new suppliers including companies with no previous experience in such products and where full physical product quality inspection could not always be done in advance. The Department’s subsequent review of the 364 PPE contracts entered into identified concerns about 176 (48 per cent) contracts.

The PAC found the Health Department has still to decide on what level of stockpile it will hold for future pandemics and whether it should buy PPE from British manufacturers to avoid relying on lengthy international supply chains.

PAC chair Dame Meg Hillier said the DHSC had done little to “put its house in order” after wasting “huge amounts” of public money in what the Labour MP called “perhaps the most shameful episode in the UK Government response to the pandemic”.

“At the start of the pandemic, health service and social care staff were left to risk their own and their families’ lives due to the lack of basic PPE. In a desperate bid to catch up, the Government splurged huge amounts of money, paying obscenely inflated prices and payments to middlemen in a chaotic rush, during which they chucked out even the most cursory due diligence,” she said.

“This has left us with massive public contracts now under investigation by the National Crime Agency or in dispute because of allegations of modern slavery in the supply chain.”

The PAC urged the DHSC to clarify its plan to dispose of unusable and excess PPE.

There's plenty for the PAC to demand clarity on, in regards to the lack of audit info on the tender process how contracts were awarded and the terms of these contracts e.g. the accuracy or otherwise of the exact specifications of the PPE items, delivery schedule, payment schedule, and  refund/penalty/dispute process.   

 

Is it feasible to burn dyed & chemically-treated fabric & plastic to produce electricity without releasing toxic gasses into the atmosphere ?   The concept  rather sounds like a typical Boris-ism.  

 

"No need to worry about some PPE not being usable, just think of all the free electricity it'll generate for the power companies who'll then charge you for using it."

 

The government seems to be  using the seriousness and suddenness of the pandemic as an excuse for every short-cut & overspend now being investigated - while still claiming credit for something called a "ring of steel" around care homes. 

 

 

 

[XB52]

43 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

£9 billion wasted.

 

Getting the big decisions right.

 

And still you get posters on here supporting them. Or even worse, trying to equate the SG with them 

[Japan Jambo]

1 hour ago, Imaman said:

Plans by the Government to burn £4bn of unusable personal protective equipment (PPE) to generate power have been criticised by MPs.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) lost 75 per cent of the £12bn it spent on PPE in the first year of the coronavirus pandemic to inflated prices and faulty kit. This included £4bn worth which could not be used because it did not meet NHS standards.

In what was dubbed “a shameful episode” Ministers approved £4bn spent on PPE which didn’t meet NHS standards and has remained unused.

It also bought 817 million items of PPE costing £673m which are defective and cannot be used, donated or sold to anyone. This includes masks identified as being counterfeit; and gowns that are not water-repellent.

A further £2.6bn of PPE purchased have not been used in the NHS as, while meeting technical standards, it is not the type or standard preferred for use by NHS workers. An additional £4.7bn was written down to reflect the market price at the year-end was lower than the price paid at the height of the pandemic.

The Health Department now needs to pay for the disposal of millions of items of PPE and is appointing two commercial waste companies to help them dispose of 15,000 pallets a month via a combination of recycling and burning to generate power.

The costs and environmental effects of disposing of the excess and unusable PPE is unclear the PAC concluded.

MPs found that as a result of DHSC’s “haphazard purchasing strategy”, nearly a quarter (24 per cent) of the PPE contracts awarded are now in dispute – including contracts for products that were not fit for purpose and one contract for 3.5 billion gloves where there are allegations of modern slavery against the manufacturer.

Kit was bought from new suppliers including companies with no previous experience in such products and where full physical product quality inspection could not always be done in advance. The Department’s subsequent review of the 364 PPE contracts entered into identified concerns about 176 (48 per cent) contracts.

The PAC found the Health Department has still to decide on what level of stockpile it will hold for future pandemics and whether it should buy PPE from British manufacturers to avoid relying on lengthy international supply chains.

PAC chair Dame Meg Hillier said the DHSC had done little to “put its house in order” after wasting “huge amounts” of public money in what the Labour MP called “perhaps the most shameful episode in the UK Government response to the pandemic”.

“At the start of the pandemic, health service and social care staff were left to risk their own and their families’ lives due to the lack of basic PPE. In a desperate bid to catch up, the Government splurged huge amounts of money, paying obscenely inflated prices and payments to middlemen in a chaotic rush, during which they chucked out even the most cursory due diligence,” she said.

“This has left us with massive public contracts now under investigation by the National Crime Agency or in dispute because of allegations of modern slavery in the supply chain.”

The PAC urged the DHSC to clarify its plan to dispose of unusable and excess PPE.

 

I'm sure it's not entirely straightforward but it reads a bit like the toothbrush is the wrong colour - heard on the radio this morning one example where things were supplied in a box rather than on a roll - surely a little flexibility and common sense could see a solution to at least part of this?

 

We need to see some prosecutions for some of the fraudulent shenanigans. Bad enough that it happened but at least demonstrate that there are consequences.

 

[WorldChampions1902]

2 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

We need to see some prosecutions for some of the fraudulent shenanigans. Bad enough that it happened but at least demonstrate that there are consequences.

 

Hopefully we will see the outcome of the raid on Baroness Mone’s gaff and findings from the National Crime Agency soon? But there again, maybe not.

[Cade]

Yes, some standards of acceptance probably were lowered or could have been lowered without risking safety to allow more PPE to be used.

 

But it seems that there were no checks done at all on the stuff being ordered. Absolutely no standards were set.

Hence all the unused shite that your taxes bought.

 

Tory donors/pals/family/lobbyists saw it as a get rich quick scheme and went diving in head first, stealing as much public money as they could without delivering anything of use and hoping that all the chaos would let them get away with it.

[Japan Jambo]

3 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

Hopefully we will see the outcome of the raid on Baroness Mone’s gaff and findings from the National Crime Agency soon? But there again, maybe not.

 

If there is a case to answer I really hope so.

[Victorian]

OINK

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/10/mps-and-wealthy-landowners-among-beneficiaries-of-green-subsidy

 

[WorldChampions1902]

52 minutes ago, Victorian said:

OINK

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/10/mps-and-wealthy-landowners-among-beneficiaries-of-green-subsidy

 

This Junta are literally ripping the p**s out us. My ‘favourite’ part of that article is,

 

“An investigation by Open Democracy has now found that a number of wealthy landowners and MPs are among the beneficiaries of the subsidy. These include the international trade minister, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Philip Dunne MP, who chairs the environment audit committee, and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, who chaired the select committee hearing on the British RHI scheme. They also include the Duke of Devonshire, Peregrine Cavendish; and Thomas Coke, Earl of Leicester.

Peter Geoghegan, editor-in-chief of openDemocracy, said: “At a time when energy prices are skyrocketing and millions are struggling with the cost of living crisis, we have found that an obscure heating scheme of dubious quality is costing billions – and that Conservative MPs, and even a government minister, have been benefiting.”

 

The usual suspects will be along shortly to continue their stout defence of the indefensible . Three……two……..one…….

[Don Dan]

36 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

This Junta are literally ripping the p**s out us. My ‘favourite’ part of that article is,

 

“An investigation by Open Democracy has now found that a number of wealthy landowners and MPs are among the beneficiaries of the subsidy. These include the international trade minister, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Philip Dunne MP, who chairs the environment audit committee, and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, who chaired the select committee hearing on the British RHI scheme. They also include the Duke of Devonshire, Peregrine Cavendish; and Thomas Coke, Earl of Leicester.

Peter Geoghegan, editor-in-chief of openDemocracy, said: “At a time when energy prices are skyrocketing and millions are struggling with the cost of living crisis, we have found that an obscure heating scheme of dubious quality is costing billions – and that Conservative MPs, and even a government minister, have been benefiting.”

 

The usual suspects will be along shortly to continue their stout defence of the indefensible . Three……two……..one…….

And Still they vote for these suckers 

[Mikey1874]

The priority of any Government should be to improve the productivity and economic strength of the country. That's what brings in more tax. 

 

It's the route for Labour to put forward a programme for Government. It's a mix of investment and removing restrictions. 

 

The Conservatives remain obsessed with tax cuts and they do say they are investing in technology etc. But their new policies are still pretty flaky. 

[Ray Gin]

1 hour ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

This Junta are literally ripping the p**s out us. My ‘favourite’ part of that article is,

 

“An investigation by Open Democracy has now found that a number of wealthy landowners and MPs are among the beneficiaries of the subsidy. These include the international trade minister, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Philip Dunne MP, who chairs the environment audit committee, and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, who chaired the select committee hearing on the British RHI scheme. They also include the Duke of Devonshire, Peregrine Cavendish; and Thomas Coke, Earl of Leicester.

Peter Geoghegan, editor-in-chief of openDemocracy, said: “At a time when energy prices are skyrocketing and millions are struggling with the cost of living crisis, we have found that an obscure heating scheme of dubious quality is costing billions – and that Conservative MPs, and even a government minister, have been benefiting.”

 

The usual suspects will be along shortly to continue their stout defence of the indefensible . Three……two……..one…….

 

They are too busy being annoyed by the horrors of a low census response to care about stuff like this.

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

They are too busy being annoyed by the horrors of a low census response to care about stuff like this.

They’re also busy making sure the Asylum Seekers go to the concentration camps in Rwanda.

[Shooter McGavin]

8 hours ago, XB52 said:

And still you get posters on here supporting them. Or even worse, trying to equate the SG with them 

“AYE BUT HOW ANNOYING IS WEE NIPPY KEN!!!”

[WorldChampions1902]

1 hour ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

They’re also busy making sure the Asylum Seekers go to the concentration camps in Rwanda.

Global Britain turning back the clock yet again, reintroducing concentration camps to Africa. The last time was during the Boer War.
 

The flag sha**ers will be ecstatic.

[The Real Maroonblood]

5 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

Global Britain turning back the clock yet again, reintroducing concentration camps to Africa. The last time was during the Boer War.
 

The flag sha**ers will be ecstatic.

They're pathetic. 

[The Mighty Thor]

19 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

Global Britain turning back the clock yet again, reintroducing concentration camps to Africa. The last time was during the Boer War.
 

The flag sha**ers will be ecstatic.

The costs will be exorbitant.

 

The numbers will be negligible.

 

The whole thing will be rendered illegal within 3 months.

 

The Daily Nazi will fill its pages with racist shite for crayon munchers fir a week or so.

 

We'll all move onto Spaffer's next catastro****

[il Duce McTarkin]

2 hours ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

They’re also busy making sure the Asylum Seekers go to the concentration camps in Rwanda.

 

Concentration camps you say. Maybe they're on to something after all.

 

 

28 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

“AYE BUT HOW ANNOYING IS WEE NIPPY KEN!!!”

 

She is, though.

[Shooter McGavin]

Just now, Dirk McClaymore said:

She is, though.

Thank you for just proving my point, that was good of you. 

[il Duce McTarkin]

7 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Thank you for just proving my point, that was good of you. 

 

What point was that? That Sturgeon is nippy? She is. 

 

 

[Shooter McGavin]

5 minutes ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

What point was that? That Sturgeon is nippy? She is. 

 

 

 

People often completely ignore or condone serious failings from the government, and things such as the prime minister lying to parliament, misleading parliament, breaking the law and changing the ministerial code to make lying to parliament acceptable,

 

but will then come out with “aye but Nicola Sturgeon is annoying!”
 

As if being annoying is as bad as the aforementioned.

 

But anyway, I’m sure you knew all of that.

[il Duce McTarkin]

7 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

 

People often completely ignore or condone serious failings from the government, and things such as the prime minister lying to parliament, misleading parliament, breaking the law and changing the ministerial code to make lying to parliament acceptable,

 

but will then come out with “aye but Nicola Sturgeon is annoying!”
 

As if being annoying is as bad as the aforementioned.

 

But anyway, I’m sure you knew all of that.

 

I did aye. It's amazing the mental gymnastics that folk will perform to remain within in their philisophical comfort zone.

 

I'd have half of the current parliamentary Conservative party up for corruption, and the other half up for treason, but that doesn't change the fact that Sturgeon is a bit nippy. However much the severity of those respective crimes may be incomparable, they are in no way mutually exclusive.

[Roxy Hearts]

44 minutes ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

What point was that? That Sturgeon is nippy? She is. 

 

 

No she's not. It's just a phrase thickos made up and the other thickos go along with it. 

[Shooter McGavin]

6 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

No she's not. It's just a phrase thickos made up and the other thickos go along with it. 

I’m not exactly her biggest fan, but to me, she’s just your average run of the mill politician.

 

It’s utterly bizarre when people try to suggest that she’s as incompetent, dishonest and dangerous as Boris though.

 

Look at the state of Boris’ life and affairs to this point, it’s remarkable that he still finds morons to defend him.

[il Duce McTarkin]

1 minute ago, Shooter McGavin said:

 

It’s utterly bizarre when people try to suggest that she’s as incompetent, dishonest and dangerous as Boris though.

 

Look at the state of Boris’ life and affairs to this point, it’s remarkable that he still finds morons to defend him.

 

Boris is not incompetent, the bit in bold backs that up. Dishonest and dangerous I'll give you.

[Shooter McGavin]

If you can watch this, and truly believe that Sturgeon is as bad, if not worse, then I’m not even sure what to tell you.

[il Duce McTarkin]

2 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

If you can watch this, and truly believe that Sturgeon is as bad, if not worse, then I’m not even sure what to tell you.

 

I'm arguing that she's nippy, not worse.

[il Duce McTarkin]

21 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

No she's not. It's just a phrase thickos made up and the other thickos go along with it. 

 

I wish I knew as much about thickos as you.

[Jeffros Furios]

2 minutes ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

I wish I knew as much about thickos as you.

Roxy is field jock gammon .

[il Duce McTarkin]

25 minutes ago, Jeffros Furios said:

Roxy is field jock gammon .

 

There's something inherently poetic about going full circle.

[Roxy Hearts]

58 minutes ago, Jeffros Furios said:

Roxy is field jock gammon .

You're a thicko!

[jack D and coke]

4 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

No she's not. It's just a phrase thickos made up and the other thickos go along with it. 

Na…You’re a good un man but I’m gonna give him that one tbh  

 

[jack D and coke]

What is this field jock btw?  

Jonesy?

[Dazo]

5 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

What is this field jock btw?  

Jonesy?

A jonesy retort that seems to be doing the trick. Delightful. 😂

[il Duce McTarkin]

5 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

What is this field jock btw?  

Jonesy?

 

Field Jock gammon is a belter tbf.

[jack D and coke]

53 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

I'm guessing it's a response to uncle tam and house jocks stuff. 
 

Essentially, the slaves cotton picking were referred to as ‘Field N******’

 

So in the weird world of JKB if unionist are house jocks, then nationalists would be field jocks. 
 

The use of these terms does no one any favours tbqfhwy and use is culturally insensitive at best. Albeit I accept as trolling goes it does seem to be pretty effective term. 

Ah I see. 
It really doesn’t carry the same weight as hoose jock does it. 
 

[il Duce McTarkin]

49 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

The use of these terms does no one any favours tbqfhwy and use is culturally insensitive at best. Albeit I accept as trolling goes it does seem to be pretty effective term. 

 

Hoose Jock and uncle Tam are horrible terms. No less overtly racist than the originals. 

Field Jock is even worse, but its use here goes a way to proving a point that shouldn't require proving

Field Jock gammon, however, is pretty funny.

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

Hoose Jock and uncle Tam are horrible terms. No less overtly racist than the originals. 

Field Jock is even worse, but its use here goes a way to proving a point that shouldn't require proving

Field Jock gammon, however, is pretty funny.

 

They're not at all racist, never mind overtly.

[il Duce McTarkin]

Just now, Smithee said:

 

They're not at all racist, never mind overtly.

 

If house ****** is racist, which it clearly is, then hoose Jock is racist. 

 

I'd be interested to see the reasoning behind your point, but not that interested, because your conclusion is patently wrong.

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

If house ****** is racist, which it clearly is, then hoose Jock is racist. 

 

I'd be interested to see the reasoning behind your point, but not that interested, because your conclusion is patently wrong.

 

Racism is negative stereotyping based on race, you'd have to be pretty dumb to think hoose jock fits the definition. Or at it of course.

 

However, all of this does show just how much hoose jock stings.

[Sooperstar]

11 hours ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

Boris is not incompetent, the bit in bold backs that up. Dishonest and dangerous I'll give you.

He is incompetent. He is good at getting elected, bad at doing the job. 

[il Duce McTarkin]

Just now, Smithee said:

 

Racism is negative stereotyping based on race, you'd have to be pretty dumb to think hoose jock fits the definition. Or at it of course.

 

However, all of this does show just how much hoose jock stings.

 

Hoose Jock is basically double down on a negative stereotyping based on race, whilst pretending not to.

 

It doesn't sting at all, bur ir isn't wrong to point out that its a horrible term based on its historically racist connotations. There's not a single argument or discussion where its use could be meaningfully positive. It's strange watching folk who regularly play the moral high ground writhing in complete denial.

[Roxy Hearts]

7 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Na…You’re a good un man but I’m gonna give him that one tbh  

 

You too bud but I don't find her Nippy. She has to be forceful due to the thickos and stupidity thrown at her! Imagine having to put up with Sarwar, Ross, Cole-Hamilton, the reprobate unionists at Holyrood and our hostile media. 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

Hoose Jock is basically double down on a negative stereotyping based on race, whilst pretending not to.

 

It doesn't sting at all, bur ir isn't wrong to point out that its a horrible term based on its historically racist connotations. There's not a single argument or discussion where its use could be meaningfully positive. It's strange watching folk who regularly play the moral high ground writhing in complete denial.

 

It isn't racist, there are no racial stereotypes at play.

 

No one said it was a term of endearment, but that doesn't mean racism.

 

You just let me know if you need anything else cleared up

 

[il Duce McTarkin]

9 minutes ago, Sooperstar said:

He is incompetent. He is good at getting elected, bad at doing the job. 

 

His job was to get elected. I doubt even his most fervent party backers were under the illusion that he'd be anything less than terrible at running the country. His Russian backers even less so.

[il Duce McTarkin]

8 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

It isn't racist, there are no racial stereotypes at play.

 

No one said it was a term of endearment, but that doesn't mean racism.

 

You just let me know if you need anything else cleared up

 

 

The only thing you've successfully cleared up the lingering doubt that you might know what you're talking about.

[jack D and coke]

I feel if another description is getting added to the end of jonesy’s “field jock” swing and miss it should be more about pasty faced pale blue skin as opposed to the lobster coloured faced brit cult no?