View Full Version : Johns Hopkins Medical Centre - World Coronavirus infection Map by Country.
Here you go: https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?68302-Johns-Hopkins-Medical-Centre-World-Coronavirus-infection-Map-by-Country&p=1205743#post1205743
Please read it, including details of the link therein, and I'd be obliged of your thoughts afterwards:)
Marco.
vaccine is still some time away imo.. they have found a few other things that migjht also be of use .. no matter what they go for, and that should read if... as we may never get one(we havent for the cold) it will only be part successful and will be superceded quickly, probably several times.
there will be political pressure to use one and hope..Boris wont give a fcuk if loads of folk die...("it was the science honest")
Mmm... Maybes aye, maybes naw.
So what about all that stuff about surveillance? That didn't just come out of the blue... I'm afraid that words such as "surveillance", "monitoring" and "mandatory", in relation to this whole thing, don't sit very well with me at all.
Marco.
Mmm... Maybes aye, maybes naw.
So what about all that stuff about surveillance? That didn't just come out of the blue... I'm afraid that words such as "surveillance", "monitoring" and "mandatory", in relation to this whole thing, don't sit very well with me at all.
Marco.
well they wont be putting a chip in.. that just wouldnt be allowed even here, far less america. there would be a revolution... but surveillance is a word with many connetations and is often used as clickbait,
My Response, not sure what else there is to say really.
Here are some facts about how stupid we all actually are...
The average adult with no chess training will beat the average five year old with no chess training 100 games out of 100 under normal conditions.
The average 1600 Elo rated chess player – a player with several years of experience – will beat that average adult 100 games out of 100.
A top “super” grandmaster will beat the Elo 600 rated player 100 games out of 100.
Analogous to ..a grandmaster is 10,000 times better than average
This distribution is pretty similar across other domains which require purely mental rather than physical skill, but it's easy to measure in chess because there's a very accurate rating system and a record of millions of games to draw on.
Here's what that means.
The top performers in an intellectual domain outperform even an experienced amateur by a similar margin to that with which an average adult would outperform an average five year old.
The average person on the street with no training or experience wouldn't even register as a challenge to a super GM, there'd be no quantifiable difference between them and an untrained five year old in how easy they are to beat.
Their chances are literally zero.
This means that people's attempts to apply “common sense” - i.e., untrained thinking – to criticise scientific or historical research or statistical analysis or a mathematical model or an economic policy is like a five year old turning up at their parent's job and insisting they know how to do it better.
They would not only be wrong, they would be unlikely to even understand the explanation of why they were wrong. And then they would cry, still failing to understand, still believing that they're right and that the whole adult world must be against them. You know, like “researchers” on Facebook.
That's where relying on "common sense" gets you. To an actual expert you look like an infant having a tantrum because the world is too complicated for you to understand.
And that, my friends, is science.
Tom Denton -
You can program a computer to beat any human player because chess is fully quantifiable.
Complex subjects like economics are not. There's no such thing as an 'expert' in economics, or any similar field. There are just too many unknown variables and too many complex inter-relationships.
Doctors make mistakes regardless of their training and experience. It's very common. Ask any lawyer who specialises in medical malpractice.
There's no valid analogy with chess.
well they wont be putting a chip in.. that just wouldnt be allowed even here, far less america. there would be a revolution... but surveillance is a word with many connetations and is often used as clickbait,
I take your point on clickbait, but I still expect them to come up with some sort of 'vaccine' on or before Jan 2021, as if not there'll be little of this virus left to warrant one! And that won't suit the agenda of the big pharma companies and those who've invested heavily in them, and who've been planning for some time to make a killing from the sale of vaccines for Covid-19.
Marco.
chances are covid 19 will rear its head again so probably will be a need for some sort of cure or vaccine. just have to look at the states and brasil where they poopooed it and now its biting them in the poo hole.
govt has been told what they need to do to avoid it, yet boris didnt even bother to read it.. what a piece of shit he is.
In your opinion, which the Author (and I) disagree with, which is cool.
Chess was just an example, not the specific of the Statement.
Replace Chess with any other “intellectual domain”, it holds true.
Is there an Expert Poker player for instance?
No absolutes in human endeavour, expert doesn’t mean perfect 100% of the time all the time, just that in that fact based field/fields they know more than you.
But you know, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, given a level of entitlement, which is kinda the issue .
(see earlier point about not arguing with a surgeon before an Operation)
Anyway,
Wanted to throw something out I felt was appropriate here, not taking the credit for the statement so nothing really to say other than I agree with it.
You can program a computer to beat any human player because chess is fully quantifiable.
Complex subjects like economics are not. There's no such thing as an 'expert' in economics, or any similar field. There are just too many unknown variables and too many complex inter-relationships.
Doctors make mistakes regardless of their training and experience. It's very common. Ask any lawyer who specialises in medical malpractice.
There's no valid analogy with chess.
chances are covid 19 will rear its head again so probably will be a need for some sort of cure or vaccine. just have to look at the states and brasil where they poopooed it and now its biting them in the poo hole.
govt has been told what they need to do to avoid it, yet boris didnt even bother to read it.. what a piece of shit he is.
Starmer’s wiping the floor with him, all Bojo has is bluster and bullshit.
Story of his political career really.
In your opinion, which the Author (and I) disagree with, which is cool.
Chess was just an example, not the specific of the Statement.
Replace Chess with any other “intellectual domain”, it holds true.
Is there an Expert Poker player for instance?
No absolutes in human endeavour, expert doesn’t mean perfect 100% of the time all the time, just that in that fact based field/fields they know more than you.
But you know, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, given a level of entitlement, which is kinda the issue .
(see earlier point about not arguing with a surgeon before an Operation)
Anyway,
Wanted to throw something out I felt was appropriate here, not taking the credit for the statement so nothing really to say other than I agree with it.
Leaving the chess thing aside, how is any of this relevant to the discussion? A doctor knows more than a civilian does about medicine. I mean it's just a truism isn't it?
One thing you do notice when people of the same profession get together, and it doesn't matter what the profession is, they will still disagree with one another about certain things. Listening to such a discussion can be very educational because they will only argue about the topics that are not settled.
Whereas a neophyte in the subject will argue the toss over irrelevancies, or areas of debate that they are unaware were long since settled. They don't know what they don't know and so conclude that they know a lot more than they actually do. The Dunning-Kruger effect as it's known.
Is that broadly what you are saying?
Not exactly that, no.
Its more about with all the (mis)information online about just about anything, one blast of Wikipedia/ YouTube and everyone's an expert nowadays.
The rise in conspiracy theories seems to be running parallel with the ongoing rejection of advice from experts, about 'hard fact' matters such as science and Technology.
Its not enough to have an opinion, a lot of people need to have their own FACTS, and doubling down to never to accept they can be wrong.
Its dangerous.
I've seen a lot of people not just believing dumb things, but resisting learning rather than let go of those beliefs, especially when it comes to serious issues like Pandemics or disasters.
To the point where a gathered Opinion is an equivalent to a scientific Fact, and experts with knowledge are dismissed or discredited.
Of course there are always bad characters taking advantage of this for their own Agenda's, that's a fact.
Unlimited information is making us dumber, bringing out all the usual nut-bar conspiracy theories and the like.
But you know, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, given a level of entitlement, which is kinda the issue .
(see earlier point about not arguing with a surgeon before an Operation)
I agree with the general thrust of your argument, but in terms of the above, are you saying that laymen should just do what they're told and simply obey the experts? If so, I fundamentally disagree, as it sets a dangerous precedent. Also, 'level of entitlement' sounds rather arrogant and elitist, as if 'us minions' should know our place...
In terms of the surgeon, definitely not *unless* I had very good reason to question his intentions - after all, ultimately it's MY body!;)
Marco.
An expert is someone who continues to specialise in an increasingly narrow field - he knows more and more about less and less, so that ultimately the expert knows all there is to know about nothing at all. :D
walpurgis
15-07-2020, 19:00
An expert is someone who continues to specialise in an increasingly narrow field - he knows more and more about less and less, so that ultimately the expert knows all there is to know about nothing at all. :D
I like that! :D
To the point where a gathered Opinion is an equivalent to a scientific Fact, and experts with knowledge are dismissed or discredited.
.
That isn't a new thing though is it. For as long as we have had science there have been a significant number of people and organisations of people who have dismissed it, or elements of it. Both Galileo and Darwin took a fair bit of stick. Okay so in Darwin's day you had to read about the controversy in a newspaper whereas now we have multiple media platforms. I remember when if you wanted to listen to some nutter ranting you had to go down to Speaker's Corner. Now you can access a thousand of them from your armchair. But it's all the same thing.
There was never some golden age where absolutely everybody listened to the 'experts', especially not in this country which has always had a largely contrarian population.
I actually think that there is far too much reliance on the 'appeal to authority' these days.
For me, if an expert tells me, for example, that 'Face coverings make a big difference', I'll say 'show me your studies that demonstrate that.' I won't just take his word for it because he's 'A Scientist'. If someone says to me 'Why would he be wrong about it? He's a scientist!' I think 'Mug.'
Maybe his study is convincing enough. That's fine. But then you find another study that contradicts that one. And then you realise these things are always far from as cut and dried as they like joe public to think.
For me, if an expert tells me, for example, that 'Face coverings make a big difference', I'll say 'show me your studies that demonstrate that.' I won't just take his word for it because he's 'A Scientist'. If someone says to me 'Why would he be wrong about it? He's a scientist!' I think 'Mug.'
Me, too!! Blindly (the key word) accepting the veracity of anything, from ANYONE, expert or otherwise, at best is lazy thinking, and at worst, sheer stupidity!
Maybe his study is convincing enough. That's fine. But then you find another study that contradicts that one. And then you realise these things are always far from as cut and dried as they like joe public to think.
:clapclapclap:
Exactly, and ultimately why it pays to dig more deeply into things than might otherwise be considered necessary.
Marco.
All fair points raised.
No idea why its being assumed though I am suggesting not using your brain, or that not everyone has looked into the matter in detail?
Never said that even once.
I did say everyones entitled to believe what they believe, which is fine, even if you (I or whomever) disagree.
Not pushing anything on anyone. :)
I've read up on this stuff too, as I'm sure most of us have.
All fair points raised.
No idea why its being assumed though I am suggesting not using your brain, or that not everyone has looked into the matter in detail?
Never said that even once.
.
No, I was just disagreeing with your suggestion that people believing in unlikely or ridiculous things and being anti-science was either a new thing or becoming more prevalent. I think it's the same as it's always been. We're just more aware of it now.
Beobloke
16-07-2020, 07:51
Me, too!! Blindly (the key word) accepting the veracity of anything, from ANYONE, expert or otherwise, at best is lazy thinking, and at worst, sheer stupidity!
.
Hang on, though, does that mean we shouldn’t blindly accept you when you say that??
I’m confused now!
;)
Confucius say, when lesser man addresses his master, he should not be blind to his greatness... He must know his status, who is leader and who is follower. And you are follower.
Alles klar, glasshoppa?:D
Marco.
he said Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated, Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life. :eyebrows:
No, I was just disagreeing with your suggestion that people believing in unlikely or ridiculous things and being anti-science was either a new thing or becoming more prevalent. I think it's the same as it's always been. We're just more aware of it now.
Your right Martin,
Historically it’s always been there, maybe it’s just easier to see now.
<SOAPBOX_ON>
I don’t think Expert vs Self is such a black and white thing, don’t think being sensible it ever can be?
I mean it’s never good as Marco says (And I’ve never disagreed with!) to blindly accept what other people tell you, self proclaimed expert or not.
I mean, why would you?
Healthy scepticism is a good way to protect yourself, but equally at the other extreme is it _really_healthy to assume you can doubt everybody’s intent, even if MANY OTHERS say they are top in their Field and have proven history of it?
The Surgeon in my earlier example...or even Tony Fauci, for instance, who has served under every President (Red and Blue) since Reagan as the Country’s top Public Health expert - maybe kinda guy you’d want advice from.
Like a lotta stuff, about finding the balance...
Some cases are obvious, the Garage telling you your car needs a new engine when you take it in to get the wheels rebalanced...or the cancer expert showing you an X-Ray of your lungs.
Others more of a grey area.
Blanket dismissal of facts can be as bad as blanket acceptance.
Somewhere in the middle is mibbay sensible, but aye...be educated and know the facts for yourself too, totally.
</SOAPBOX_OFF>
Anyways...
back to Hifi tweaking...
Today mostly playing with Silicon Nitride ceramic ball bearings and SR Blue foo fuses.
Oh what fun :mental:
In other news,
Hawkin’ beans from the Oval Office in the middle of a Pandemic...
CEO (and re-election Campaign Donator) of the Company praised the president recently at a WH meeting.
https://i.imgur.com/0Nonh7E.jpg
Lol - soz, no idea what that's about or what you're trying to say? Hawkin beans?:scratch:
I'll get to your other post later!:)
Marco.
dems good beanz man...yeah ha
So do you understand what it's about? That's the problem with just posting pics, without any clear explanation of what they're referring to!
Marco.
Hawkin’ = Selling/ advertising.
CEO (and re-election Campaign Donator) of the Company praised the president recently at a WH meeting.
Trump and his Spawn decided to use the Whitehouse to promote his Brand in this photo as thanks.
Whilst 130,000+ Americans have died of Covid.
he suffers from Antisocial Personality Disorder, otherwise known as a sociopath. he has every symptom... amazing he gets the top job isnt it..:doh: only in america.... and russia, and britain... hell just about everywhere
Aye..
Maybe we could just switch it all off and on again?
Hawkin’ = Selling/ advertising.
CEO (and re-election Campaign Donator) of the Company praised the president recently at a WH meeting.
Trump and his Spawn decided to use the Whitehouse to promote his Brand in this photo as thanks.
Whilst 130,000+ Americans have died of Covid.
Ok, churz, it's a bit clearer now, but unless you had been following what you've just posted, you wouldn't have had scooby as to what that pic was about, so best next time to add a link to Trump's Instagram posts, as I don't follow them. Other than here, I don't do social media:)
Always back up pics with links that explain the content, unless the content is 100% obvious.
Marco.
he suffers from Antisocial Personality Disorder, otherwise known as a sociopath. he has every symptom... amazing he gets the top job isnt it..:doh: only in america.... and russia, and britain... hell just about everywhere
As I said before, he's there to do a job [drain the swap and dismantle the elite, which he's doing very well indeed]. I don't like aspects of his personality either, but that's simply a side issue, and of no real importance compared with the task he has to complete.
Marco.
I’ve just LITERALLY posted a pic (with explanation) of literally the “swampiest” thing ever done in the Whitehouse Oval Office.
In plain sight.
What Swamp is it Trump is draining?
Serious question for Marco.
Is Trump the right man to be sitting at that Desk at this time?
Of course, for the job he has to do, as I've clearly explained here many times. I certainly wouldn't want Biden, Clitoris or any other elite-controlled Democrat there, thats for sure. You're just a Trump hater [and have bought into the biased media's hate campaign against him], and can't see past that, so there's no point in discussing the matter further with you:)
Marco.
Does it actually matter who is sitting at the Desk? I still don't understand this obsession with who the American President is. It makes very little difference to anything that happens in America and zero difference to the rest of the world.
Beobloke
16-07-2020, 11:48
Confucius say, when lesser man addresses his master, he should not be blind to his greatness... He must know his status, who is leader and who is follower. And you are follower.
Alles klar, glasshoppa?:D
Marco.
:lol: :lol:
Cheeky sod!
:lolsign:
Ya knows it baby, so OWN it!:D
Marco.
Cool. :thumbsup:
That answered my question.
Of course, for the job he has to do, as I've clearly explained here many times. I certainly wouldn't want Biden, Clitoris or any other elite-controlled Democrat there, thats for sure. You're just a Trump hater [and have bought into the biased media's hate campaign against him], and can't see past that, so there's no point in discussing the matter further with you:)
Marco.
Does it actually matter who is sitting at the Desk? I still don't understand this obsession with who the American President is. It makes very little difference to anything that happens in America and zero difference to the rest of the world.
Oh.
Cool. :thumbsup:
That answered my question.
Quality:cool:
Marco.
Does it actually matter who is sitting at the Desk? I still don't understand this obsession with who the American President is. It makes very little difference to anything that happens in America and zero difference to the rest of the world.You think so?
Ask the ones that have sanctions in operation against them. And NATO?
Forget about what he has to say, you only have to listen to the way he says it. He sounds like a juvenile spoilt brat that has to have his own way or he's not playing. The word narcissist automatically springs to mind.
You think so?
Ask the ones that have sanctions in operation against them. And NATO?
Forget about what he has to say, you only have to listen to the way he says it. He sounds like a juvenile spoilt brat that has to have his own way or he's not playing. The word narcissist automatically springs to mind.
Take a look at what those sanctions entail. Next to nothing. In fact his opponents have complained that his sanctions against China and Turkey are not anything like severe enough.
NATO? He's rattled a few cages with some trash talk. That's it.
I agree he is a narcissist but then so are a lot of people. Most people who rise to high political office like getting their own way. It's how they got there in the first place. . I don't see why that is relevant in political terms.
I judge by the record of achievement, not on unpleasant character traits. What do they matter? It's geo-politics, not the schoolyard.
If you judge him by achievements in office then he's been fairly poor so far. But that's not unusual for a President - because the office carries very little real power. All the former Presidents have complained about that very fact. People elect them expecting them to perform miracles and don't understand when they fail to achieve very much at all and then they spend the rest of their lives trying to explain why.
I don't think the Iranians would share your view on sanctions and their effects.
Yes... People are under the delusion that getting to be President and they're in control of everything going. Not so. And that goes right the way back to Eisenhower. Go and look up his leaving office speech. It's not really what you might expect a President leaving his office would come out with. He gives the warning to guard against the rise of the industrial military elite. Which is precisely what has happened since then and is where the real power in the US lies. Like the Queen, the President is, to some extent, pretty much just a figurehead.
the usa spent 650 billion 1n 2018 on the military budget.. approx the gnp of spain, so its what many would consider the elite who control it..
There's more to it than that.
Trillions (that's TRILLIONS) of dollars each year are syphoned off from the economy into black projects. It's not a fiction. It's been calculated. Tax payers money is going to fund, whatever, and there is no accountability. The tax payer isn't allowed to know or question what it's funding - which is actually illegal.
In other news,
Hawkin’ beans from the Oval Office in the middle of a Pandemic...
CEO (and re-election Campaign Donator) of the Company praised the president recently at a WH meeting.
https://i.imgur.com/0Nonh7E.jpg
He's up for re election, he wants the "Latino" vote, why be surprised?
https://i.imgur.com/LcsI15K.gif
I don't think the Iranians would share your view on sanctions and their effects.
Yes... People are under the delusion that getting to be President and they're in control of everything going. Not so. And that goes right the way back to Eisenhower. Go and look up his leaving office speech. It's not really what you might expect a President leaving his office would come out with. He gives the warning to guard against the rise of the industrial military elite. Which is precisely what has happened since then and is where the real power in the US lies. Like the Queen, the President is, to some extent, pretty much just a figurehead.
Yes I agree and Eisenhower turned out to be right. But what was anyone, ever, going to do about it?
BTW sanctions against Iran were happening long before Trump and other countries are participating in that too. I might be wrong, can't be arsed to look it up, but I think the Iran sanctions had congressional approval under 'Dubya'.
InThe Sticks
16-07-2020, 18:58
Now that the statue of Colston and Jen Reid have both been de-plinthed, there has been a call in Bristol to decide what should go up next.
Looking on social media, the front runner seems to be this..
https://i.imgur.com/kF7B2XA.jpg
Now that the statue of Colston and Jen Reid have both been de-plinthed, there has been a call in Bristol to decide what should go up next.
Looking on social media, the front runner seems to be this..
https://i.imgur.com/kF7B2XA.jpg
LOL! :D
:lolsign:
Good one.
Marco.
Yes I agree and Eisenhower turned out to be right. But what was anyone, ever, going to do about it?
BTW sanctions against Iran were happening long before Trump and other countries are participating in that too. I might be wrong, can't be arsed to look it up, but I think the Iran sanctions had congressional approval under 'Dubya'.Well in real terms what could be done? It's too late now. That's for sure. It says something as to how things now are when you have a private individual invited to the Pentagon to inform the President and the head of the CIA to inform them about black op projects because when they ask through the appropriate channels they get told it's not for them to know. What do you do when that's the situation?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48119109
Well in real terms what could be done? It's too late now. ]
Nothing. Nothing at all, and it was already too late by the end of WW2 by my reckoning.
But on the whole things could be a lot worse. I just get on with my life. We're so fortunate we can do that in this country.
I mean it interest me, politics, foreign affairs and all that, but it doesn't keep me awake at night. The same shit was going on long before we were all born and will be going on long after we are all dead.
And things could well get a lot worse. The rise in nationalism world wide could see to that. The EU's under threat with others looking to follow the UK and leave. If nothing else, the EU has put an end to war in Europe.
And things could well get a lot worse. The rise in nationalism world wide could see to that. The EU's under threat with others looking to follow the UK and leave. If nothing else, the EU has put an end to war in Europe.
No, I wouldn't even credit the EU with that. It's been a disaster on many fronts. The Common Market that's a different matter. In principle that was a good idea.
Nukes and NATO IMO for peace in Europe, plus everyone had had enough by 1945 anyway . The again you had the whole Bosnia thing if you count that as a 'war'. But they couldn't really nuke Bosnia.
Mikeandvan
16-07-2020, 22:29
And things could well get a lot worse. The rise in nationalism world wide could see to that. The EU's under threat with others looking to follow the UK and leave. If nothing else, the EU has put an end to war in Europe.
Do you really think there would be war in Europe if the EU have never come into being? Membership of the EU hasn;t stopped Hungary falling prey to extreme right Nationalism, it hasn;t stopped Poland attacking gay rights. Basically its a gloss over whatever traditions still take place in its member states.
Mikeandvan
16-07-2020, 22:40
As I said before, he's there to do a job [drain the swap and dismantle the elite, which he's doing very well indeed]. I don't like aspects of his personality either, but that's simply a side issue, and of no real importance compared with the task he has to complete.
Marco.
How the fuck is some born into wealth tosspot TV personality going to 'dimantle the eilte'? Really, where do you get this shit from? And how on earth is going back on Obamacare helping ordinary Americans? There really should be laws in place to stop opportunists like Trump getting to power. Have you seen footage of his rallies? The guy is little more than a narcissistic thug.
Aye I do. That was partly the thinking behind it's formation in the first place, according to some. Poland being anti-gay I wouldn't see as in the same category as being at war with whoever. That's civil in nature. Same with Hungry.
InThe Sticks
17-07-2020, 05:21
How the fuck is some born into wealth tosspot TV personality going to 'dimantle the eilte'? Really, where do you get this shit from?
Slightly crudely put, but Mike has a point.
Where do you get this drivel from? I'd like to see some healthy evidence, or i'll have to assume you're just making it up for whatever reason.
InThe Sticks
17-07-2020, 06:01
The PHE’s data reporting seems a tad flawed to say the least..
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/why-no-one-can-ever-recover-from-covid-19-in-england-a-statistical-anomaly/
How the fuck is some born into wealth tosspot TV personality going to 'dimantle the eilte'? Really, where do you get this shit from? And how on earth is going back on Obamacare helping ordinary Americans? There really should be laws in place to stop opportunists like Trump getting to power. Have you seen footage of his rallies? The guy is little more than a narcissistic thug.
Calm down, dear! :lol::D
If your mind's as set as that, there's really no point in arguing with you, especially when I AGREE with some of that. As I said further back in this thread, let's see what happens after he gets a second term in office and wins the forthcoming election!;)
And there's plenty of evidence out there of him 'draining the swamp' - look at all the folk he's sacked... They were all corrupt! Plus, again as I've said, I doubt that Epstein would've been 'dealt with' had Clitoris won the last election, instead of Trump... And more scum like that will get their comeuppance before his time us up in the White House, either this term or next, trust me!
Marco.
Slightly crudely put, but Mike has a point.
Where do you get this drivel from? I'd like to see some healthy evidence, or i'll have to assume you're just making it up for whatever reason.
There is none.
Yes there is, as I've just pointed out. Look at those he's sacked and the reasons for it. Essentially, they were in the pockets of the elite, as were those who tried to remove him from office, after he was elected!
Marco.
walpurgis
17-07-2020, 07:48
Aye I do. That was partly the thinking behind it's formation in the first place, according to some. Poland being anti-gay I wouldn't see as in the same category as being at war with whoever. That's civil in nature. Same with Hungry.
Hungry? Hmm, I could do with a snack. :)
It's the auto "correct". I don't always spot it.
Might have a couple of crumpets meself.
Yes there is, as I've just pointed out. Look at those he's sacked and the reasons for it. Essentially, they were in the pockets of the elite, as were those who tried to remove him from office, after he was elected!
Marco.
Sorry mate,
That's just bollocks imo.
(no offence)
Entitled to your beliefs of course and happy to agree to disagree, and move on. :)
walpurgis
17-07-2020, 08:08
It's the auto "correct". I don't always spot it.
Might have a couple of crumpets meself.
:D
Sorry mate,
That's just bollocks imo.
(no offence)
Entitled to your beliefs of course and happy to agree to disagree, and move on. :)
Then simply agree to disagree with me, and move on, to begin with. That might be a more sensible and less inflammatory approach, and also one that doesn't result in a pointless circular argument or any fall outs.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't rudely dismiss my valid point of view as "bollocks", as that shows complete disrespect. Disagree with me by all means, and present an alternative argument, but don't insult me. There is no need for it - and adding "mate" or smileys afterwards doesn't soften things either.
Do it again, and I'll have to put you out for a week. That applies to everyone else, and that's an end to the matter, Please just observe what I've said and leave it there. Any subsequent retorts, 'explanations' or 'justifications', therefore, will be removed without further notice.
Marco.
Mikeandvan
17-07-2020, 08:26
Yes there is, as I've just pointed out. Look at those he's sacked and the reasons for it. Essentially, they were in the pockets of the elite, as were those who tried to remove him from office, after he was elected!
Marco.
Doesn't Trump just favour one type of elite over another, Texas oil barons for instance, or property developers like himself? He's also stuffing the supreme court with judges favourable to him, and he appears to be anti 1st amendment, in short he is an unhinged narcissist whose rise to power was prophesied in 'Dr Strangelove'.
Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it:)
Marco.
I see a Mink farm in spain(i didnt know they had such things) has got Covid including the Minks.. 100k of minks to be culled... cant say i agree with farming animals for their skin alone but is shows that wild animals shhould be left in the wild
Yup, totally agree. And in terms of animals, do you think that some of the virus outbreaks in meat processing plants here was a coincidence?;)
Marco.
Yup, totally agree. And in terms of animals, do you think that some of the virus outbreaks in meat processing plants here was a coincidence?;)
Marco.
no, i think its possible that it is coming into them via skins etc. but it may be just that one or two folk have it and with the amount of shared equipment, working in close proximity and eating areas etc, that its being transferred that way too.. thats up to the investigators to find out; whether their bosses do anything about it though is debatable... the mighty dollar etc.
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2020/07/16/latest-weekly-covid-19-rates-for-local-authority-areas-in-englan/
For those in England, check your area to see the situation. Still a positive downward trend in most areas - even Leicester!:)
Marco.
no, i think its possible that it is coming into them via skins etc. but it may be just that one or two folk have it and with the amount of shared equipment, working in close proximity and eating areas etc, that its being transferred that way too.. thats up to the investigators to find out; whether their bosses do anything about it though is debatable... the mighty dollar etc.
Yes, that's also my suspicion, and I think it should be properly investigated, or otherwise we could see similar outbreaks in meat plants elsewhere in the UK.
Marco.
:DGot cold trying to get a photo.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200717/b2b5f0dffed3fa2b1f5a0959f2ad2e25.jpg
anthonyTD
17-07-2020, 10:34
Yummy!
I was out of crumpets this morning, had to have toast instead! :D
Got cold trying to get a photo.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200717/b2b5f0dffed3fa2b1f5a0959f2ad2e25.jpg
Yummy!
I was out of crumpets this morning, had to have toast instead! :DGot a 9 Pack yesterday. 59p I think.
It'll be muffins next time.
Yummy - crumpets with Marmite. :)
Letting the food getting cold whilst 'faffing' around taking photos is one of the reasons why I don't contribute much to the Lunch and Dinner thread. I'm far more interested in eating it.
That and the whole fetishistic aspect to it.
is that even a word? Probably not.
My mother was always obsessed with food being served on hot plates. 'Watch the plate, it's hot!' - and it would be, hot enough to take skin off. Don't know if that is just a working-class thing or not?
yup my gran did too, and mum. gran was worst, as you say burny..
i warm plates sometimes but not too much usually put them in hot water
Yes it is a valid adjective.
But I doubt if such fetishism extends to sitophilia or even nyotaimori!
There is nothing worse than eating hot food off a cold plate, or cold food (such as a salad) off a warm plate.
anthonyTD
17-07-2020, 13:04
Ohh, i am sure there's much worse! :eek:;)
There is nothing worse than eating hot food off a cold plate, or cold food (such as a salad) off a warm plate.
Yummy - crumpets with Marmite. :)
Letting the food getting cold whilst 'faffing' around taking photos is one of the reasons why I don't contribute much to the Lunch and Dinner thread. I'm far more interested in eating it.
Kind of defeats the point in having the thread then, doesn't it, if everyone else thought the same!;)
And if you knew how to use a smartphone properly, it'd take you seconds to take the pics, then once you've had your meal, upload and post them on the forum:ner:
How do you think I manage it - do you think I let my food go cold?:D Er, no...
Marco.
That and the whole fetishistic aspect to it.
Can't begin to think what you mean? Unless you're against, say, licking squirty cream off a girly's pert nipples?:D
Marco.
can't begin to think what you mean? Unless you're against, say, licking squirty cream off a girly's pert nipples?:d
marco.
tis what sqirty cream was invented for
Indeed ... You can also heat up kebab skewers on the BBQ, and use the tips of them on the same area, if she's into a little pain:eyebrows:
Marco,
indeed ... You can also heat up kebab skewers on the bbq, and use the tips of them on the same area, if she's into a little pain:eyebrows:
Marco,
or you can turn yourself into mr law and get whipped
Scottish numbers: 17 July 2020
17 new confirmed cases of COVID-19
0 new reported death(s) of people who have tested positive
.. a rise in cases again, although i think they may be a cluster if immigrant crop pickers mostly
or you can turn yourself into mr law and get whipped
:D
Marco.
Scottish numbers: 17 July 2020
17 new confirmed cases of COVID-19
0 new reported death(s) of people who have tested positive
.. a rise in cases again, although i think they may be a cluster if immigrant crop pickers mostly
As I've said before, cases aren't necessarily a problem (in moderation), especially with more testing happening; it's the deaths and/or new hospital admissions figures that matter most. Hope that Scotland continues to do well:)
Marco.
Mikeandvan
17-07-2020, 18:51
10 odd Million in furlough, with possibly half to lose their jobs in October when Sunak turns off the taps, we are screwed. I'm honestly scared, this puts Brexit, the financial crash of 2009 in the shade, the biggest change of my lifetime, and likely precursor to dark days ahead. The new normal is gonna result in jobs haemorrhaging, town centres dead, live music dead, this is fucking shite, i want my life back! Can't even get a decent coffee after 4pm anymore, every day is a bloody sunday.
But apart from that you're quite happy?:D
;)
Marco.
There is nothing worse than eating hot food off a cold plate, or cold food (such as a salad) off a warm plate.
Never eat a hot sausage roll with a cold glass of water.
Just gonnae no dae that?
Never eat a hot sausage roll with a cold glass of water.
Just gonnae no dae that?Lol.. I dae that.. [emoji23]
Can't begin to think what you mean? Unless you're against, say, licking squirty cream off a girly's pert nipples?:D
Marco.
Hence my reference to nyotaimori.
Lol - as a pre or post-coital canapé?
Afterwards could result in the presence of too much 'fish sauce'.
Marco.
https://youtu.be/d-E_x68cKqI
https://nationalfile.com/exposed-truth-fauci-birx-gates-elites/
As you say: "Believe what [or who] you want to believe..."
;)
Marco.
Just something to consider:)
Make sure you read it ALL though, very thoroughly, including related links to other articles therein, if you want to get a proper handle on where I'm coming from. There's tons more stuff out there like that too, if you know where to look...
Clue: well out with of the biased, corrupt and censoring mainstream media - and the Internet search engines paid to control [remove] such content!!
Marco.
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq90/924/KFo4ZK.jpg
Trump's thinking to himself: "Your coat's on a shoogly nail, ya sleekit, weasel-faced, corrupt little c*nt!"
;)
Marco.
Serving the last six President's since Reagan as the Country's top Public Health expert....
...vs Fox News.
I mean,
What?
Serving the last six President's since Reagan....
...whilst surreptitiously 'serving' the best interests of the elite;)
The interesting thing is that during Fauci's tenure, all said presidents since Reagan were an unmitigated disaster for world peace!
Some of Trump's behaviour certainly more than hints about him being the same, BUT - so far - he hasn't gone to a real war with anyone... Although we'll see what happens with China or Russia in due course, once this pandemic is over.
However, even the infamous 'Rocket Man' confrontations, whom Trump ended up 'befriending', didn't amount to anything. Whereas, Clinton, Bush and Obama all presided over some of the worst wars and human tragedies [9/11 in particular] the world has ever seen.
Coincidence? Not for me!:)
Marco.
...
However, even the infamous 'Rocket Man' confrontations, whom Trump ended up 'befriending', didn't amount to anything, whereas, Clinton, Bush and Obama were all intrinsically involved in some of the worst wars and human tragedies [9/11 in particular] the world has ever seen.
Coincidence? Not for me!:)
Marco.
But so did Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, T Roosevelt, Wilson, F D Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. Even Carter had the Iran thing. Ford didn't have a war. He's pretty much the only one of the last century I think. There's Eisenhower but he came in before the end of the Korean War, possibly doesn't count. But he and Ford were just lucky in the timing.
If you're the worlds policeman you're going to get into some wars lets face it. There's nothing special in that respect about Clinton, the Bushes and Obama.
Yeah I know, but I still stand by everything I said and fundamentally believe that Fauci is a 'wrong un'... IMO, he's a snake in the grass. A two-faced Gates puppet, with similar nefarious intent, and falsely portrayed by the establishment controlled US media as someone he isn't (a great guy), in order to service their agenda. It'll all come out in the wash in the end, just wait and see.
Plus that Trump will be proven differently, as a good guy for peace [despite some undoubted odious aspects of his personality] when his time at the White House is up, but which won't be for a while yet, as I firmly believe he'll win the forthcoming election and get a second term in office!
And *that* is when you'll see the REAL fruits of his labours, and some top-level 'baddies' bite the dust, trust me!;)
Marco.
I note that there has been a small increase in Scotland in new cases of Covid: https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2020/07/18/scotland-records-highest-daily-positive-coronavirus-cases-for-al/
Not exactly a lot in the grand scheme of things, but worthy of watching. This chart, however, pretty much illustrates the true nature of the situation [just how deadly this virus is for the vast majority of people], and why the Scottish population should, albeit cautiously, start getting back to some semblance of normality:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq90/922/M5Kpgd.png
2491 too many deaths, for sure, but a very small percentage out of a total population of nearly 5.5m... And, in terms of the prevalence of the virus now, out of 318,361 people tested, only 18,422 came back as positive, and still no further deaths in over a week.
Let's hope that that situation continues. Granty, you can safely get out and start living again, duly equipped with your sexy face shield!:D
Marco.
Light Dependant Resistor
19-07-2020, 07:20
Just something to consider:)
Make sure you read it ALL though, very thoroughly, including related links to other articles therein, if you want to get a proper handle on where I'm coming from. There's tons more stuff out there like that too, if you know where to look...
Clue: well out with of the biased, corrupt and censoring mainstream media - and the Internet search engines paid to control [remove] such content!!
Marco.
Like this from his own niece https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-19/donald-trump-attacks-niece-mary-trump-over-new-book/12470584
I read today that if someone has tested positive and then recovers (or never has any symptoms) and then they later die for other reasons, like a car crash for example, it will still be registered as a covid death.
if that's the case then the real death rate has to be considerably lower than the figures show.
Like this from his own niece https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-19/donald-trump-attacks-niece-mary-trump-over-new-book/12470584
Well, she's just being honest and highlighting his undoubtedly [I've certainly never denied them] unpleasant character traits, which I guess he objects to. However, that has zero to do with his ability as a president, or with him eradicating the influence or control of the elite.
Marco.
I read today that if someone has tested positive and then recovers (or never has any symptoms) and then they later die for other reasons, like a car crash for example, it will still be registered as a covid death.
if that's the case then the real death rate has to be considerably lower than the figures show.
Indeed, and what did I say at the very beginning of this discussion about the accuracy of the death figures?;)
Now you have to ask yourself what would be their motivation for deliberately inflating them?:hmm:
Marco.
Indeed, and what did I say at the very beginning of this discussion about the accuracy of the death figures?;)
Now you have to ask yourself what would be their motivation for deliberately inflating them?:hmm:
Marco.
None. They haven't deliberately inflated them. At some point someone - some department - was briefed and advised that it was their job to collate the death figures. And the method they chose was to check all deaths and see if the person who died had ever tested positive for C-19. If they had, they marked it down as a death from C-19.
Simple, straightforward, guaranteed not to miss anyone. Job done, figures delivered, let's get back to browsing the internet.
If you've ever worked for a big company or organisation that won't come as any surprise.
But the death figures *ARE* being inflated, because if you tested positive for Covid-19, then later died in a fatal car crash, the cause of death was [almost certainly] the car crash, NOT the virus!!:doh:
Therefore, that should NOT count as a Covid death. So, they've deliberately created that assessment criteria for data [i.e. what officially constitutes as a Covid death] to make the virus seem more deadly than it *actually* is, in order to instil fear in people, so they can impose restrictions and control the population accordingly. Simples!
Marco.
But the death figures *ARE* being inflated, because if you tested positive for Covid-19, then later died in a fatal car crash, the cause of death was [almost certainly] the car crash, NOT the virus!!:doh:
Therefore, that should NOT count as a Covid death. So, they've deliberately created that assessment criteria for data [i.e. what officially constitutes as a Covid death] to make the virus seem more deadly than it *actually* is, in order to instil fear in people, so they can impose restrictions and control the population accordingly. Simples!
Marco.
Yes it would seem they are inflated figures but your conclusion that it is deliberate is unlikely. Laziness and incompetence far more likely. Cock-up, not conspiracy.
Yes it would seem they are inflated figures but your conclusion that it is deliberate is unlikely. Laziness and incompetence far more likely. Cock-up, not conspiracy.
In your opinion... Mine is rather different!:)
Marco.
its more if it was mentioned on the death certificate i think... doesnt mean it caused deat or for that matter that the person had it. Thats why the list that is just for covid deaths is probably the more accurate, or somewhere inbetween
Yup, and therefore the ONLY one we should be paying any attention to!
It's no wonder though that even 'strict Nicola' has opened up pretty much everything again, based on the near-absence now of the virus in Scotland, and it will be that way soon, throughout the rest of the UK, trust me.
Marco.
In your opinion... Mine is rather different!:)
Marco.
I said unlikely, not impossible. This sort of thing happens all the time in big organizations.
What is certainly true is that when they wanted everyone to stay at home they were happy to have figures that inflated the death rate, now they want everyone back out and working and spending they are reviewing them.
We're in agreement there, but it's just different ways of controlling people to further an agenda, and we can then argue as to what that agenda might be.
The point being however, is that you can't trust a word that comes out of the mouths of this government, and so everyone should be aware of that and treat them with the necessary contempt.
Marco.
You can't 'trust' any government because it's an organization and will always have its own agendas, both internal and external. And any large organization will make a bucketload of mistakes and errors every day of the week.
I don't actually see the rationality in 'trusting' a government anyway. I mean you lend a friend £100 you 'trust' him to pay you back, or you leave him alone with your bird you 'trust' him not to try it on, but that concept doesn't scale up from the individual level. With an organization you're dealing with a system, not an individual. 'Trust' doesn't come into it.
Absolutely, and that's always been not only your position, but mine. I trust no c*nt, except for my wife, close friends and family.
However, some folk [the majority of the general public] DO like to trust the government and actually *believe* in the veracity of the shite that trips off of their tongue, and more worryingly, have some cosy notion that ultimately they have their best interests at heart, which is why they dislike anything which dispels that comforting illusion!:doh:
There's no doubt, however, that bumbling Boris and the Tories have largely made a total arse out of dealing with this pandemic, and that heads will roll when it's time for them to be accountable for it!
Marco.
There's no doubt, however, that bumbling Boris and the Tories have largely made a total arse out of dealing with this pandemic, and that heads will roll when it's time for them to be accountable for it!
Marco.
So what do you think they could have done differently, leaving aside the benefit of hindsight? If it has been a Labour government with Corbyn as PM for example?
I seem to recall you saying the same thing at the time of the Grenfall Tower incident. I said at the time that it would not have any impact and since then the Tories have won two General Elections, the second one with a large majority.
pointless question a corbyn was never going to be pm... even if he cheated he'd have cheated the wrong way:D
Light Dependant Resistor
19-07-2020, 10:07
Well, she's just being honest and highlighting his undoubtedly [I've certainly never denied them] unpleasant character traits, which I guess he objects to. However, that has zero to do with his ability as a president, or with him eradicating the influence or control of the elite.
Marco.
To the contrary it has everything to do with his ability as a president, as he has zero empathy for anyone except himself. As she describes, he is "utterly incapable" of leading the country"
Well, Chris, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one:)
Marco.
pointless question a corbyn was never going to be pm... even if he cheated he'd have cheated the wrong way:D
Not a pointless question - if you're going to argue that the current government handled things badly then you should be able to explain how a different government would have done things differently - and without the benefit of hindsight.
Given they would have the same scientific and medical advice, and given that governments will almost always run with that advice since a) it's probably better to do that than do something random, and b) if it all goes wrong they have the get-out of saying 'Well, we listened to the expert advice and acted accordingly, it's not out fault.' ( See also - Iraq, weapons of mass destruction report).
So it is highly unlikely that the crisis would have been handled differently in any consequential way regardless of the government of the day. I suspect most people who don't have some party-political axe to grind see it that way.
pointless question a corbyn was never going to be pm... even if he cheated he'd have cheated the wrong way:D
Indeed... If ever the leader of a party was more unfairly maligned by the biased, establishment-controlled UK media, to further their election agenda [smear the 'anti-semite' at all costs, to ensure that their preferred chinless wonder won instead], I've yet to see it! And Corbyn, although far from perfect, was a major victim of that.
Can you see the parallels though, in that respect, between him and Trump? Both were/are staunchly anti-establishment and have been/are victims of establishment-controlled media smear campaigns. Strange that, innit?
Notwithstanding of course the fact that they're polar opposites, in terms of people. And I know that Trump's (often idiotic) behaviour lends himself rather easily to being smeared!:doh:
Martin, I'll to you in a mo:)
Marco.
Not a pointless question - if you're going to argue that the current government handled things badly then you should be able to explain how a different government would have done things differently - and without the benefit of hindsight.
Given they would have the same scientific and medical advice, and given that governments will almost always run with that advice since a) it's probably better to do that than do something random, and b) if it all goes wrong they have the get-out of saying 'Well, we listened to the expert advice and acted accordingly, it's not out fault.' ( See also - Iraq, weapons of mass destruction report).
So it is highly unlikely that the crisis would have been handled differently in any consequential way regardless of the government of the day. I suspect most people who don't have some party-political axe to grind see it that way.
well scientific theory varies with the scientists you ask, or they asked.. then there is how totally unprepared they were even though they not only had warning about this one but had warnings over several years but steadfastly reduced out readiness and out stockpiles.. the list kinda goes on.
To the contrary it has everything to do with his ability as a president, as he has zero empathy for anyone except himself. As she describes, he is "utterly incapable" of leading the country"
It isn't the role, nor is it within the powers of the US President to 'Lead the country'. Read up on Article 2 of the Constitution.
well scientific theory varies with the scientists you ask, or they asked.. then there is how totally unprepared they were even though they not only had warning about this one but had warnings over several years but steadfastly reduced out readiness and out stockpiles.. the list kinda goes on.
Well the government has official advisors and they are the people who make the recommendations. They make those recommendations after consulting with other specialists in the various fields involved.
They then report to the Cabinet and PM and offer their predictions, and the various options for action to be taken, and the predicted consequences thereof. No doubt there will be some disagreement amongst the specialists, but the government is not involved in that. They just make decisions based on the final report and the options presented within.
Really if you are looking for a government to blame that surely must be the Chinese. They were warned that wet markets would potentially allow development and spread of such a virus and did nothing. There was nothing that any other nation could do to force the Chinese to take action with regards to that. Added to which governments and organisations - and individuals - tend to be pre-occupied with dealing with the existing problems at hand, not concentrating on preventing or preparing for things that might never happen.
if you're suggesting that a different government would have stockpiled PPE and gone to further lengths as a hedge against a virus maybe happening one day then I have to say I think that is pretty far-fetched. The only governments in the entire world that did this were a handful of Asian nations that had been affected by SARS over a decade ago. And even they had not prepared substantially.
So what do you think they could have done differently, leaving aside the benefit of hindsight? If it has been a Labour government with Corbyn as PM for example?
Well, for starters, whatever you thought of Corbyn, he was, first and foremost, a humanitarian, and the main reason why I voted for him, plus also as an attempt to keep the bigoted anti-Scottish Etonian out, who is utterly devoid of the even the most tenuous grasp of what REAL life is like, or the needs of/what's important to the common man.
Therefore, what Corbyn would've almost certainly done, at the very outset of this pandemic, when it became clear who this virus was killing most [the old and infirm], is concentrated FIRST and FOREMOST on protecting THEM, rather than as usual [as indeed happened in the Grenfell Tower disaster where ordinary people were treated worse than dogs, and victims of typical of Tory policies/priorities], treating them as second-class citizens, and worse, virtually as canon fodder for this virus!
So, to answer your question, it's the UTTERLY SHAMEFUL and SHAMBOLIC way that the care-home situation has been handled during this pandemic [and I don't care WHO was directly responsible for some of the awful decisions made there; as PM and leader of the country, ultimately it's BJ-boy who is to blame/carry the can], and the largely unnecessary and tragic loss of lives there, which have contributed significantly to the overall UK death toll figures.
In that respect. I hear that many relatives of the deceased in care homes will now be suing Hapless Hancock for criminal negligence, and I sincerely hope they take the fucker for every penny he's got! And once a proper enquiry is conducted into other aspects of government negligence during this pandemic, plenty more heads will rightly roll. Starmer is a very able PM in waiting!
Ok, I've got the old man coming round for lunch, so I'll have to shoot off now and help Del prepare... Much laters!:cool:
Marco.
Well, for starters, whatever you thought of Corbyn, he was, first and foremost, a humanitarian, and the main reason why I voted for him, plus also as an attempt to keep the bigoted anti-Scottish Etonian out, who is utterly devoid of the even the most tenuous grasp of what REAL life is like, or the needs of/what's important to the common man.
Well fair enough except this bit, I would point out that Corbyn is from a wealthy background, went to the same prep school as Boris, was privately educated through his entire school years and then went straight into politics, so he clearly has no grasp whatsoever of what 'real life' is like. The difference being that unlike Boris who passed his A levels and went on to Oxford to read Classical Philosophy, Corbyn failed his despite the fancy schooling.
I don't actually think either man has a grasp of what 'real life' is like, but then that's true of the vast majority of politicians and indeed the well-off middle-classes in general.
The idea that people will be able to successfully sue Hancock or any other member of the government is absurd. None of what you predict there will happen, just as it didn't with Grenfell.
Light Dependant Resistor
19-07-2020, 11:01
Well, Chris, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one:)
Marco.
Accepted.... but lets briefly look at the condition.
IMO having knowledge into narcissism is much better than not having such insight. A very safe and fun demo here, explains how to spot the narcissist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6xU_CPE310
Accepted.... but lets briefly look at the condition.
IMO having knowledge into narcissism is much better than not having such insight. A very safe and fun demo here, explains how to spot the narcissist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6xU_CPE310
I wasn't saying that Trump doesn't sometimes (or even often) display narcissistic behaviour, as clearly he does, but rather I don't believe that he has no empathy whatsoever for his people.
If I genuinely thought that, then I wouldn't support him in any way - and indeed he wouldn't be doing what IMO he's doing now (attempting to dismantle and eradicate the controlling global elite), and make his country (and the world) a better, fairer and safer place, if he was incapable of empathy.
Martin, I'll get to your last post after lunch! It's a beautiful day here, so we'll be enjoying a leisurely (and no doubt boozy) lunch, al fresco!:cheers:
Marco.
Light Dependant Resistor
19-07-2020, 13:16
I wasn't saying that Trump doesn't sometimes (or even often) display narcissistic behaviour, as clearly he does, but rather I don't believe that he has no empathy whatsoever for his people.
If I genuinely thought that, then I wouldn't support him in any way - and indeed he wouldn't be doing what IMO he's doing now (attempting to dismantle and eradicate the controlling global elite), and make his country (and the world) a better, fairer and safer place, if he was incapable of empathy.
Martin, I'll get to your last post after lunch! It's a beautiful day here, so we'll be enjoying a leisurely (and no doubt boozy) lunch, al fresco!:cheers:
Marco.
Well he is NOT attempting to dismantle and eradicate the controlling global elite, rather the exact opposite. The evidence is seen in the many societal divisive issues the American Civil Liberties Union is dealing with, all which are contrary to the intent of the American constitution. https://www.aclu.org/ He is also representing a political party with every intention of global elitism.
I wasn't saying that Trump doesn't sometimes (or even often) display narcissistic behaviour, as clearly he does, but rather I don't believe that he has no empathy whatsoever for his people.
If I genuinely thought that, then I wouldn't support him in any way - and indeed he wouldn't be doing what IMO he's doing now (attempting to dismantle and eradicate the controlling global elite), and make his country (and the world) a better, fairer and safer place, if he was incapable of empathy.
Martin, I'll get to your last post after lunch! It's a beautiful day here, so we'll be enjoying a leisurely (and no doubt boozy) lunch, al fresco!:cheers:
Marco.
What the actual Hell do you base that on?
Seriously man, have a think.
5 examples please if you can, of where Trump has demonstrated wanting to make America fairer and safer.
Seriously,
are you basing your View on?
The President of the United States is an ignorant, babbling, gibbering, racist, cognitively impaired sociopath.
You don’t see that?
In your humble opinion, and TBH, that was a rather arrogant and intolerant way of addressing me [like I'm some ignorant school kid who needs 'educating'], but I'll let it slide this time. You really need to learn to accept the fact that others are entitled to think differently from you about Trump, and still be 'right', and tolerate their opinion accordingly, without getting all uppity.
So... There's really no point in arguing with you on that subject, because all we'll end up doing it falling out [as we're poles apart in our views], so let's just agree from now on that when the subject of Trump comes up, we'll just ignore each other. Otherwise, I'm afraid we're destined to fallout, and I wouldn't want that.
Deal?:)
Marco.
Well he is NOT attempting to dismantle and eradicate the controlling global elite, rather the exact opposite.
Sorry, Chris, not my view either, based on what I've observed. So again I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree:)
Marco.
Mikeandvan
19-07-2020, 21:43
Well, for starters, whatever you thought of Corbyn, he was, first and foremost, a humanitarian, and the main reason why I voted for him, plus also as an attempt to keep the bigoted anti-Scottish Etonian out, who is utterly devoid of the even the most tenuous grasp of what REAL life is like, or the needs of/what's important to the common man.
Therefore, what Corbyn would've almost certainly done, at the very outset of this pandemic, when it became clear who this virus was killing most [the old and infirm], is concentrated FIRST and FOREMOST on protecting THEM, rather than as usual [as indeed happened in the Grenfell Tower disaster where ordinary people were treated worse than dogs, and victims of typical of Tory policies/priorities], treating them as second-class citizens, and worse, virtually as canon fodder for this virus!
So, to answer your question, it's the UTTERLY SHAMEFUL and SHAMBOLIC way that the care-home situation has been handled during this pandemic [and I don't care WHO was directly responsible for some of the awful decisions made there; as PM and leader of the country, ultimately it's BJ-boy who is to blame/carry the can], and the largely unnecessary and tragic loss of lives there, which have contributed significantly to the overall UK death toll figures.
In that respect. I hear that many relatives of the deceased in care homes will now be suing Hapless Hancock for criminal negligence, and I sincerely hope they take the fucker for every penny he's got! And once a proper enquiry is conducted into other aspects of government negligence during this pandemic, plenty more heads will rightly roll. Starmer is a very able PM in waiting!
Ok, I've got the old man coming round for lunch, so I'll have to shoot off now and help Del prepare... Much laters!:cool:
Marco.
Trouble with voting Corbyn is you get all his Momentum mates in top positions, and Corbyn promised to nationalise the internet, so it would have been 1984 made true, really, look at it now its bad enough, with the 'woke' Stasi in power can you imagine? That is the main reason I didn;t vote Labour, under Corbyn they were well on the wrong side of the culture wars. My mother is currently in a nursing home with many Covid 19 deaths, she has been moved to hospital for her own safety, she tested negative. It seems many of the deaths are in nursing homes, so with relatives been banned the virus must have been carried by staff, symptomless i take it? This can only mean the virus is rife amongst the general population, and that it is really only very old people who must be protected. I think the general lockdown is the wrong route, the old only need protecting, and i don't even mean healthy old either, those over 70 with existing health problems. I see many 70+ year olds in fine shape.
Well fair enough except this bit, I would point out that Corbyn is from a wealthy background, went to the same prep school as Boris, was privately educated through his entire school years and then went straight into politics, so he clearly has no grasp whatsoever of what 'real life' is like. The difference being that unlike Boris who passed his A levels and went on to Oxford to read Classical Philosophy, Corbyn failed his despite the fancy schooling.
So you agree that the government's handling of the care-home situation during this pandemic has been nothing short of shambolic; indeed more like catastrophic?
And in terms of BJ, being more successful academically doesn't necessarily make you a better person, or indeed a better PM. I'd certainly say that BJ has managed rather well to hide his 'superior intellect', based on some of his decision making throughout this pandemic, and also in the House of Commons, where Starmer's regularly taken the piss out of him, by highlighting his deficiencies and exposing his flawed policies.
For me, Corbyn always came across as much more of a 'people person' and humanitarian than BJ, and also more in touch with the working man, even though his background might not reflect that, plus someone who's always sought a fairer and more just society, something that always endeared him to me. I also admired him for being a pacifist, with his many years of campaigning with CND for nuclear disarmament, peace and human rights: https://cnduk.org/cnd-vice-president-jeremy-corbyn-wins-macbride-peace-prize-2017/
That type of work, and his subsequent achievements in that area, will always gain my respect far more than that of any bigoted anti-Scottish hooray henry, who's really only interested in looking after the best interests of the rich, and England, primarily London, frequently showing scant disregard for the rest of the UK - and nothing he's done since he's become PM has changed my mind in that respect; indeed only reinforced it further!
I don't actually think either man has a grasp of what 'real life' is like, but then that's true of the vast majority of politicians...
Indeed. Why do you think I generally dislike politics? Not only because it's largely corrupt, but because rarely, if ever, are any of the main parties led by someone 'in the game' for the RIGHT reasons: to make the country a better place to live in for the vast majority of its citizens, rather than a select few, and to prioritise public welfare over 'big business' and create a fairer and more equal division of wealth. It's not only ridiculous, but deeply shameful, that in 2020 the UK has so many homeless people, while billionaires strut around in their Bentleys.
Instead, the main political parties are usually led by some self-serving prick (and BJ is a prime example) with a giant ego, who's only interested in making a name for himself (or herself), often for all the wrong reasons, and simply looking after their OWN selfish best interests, and those whom they represent, rather than the best interests of the country as a whole.
Interestingly, you often find that the best politicians (those in it for the RIGHT reasons, rather than simply self-interest) are often found either leading or representing the smaller regional parties, such as Plaid Cmyru, and the not so small ones now, such as SNP. Leanne Wood (and now Adam Price) have always come across to me as much more grounded and human than pretty much any leaders of the main parties, and that certainly applies to Nicola Surgeon, who IMO would make a superb PM, but of course that will never happen.
Look how well she's handled the Coronavirus outbreak in Scotland, with the country now reaping the rewards accordingly, ditto Mark Drakeford, in Wales, again who frequently comes across as a very grounded, sincere and humane person, and someone who's determined to make decisions that are in the best interests of the people of Wales, regardless of what blundering Boris has decided for England. The bullshit mandatory 'face coverings' situation being a case in point. Marky-boy's sticking to his guns, by refusing to introduce it in Wales - and rightly so!
The idea that people will be able to successfully sue Hancock or any other member of the government is absurd. None of what you predict there will happen, just as it didn't with Grenfell.
I'm talking solely about the families of the deceased in care homes, as a result of the government's negligence in that respect in dealing with the virus, and in particular Hancock. And it would appear that there are grounds for them to sue him (see here: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/matt-hancock-sued-care-home-coronavirus-083019422.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAN2N9trsvOyDnFpirDxpJsJHtbuS 7aEGE2oItIjgdSCHv572jD5u3x4a4IXbYv2WoH0EYodbl85_wL 2QG8YZLUf7wcxQBoV0jytjwqwVuKQ3BTESqh0ws7ZrnZigq9Lj-noxCzXKQH6heBOIkNbESMAP1d8VNcYn2eabU3QKSDhY) so I wish them the best of luck - he should certainly be made to pay for his incompetence, one way or another!
Marco.
InThe Sticks
20-07-2020, 06:25
I'm sure i read that the percentage of care home deaths was far higher in Scotland than the UK?
Now leaving for work, but if someone can look the numbers up i'd be grateful.
Mind you, after the PHE cock up of reporting deaths of someone who had CV19 in say April, then dies of an heart attack in July and the on the death report it goes down as CV19 isn't particularly useful.
So you agree that the government's handling of the care-home situation during this pandemic has been nothing short of shambolic; indeed more like catastrophic?
And in terms of BJ, being more successful academically doesn't necessarily make you a better person, or indeed a better PM. I'd certainly say that BJ has managed rather well to hide his 'superior intellect', based on some of his decision making throughout this pandemic, and also in the House of Commons, where Starmer's regularly taken the piss out of him, by highlighting his deficiencies and exposing his flawed policies.
For me, Corbyn always came across as much more of a 'people person' and humanitarian than BJ, and also more in touch with the working man, even though his background might not reflect that, plus someone who's always sought a fairer and more just society, something that always endeared him to me. I also admired him for being a pacifist, with his many years of campaigning with CND for nuclear disarmament, peace and human rights: https://cnduk.org/cnd-vice-president-jeremy-corbyn-wins-macbride-peace-prize-2017/
That type of work, and his subsequent achievements in that area, will always gain my respect far more than that of any bigoted anti-Scottish hooray henry, who's really only interested in looking after the best interests of the rich, and England, primarily London, frequently showing scant disregard for the rest of the UK - and nothing he's done since he's become PM has changed my mind in that respect; indeed only reinforced it further!
Indeed. Why do you think I generally dislike politics? Not only because it's largely corrupt, but because rarely, if ever, are any of the main parties led by someone 'in the game' for the RIGHT reasons: to make the country a better place to live in for the vast majority of its citizens, rather than a select few, and to prioritise public welfare over 'big business' and create a fairer and more equal division of wealth. It's not only ridiculous, but deeply shameful, that in 2020 the UK has so many homeless people, while billionaires strut around in their Bentleys.
Instead, the main political parties are usually led by some self-serving prick (and BJ is a prime example) with a giant ego, who's only interested in making a name for himself (or herself), often for all the wrong reasons, and simply looking after their OWN selfish best interests, and those whom they represent, rather than the best interests of the country as a whole.
Interestingly, you often find that the best politicians (those in it for the RIGHT reasons, rather than simply self-interest) are often found either leading or representing the smaller regional parties, such as Plaid Cmyru, and the not so small ones now, such as SNP. Leanne Wood (and now Adam Price) have always come across to me as much more grounded and human than pretty much any leaders of the main parties, and that certainly applies to Nicola Surgeon, who IMO would make a superb PM, but of course that will never happen.
Look how well she's handled the Coronavirus outbreak in Scotland, with the country now reaping the rewards accordingly, ditto Mark Drakeford, in Wales, again who frequently comes across as a very grounded, sincere and humane person, and someone who's determined to make decisions that are in the best interests of the people of Wales, regardless of what blundering Boris has decided for England. The bullshit mandatory 'face coverings' situation being a case in point. Marky-boy's sticking to his guns, by refusing to introduce it in Wales - and rightly so!
I'm talking solely about the families of the deceased in care homes, as a result of the government's negligence in that respect in dealing with the virus, and in particular Hancock. And it would appear that there are grounds for them to sue him (see here: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/matt-hancock-sued-care-home-coronavirus-083019422.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAN2N9trsvOyDnFpirDxpJsJHtbuS 7aEGE2oItIjgdSCHv572jD5u3x4a4IXbYv2WoH0EYodbl85_wL 2QG8YZLUf7wcxQBoV0jytjwqwVuKQ3BTESqh0ws7ZrnZigq9Lj-noxCzXKQH6heBOIkNbESMAP1d8VNcYn2eabU3QKSDhY) so I wish them the best of luck - he should certainly be made to pay for his incompetence, one way or another!
Marco.
I think Corbyn's heart was in the right place but I also think he was desperately naïve. pretty much the typical socialist. Not enough understanding of history, politics, economics. 'Talking to terrorists'. Supporting CND. I watched him give a public speech once and he started well enough but quickly got into the realms of fantasy. Above all he struck me as one of those people who takes himself deadly seriously. There used to be a lot of them round here, you'd hope they didn't come over to chat with you when you were in the pub. Boring, pious twats.
Don't agree with your assessment of Sturgeon. Talks a good talk but IMO she's all hot air and no substance.
re the care homes most care homes are privately run. Those run by the NHS have highly paid NHS management who should have been covering the bases, not leaving it to politicians. That's assuming that there was in fact some sort of cock-up which is still up in air as far as I'm concerned. Lots of people die in care homes because they are full of very old and sick people. I'll look at all the facts first before throwing stones and we don't have them yet.
As Macca said, most care homes are privately run. They are there to make a profit - I think it is wrong to say that the government is responsible for their not having prepared for Covid with enough PPE. As a private business' they have decided how to use/invest their funds.
After several falls and admissions to hospital, my mother was placed in a care home by the local NHS - the NHS rents a corridor of a local care home, mainly for dementia patients once they are considered "well enough" to be taken off ward.
I was not impressed by many aspects of the care home, and was very relieved to be able to negotiate a care package which allowed my mum to return home and receive regular care visits.
I think that I was very lucky to have my mum living next door; I took early retirement to be on hand and carers gave me welcome breaks. At least my mum died peacefully in her own bed.
I have told both my daughters that should I get to the same stage as my mum, I want to be taken outside and shot rather than being placed in a grubby, noisy bedlam commonly known as a "care home"
If people think that having paid taxes for all of their lives people should be entitled to have free, professional care when they need it (in the true meaning of the word - not "for profit" ), then yes, I would agree.
To blame any one political party for the current mess of profit driven "care homes" is ridiculous, this situation has existed through Conservative, Labour and coalition governments.
Apologies for the rant, I still feel very pissed off/angry.
I think Corbyn's heart was in the right place but I also think he was desperately naïve. pretty much the typical socialist. Not enough understanding of history, politics, economics. 'Talking to terrorists'. Supporting CND. I watched him give a public speech once and he started well enough but quickly got into the realms of fantasy. Above all he struck me as one of those people who takes himself deadly seriously. There used to be a lot of them round here, you'd hope they didn't come over to chat with you when you were in the pub. Boring, pious twats.
Perhaps, but I'd still take someone who's heart was in the right place, and was genuinely a people person/humanitarian, than someone whom I thought was the opposite... And I'd forgive the former a lot for simply having those core humane traits.
Unfortunately, for the reasons you've said, you never (or rarely) get someone as PM who's come from an educated, but ordinary working-class background, and who's genuinely in touch with the 'real world', which is why our country always ends up being run in favour of prioritising greed-for-gold 'money men', rather than improving public welfare - and it's a fatal flaw in not only our political system, but our social one.
I'm no rampant socialist, as you well know, but for years now the UK has (for various reasons) become WAY, WAY too capitalist, to the detriment of the vast majority of its citizens, and it's time we had someone in Downing Street who's drive and focus was more on what was best for the common man, in order (even just a little) to redress that balance.
Don't agree with your assessment of Sturgeon. Talks a good talk but IMO she's all hot air and no substance.
Didn't think you would, but I guess you wouldn't be surprised either if I said that Boris Johnson was a much bigger bag of wind!;)
Of course on that point we fundamentally disagree, and certainly on the potential efficacy of NS as a PM. In my view, she'd be just the type to fit what I've outlined above and a give a kick up the backside to Britain, and create a fairer and more equal division of wealth in this country. *That* is fundamentally what I want for not only the UK, but society as a whole: LESS GREED and MORE EQUALITY, at ALL levels, not just financially.
BUT we need someone's ass sitting in Downing Street who's in politics for the RIGHT reasons: to genuinely make a difference for the better, for the majority of people and the country as a WHOLE, north to south, east to west [not just bloody LONDON and the home counties:rolleyes:], rather than simply serving their own self-interests, or those of a similar social class!
Marco.
As Macca said, most care homes are privately run. They are there to make a profit - I think it is wrong to say that the government is responsible for their not having prepared for Covid with enough PPE. As a private business' they have decided how to use/invest their funds.
After several falls and admissions to hospital, my mother was placed in a care home by the local NHS - the NHS rents a corridor of a local care home, mainly for dementia patients once they are considered "well enough" to be taken off ward.
I was not impressed by many aspects of the care home, and was very relieved to be able to negotiate a care package which allowed my mum to return home and receive regular care visits.
I think that I was very lucky to have my mum living next door; I took early retirement to be on hand and carers gave me welcome breaks. At least my mum died peacefully in her own bed.
I have told both my daughters that should I get to the same stage as my mum, I want to be taken outside and shot rather than being placed in a grubby, noisy bedlam commonly known as a "care home"
If people think that having paid taxes for all of their lives people should be entitled to have free, professional care when they need it (in the true meaning of the word - not "for profit" ), then yes, I would agree.
To blame any one political party for the current mess of profit driven "care homes" is ridiculous, this situation has existed through Conservative, Labour and coalition governments.
Apologies for the rant, I still feel very pissed off/angry.
I do agree, Guy, but I still think that this government have been negligent in their handling of the care-home situation during this pandemic, simply as a result of not protecting the vulnerable SOONER, much better than they did, as soon as they knew that old people were among the most likely of succumbing to this virus.
They simply fanny-arsed around for too long, cumulatively making careless [ultimately bad] decisions and callously neglecting the genuinely needy, and which ultimately caused the parents of many people in homes (and elsewhere), who previously were perfectly well, to sadly lose their lives. Yes, not all old folks who died were weak and frail! Many were (for their age) perfectly healthy before this virus hit us.
And that's why some of the bereaved families involved feel so strongly about it, to the point of seeking justice through legal channels, and suing Hancock for criminal negligence [he's the 'head honcho', in that respect, and so, along with BJ, ultimately carries the can] - and I sincerely hope that they get it.
Marco.
InThe Sticks
20-07-2020, 11:07
Genuine question..
What are your thoughts on how the Scottish government handled the situation?
walpurgis
20-07-2020, 11:18
Genuine question..
What are your thoughts on how the Scottish government handled the situation?
Well it looked more measured and better organised than the English pandemic pandemonium, but they had the benefit of a degree of third party hindsight following events here.
Perhaps, but I'd still take someone who's heart was in the right place, and was genuinely a people person/humanitarian, than someone whom I thought was the opposite... And I'd forgive the former a lot for simply having those core humane traits.
Unfortunately, for the reasons you've said, you never (or rarely) get someone as PM who's come from an educated, but ordinary working-class background, and who's genuinely in touch with the 'real world', which is why our country always ends up being run in favour of prioritising greed-for-gold 'money men', rather than improving public welfare - and it's a fatal flaw in not only our political system, but our social one.
I'm no rampant socialist, as you well know, but for years now the UK has (for various reasons) become WAY, WAY too capitalist, to the detriment of the vast majority of its citizens, and it's time we had someone in Downing Street who's drive and focus was more on what was best for the common man, in order (even just a little) to redress that balance.
Didn't think you would, but I guess you wouldn't be surprised either if I said that Boris Johnson was a much bigger bag of wind!;)
Of course on that point we fundamentally disagree, and certainly on the potential efficacy of NS as a PM. In my view, she'd be just the type to fit what I've outlined above and a give a kick up the backside to Britain, and create a fairer and more equal division of wealth in this country. *That* is fundamentally what I want for not only the UK, but society as a whole: LESS GREED and MORE EQUALITY, at ALL levels, not just financially.
BUT we need someone's ass sitting in Downing Street who's in politics for the RIGHT reasons: to genuinely make a difference for the better, for the majority of people and the country as a WHOLE, north to south, east to west [not just bloody LONDON and the home counties:rolleyes:], rather than simply serving their own self-interests, or those of a similar social class!
Marco.
Broadly, and as an 'ordinary working man', I agree. I just don't think that socialism is the answer. Or any ideology for that matter. Implementing an ideology creates far more problems than it solves. And it's always the ordinary working man that gets it in the ass.
A far more subtle, complex and considered approach is necessary to achieve those goals. We won't ever get it though, for a host of reasons. Better to accept and learn to deal with what we have, which could be a lot, lot worse than it is.
Well it looked more measured and better organised than the English pandemic pandemonium, but they had the benefit of a degree of third party hindsight following events here.
Yup, exactly my thoughts too - and by no accident either! Ditto how it's been handled in Wales:)
Marco.
InThe Sticks
20-07-2020, 11:28
Well it looked more measured and better organised than the English pandemic pandemonium, but they had the benefit of a degree of third party hindsight following events here.
Yes, very true.
This quote from Richard Leonard seems a worry though..
“The stark disparity in the proportion of coronavirus deaths in care homes between Scotland and England poses very serious questions over the Scottish Government’s approach to this pandemic”
It would be interesting to see some *accurate data* for that, rather than what appears on the surface to be pro-Tory/anti-Scotland clickbait, designed to save face for what's happened in England.
Marco.
InThe Sticks
20-07-2020, 12:12
It would be interesting to see some *accurate data* for that, rather than what appears on the surface to be pro-Tory/anti-Scotland clickbait, designed to save face for what's happened in England.
Marco.
Couldn’t agree more on the data.
I don’t somehow think Richard Leonard is pro-Tory or anti Scotland though considering his current job.
Fair enough, but it's simply supposition, until we're presented with some hard facts. Plus, as I'm sure I don't need to tell you, these things are rife with multiple variables, and which need proper analysing and consideration before any definitive conclusions can be reached.
Marco.
Fair enough, but it's simply supposition, until we're presented with some hard facts. Plus, as I'm sure I don't need to tell you, these things are rife with multiple variables, and which need proper analysing and consideration before any definitive conclusions can be reached.
Marco.
The same applies to the English care home situation then surely?
InThe Sticks
20-07-2020, 12:34
The same applies to the English care home situation then surely?
Of course, I doubt anyone would argue that.
Will be interesting to see what comes from PHE when or if they adjust their figures.
I know the Gov are looking into their rather odd reporting.
The same applies to the English care home situation then surely?
Yes of course, but that doesn't preclude one from drawing what, on the surface, appear to be reasonable conclusions. Plus, as far as Scotland is concerned, I'm also talking about in general how the whole pandemic was handled by Nicola Sturgeon, not just the care-home situation.
I'll get to your earlier post in a mo:)
Marco.
Mikeandvan
20-07-2020, 22:12
The government only really had one job, to keep this out of hospitals and care homes, it failed. Its a real shame Boris got to be PM cos it gives the twatty 'blame the Tories for everything' mob plenty of ammo. Really, I read posts by Tories and right wingers in general who think the guy is just in it for himself. The leadership should have gone to Gove.
walpurgis
20-07-2020, 22:26
The leadership should have gone to Gove.
Ugh. There's something wrong about him, something that seems slimy and 'odd' to me. And he reminds me of Heinrich Himmler!
Of course Johnson is only in it for himself, that has been his ambition and goal since he left Eton. But none of Cabinet would, IMO, be any better as PM.
Only major politician that I can think of who wasn't in it for themselves was Michael Foot - and he was treated appallingly by the press
anthonyTD
21-07-2020, 08:49
Indeed!
Ugh. There's something wrong about him, something that seems slimy and 'odd' to me. And he reminds me of Heinrich Himmler!
ive been thinking:eek:
maybe we should have more state intervention in society.. when folk misbehave they should be grabbed and tortured;)
ive been thinking:eek:
maybe we should have more state intervention in society.. when folk misbehave they should be grabbed and tortured;)
When I watch those TV programs where they show police helicopters and cars chasing some thief/kid in a stolen car (driving the wrong way up roads or doing 60mph through a built up area) I have the same thought.
hifi_dave
22-07-2020, 09:41
What winds me up is that after the Police have gone to all the trouble of catching the perps, the sentences are derisory.
walpurgis
22-07-2020, 09:49
Yes. They should be shot on the spot. No trial, no nonsense like appeals, just rid the world of lowlifes! :lol:
indeed, its time decent folk hit back against the scum. whats the point of a law enforcement that is made toothless by courts and lawyers
HD Goofnut
22-07-2020, 10:19
ive been thinking:eek:
maybe we should have more state intervention in society.. when folk misbehave they should be grabbed and tortured;)
Like China?
nope not like china... like britain used to be. break the law and get punished properly, not this slap on wrist stuff.
walpurgis
22-07-2020, 10:57
Bring back the Workhouse and Treadmill. A good flogging here and there wouldn't hurt (well actually, it would need to :)). Pillories and Stocks were a popular option too! :eek:
Beobloke
22-07-2020, 12:34
Bring back the Workhouse and Treadmill. A good flogging here and there wouldn't hurt (well actually, it would need to :)). Pillories and Stocks were a popular option too! :eek:
I still like Jeremy Clarkson’s idea of a public flogging session for miscreants in the centre of the pitch before major football games!
walpurgis
22-07-2020, 12:42
I still like Jeremy Clarkson’s idea of a public flogging session for miscreants in the centre of the pitch before major football games!
The Saudi version with beheadings in the public square could also be considered.
no need for brutalising... just a little psychologial torture should do job.. we are not in the dark ages; we are not the "Spanish Inquisition"
https://ehkern.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/python.jpg?w=250
they never expect the spanish inquisition
anthonyTD
23-07-2020, 09:44
Another good listen!
No Conspiracies, :eek: just sensible logic, and facts.
https://freedomplatform.tv/dennis-carroll-how-every-new-virus-were-going-to-see-in-the-coming-decades-already-exists/
Wut? :rolleyes:
“UK coronavirus live: Johnson claims Covid crisis would have been 'disaster' for Scotland if it had been independent”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/jul/23/uk-coronavirus-live-failure-government-economic-plans-covid-19-latest-news-updates
Visiting Scotland to “firm up the Union” apparently.
InThe Sticks
23-07-2020, 16:53
Wouldn’t have Scotland had to pay for 900’000 workers furloughed?
That’s a lot of dough.
InThe Sticks
24-07-2020, 17:20
I popped into my local Tesco Extra after work toady and..
1. I put my mask on before entering
2. Everyone else (bar 1 person) had theirs on
3. I didn’t see anyone thrashing around on the floor having a tantrum like a 6 year old kid with an attitude problem
4. I didn’t hear anyone complaining that they felt oppressed or their liberty had been removed
Basically everyone did what they were asked and just got on with it.
Not hard is it?
Mmm... They must know how to 'baa' well down your way!:ner:
:D;)
Apparently, suppositories are next. Get yer bum lubed, baby...!;)
Marco [living blissfully mask-free, in non-mandatory (in shops) mark-wearing Wales].
It is on public transport I think or will be.
I've decided to keep out of shops for now still.
I've no need at moment to go in anyway.
But I'm more relaxed. I went to get my meds this afternoon and was going to go in but my favorite pharmasist brought them out to me in my car.. She is a star. Xxx
It is on public transport I think or will be.
I've decided to keep out of shops for now still.
I've no need at moment to go in anyway.
But I'm more relaxed. I went to get my meds this afternoon and was going to go in but my favorite pharmasist brought them out to me in my car.. She is a star. Xxx
Yup mate, public transport, but that's irrelevant to me, as I don't use it. Not mandatory in shops, thank fuck. When or if that changes, I'll be shopping online or sending Del in with the wee girly pink cat mask she's made!
...while I wait in the carpark:D
Glad you're more relaxed now going out, which you should be. So is the pharmacist pumpable?:eyebrows:
Marco.
Ha.... They tell me that kind, cuddly and willing goes a long way, though!:D
Marco.
If I was 10 yrs younger I'd give her a try lol
Mmm... They must know how to 'baa' well down your way!:ner:
:D;)
Apparently, suppositories are next. Get yer bum lubed, baby...!;)
Marco [living blissfully mask-free, in non-mandatory (in shops) mark-wearing Wales].
I think it's funny that you'd consider not wearing a mask as some sort of rebellious act. It's just a bit toytown.
InThe Sticks
24-07-2020, 19:11
Mmm... They must know how to 'baa' well down your way!
Maybe, but we also like to work and get on with things.
Probably why the average house price is £100K more here compared to Wrexham, but don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory eh ;)
I'll be shopping online or sending Del in with the wee girly pink cat mask she's made!
Marco.
How brave of you.
Are you in a funny mood tonight, spoiling for a fight? And no, I'm not playing!:ner:
Marco.
I think it's funny that you'd consider not wearing a mask as some sort of rebellious act. It's just a bit toytown.
Nah, that's not the point. A) I strongly disagree with the precedent it sets (as I've outlined many times before), including the eagerness of the masses to acquiesce to mandatory rules, and b) I don't believe wearing a 'face covering' will do much, apart from make you look like a twat... And I can do that naturally, without a mask!:lol:
One of these might be different: https://www.hivepharmacy.com/face-masks
We've been here before, mate. 'Face coverings' are much more about giving the masses more confidence to shop, than preventing the spread of a [currently, by the day, growing less-prevalent] virus, in the UK. I don't need any such confidence boost, as I've been out and about doing my business as normal now for some time!;)
Marco.
We've been here before, mate. 'Face coverings' are much more about giving the masses more confidence to shop, than preventing the spread of a [currently growing less-prevalent] virus, in the UK. I don't need any such confidence boost, as I've been out and about doing my business as normal now for some time!;)
Marco.
Yes so have I. But now they can stick you for fifty quid for not wearing one. And unlike Joey Chav who'll probably get a blind eye turned to him anyway, I can afford to pay it so you can bet they'd stick me for it. Do I want to lose half a day's wages for the sake of pulling a neck gaiter up over my face as I walk in the shop? No.
What I thought was funny is that your conflating not going along with the law with some sort of rebellious act. It's like thinking your a bit of a rebel if you drive more than 70 mph on the motorway.
And anyway, as Bob Marley said, Rebel? Rebel against what?'
Yes so have I. But now they can stick you for fifty quid for not wearing one. And unlike Joey Chav who'll probably get a blind eye turned to him anyway, I can afford to pay it so you can bet they'd stick me for it. Do I want to lose half a day's wages for the sake of pulling a neck gaiter up over my face as I walk in the shop? No.
Sure (although I thought it was £100), but chances are that won't happen, as the police don't have the manpower to enforce it. Just do your shopping online mate, as you did (apparently without any hassle) during lockdown - sorted:)
What I thought was funny is that your conflating not going along with the law with some sort of rebellious act. It's like thinking your a bit of a rebel if you drive more than 70 mph on the motorway.
And anyway, as Bob Marley said, Rebel? Rebel against what?'
Lol - as I said though, that's NOT why I'm not wearing a 'face covering'. I'm doing because *I* don't want to, simply because I don't agree with it or consider it as being overall beneficial, and there are plenty of others who feel the same, including Mark Drakeford and his scientific advisers!;)
I run my life how *I* see fit, within acceptable reason, NOT be forced by the authorities to behave in a way that *I* don't consider is warranted, simply to be 'compliant'. I unquestionably obey no-one!:nono:
Marco.
Sure (although I thought it was £100), but chances are that won't happen as they don't have the manpower to enforce it. Just do your shopping online, as you did (apparently without any hassle) during lockdown - sorted:)
Lol - as I said though, that's NOT why I'm not wearing a face covering. I'm doing because *I* don't want to, simply because I don't agree with it or consider it as overall being beneficial, and there are plenty of others who feel the same, including Mark Drakeford and his scientific advisers!
Marco.
The fine is a ton but if you pay within a week it drops to a pony.
Costs more to get my shopping on-line, especially beer and baccy so I have to go in that shop. And the market. And would be just my luck for some off-duty copper to be in there at the same time. Either that or some self-righteous prick decides to start having a go at me for not wearing one and who knows where that might end?
I agree the mask thing is little or nothing to do with virus spread but it's still not worth the potential cost and aggravation of not bothering. I'd be surprised if they don't bring it in in Wales so you'll have to make a decision yourself at some point. Or not go on a shop for six months. Of course you can just send your lady in, but you like shopping don't you?
InThe Sticks
24-07-2020, 20:13
'Face coverings' are much more about giving the masses more confidence to shop, than preventing the spread of a [current growingly less-prevalent] virus, in the UK
Marco.
How is that a bad thing?
Getting people out and spending with confidence can only be applauded in my view.
We really do need to get the economy back to what it was and to restore whatever one terms as normal.
I’m certainly not “spoiling for a fight”, but some of your anti mask posts are nothing more than infantile, with a smattering of “me, me, me”.
Quite silly really, and bordering on narcissistic imo.
Put it this way, i saw the old boy i was looking after during lockdown yesterday and he was delighted with the idea of face masks in shops and said he "may" venture out again to the local co-op.
For me, thats a win for him if it gives him some confidence back.
That poor old boy was scared shitless even when i delivered his shopping, so to see him wanting to go out again makes me super happy, and if i have to endure the excruciating pain of wearing one to make someone else's life a little more comfortable, then so be it.
In the grand scheme of things, its really not a big deal.
I'm not getting into an argument about it, Jon, so let's just agree to disagree. You do your thing, and I'll do mine:)
Btw, I've got ZERO problem with instilling confidence in old people going back out to shop - indeed I'm all IN FAVOUR of it - but the government should just have been honest about the REAL reasons for 'face coverings' becoming mandatory, instead of trying to pull the wool over our eyes (no pun intended);)
So I'm afraid I refuse to be a part of the unjustified mass compliance. It's not only rather sad, but dangerous.
Marco.
I’m certainly not “spoiling for a fight”, but some of your anti mask posts are nothing more than infantile, with a smattering of “me, me, me”.
Quite silly really, and bordering on narcissistic imo.
However, cut out the unqualified personal insults, as there's no need for it. Just who do you think you are?:rolleyes:
I'll let it slide this time, but any more remarks like that and your next ban (as you've had one already, but clearly haven't learned from it), will be a permanent one.
Marco.
Mikeandvan
24-07-2020, 21:09
Marco's right, all the little people today in Sainsbury's wearing their masks, it really takes very little to put people in line. I only wear one on London underground, other than that I can't be arsed. Covids gone for now, it was only ever really dangerous in care homes anyway, and the odd old/sick person at home. The economy is shagged now because of it, that's much scarier, and with the BLM stuff, a lot more sinister control is about to be taken of our lives, these are shit times.
Marco's right, all the little people today in Sainsbury's wearing their masks, it really takes very little to put people in line. I only wear one on London underground, other than that I can't be arsed. Covids gone for now, it was only ever really dangerous in care homes anyway, and the odd old/sick person at home. The economy is shagged now because of it, that's much scarier, and with the BLM stuff, a lot more sinister control is about to be taken of our lives, these are shit times.
*Exactly* my point, Mike [and I'm meekly put into line by no-one]. We're also pretty much in full agreement about the rest!
Marco.
My daughter has a part time/short term job in a store in Ipswich (while waiting to go back to Uni'), she tells me that the only people not wearing masks today were Romanians who, when challenged, claimed not to understand as they "speak no English" :steam:
Costs more to get my shopping on-line, especially beer and baccy so I have to go in that shop. And the market. And would be just my luck for some off-duty copper to be in there at the same time. Either that or some self-righteous prick decides to start having a go at me for not wearing one and who knows where that might end?
Sure I get that. And btw, just to be clear, I'm not trying to change your mind. It's up to you what you do.
I'm just saying it's not for me. As I've said, regardless of *anything* else, I have a MASSIVE problem with things being made mandatory in what is supposedly a free country - unless, based on MY judgement criteria (not the government's), it's warranted.
And the wearing of face coverings, and most certainly vaccines, certainly come into that category. What mandatory rule will be introduced next, I wonder, especially when the authorities get such an easy ride imposing it? And just as importantly, what penalties will be introduced for non-compliance...?
The fact is, the government have been using this virus as an excuse to impose a level of control and surveillance upon us that could set a very dangerous precedent. That is, if we all continue meekly acquiescing, instead of taking a stand against it. So rather than simply rolling over, as the masses have done, I've chosen to stay firm and do my own thing, and which incidentally is perfectly legal and harming no-one.
There's nothing to stop me from shopping online, if I want, and at the moment when I'm in Wales, I don't need to wear a face covering in shops. It's called being a FREE thinker/FREE man, and IN CONTROL, rather than being controlled. Think about how valuable having such a privilege is, and why you should do everything in your power to protect it.
I'd be surprised if they don't bring it in in Wales so you'll have to make a decision yourself at some point. Or not go on a shop for six months. Of course you can just send your lady in, but you like shopping don't you?
Yes I'd also be surprised, but then Mark Drakeford strikes me as someone who's pretty strong willed and would need a very good reason to change his mind on the matter. Particularly when, just like in Scotland, the death rates now in Wales are nil, with cases going down all the time. So unless there's a major spike/outbreak of the virus again in Wales, then I don't see what that reason would be.
Why should he just copy Scotland, England and N.Ireland for the sake of it? Unless of course he's bullied into making that decision, and so bows to pressure...
As for shopping, I'm not a fan of grocery shopping in supermarkets, which is what I'm largely referring to, as the experience is rather mundane. The shopping I enjoy is in nice towns or cities, inside privately owned shops or quality chain stores that sell interesting, unusual and/or desirable things. For example, I very much enjoyed driving into Chester yesterday and collecting the new espresso coffee machine from John Lewis Del had bought me, as a forthcoming birthday present.
*That* is the kind of shopping I like!
Even in its present, slightly dilapidated state, John Lewis is still a lovely store to walk around and shop in, especially as I like nice/quality things for the house, so there's fun shopping and shopping that's simply a chore - and where possible I avoid participating in the latter.
Del's fully aware of my views on face coverings, and indeed shares them, but would have no qualms about wearing one while doing the food shopping. She'd either go alone or with one of her mates, until there was no longer any justification for wearing them, and I could then rejoin her. It's no biggie:)
Marco.
Quite.. You didn't say you were going to flout law, just not play along.
There is a big difference.
Costs more to get my shopping on-line, especially beer and baccy
What shop's cheaper than an online supermarket for booze? (not sure about baccy), plus you're saved the bother of carrying it.
In other news, this is why it's completely wrong, immoral and obscene to have so much of the world's wealth divided among so few people:
https://www.cnet.com/news/zuckerberg-bezos-cook-and-pichai-antitrust-hearing-officially-postponed/?ftag=CAD-03-10abf2a
...and if you apply some lateral thinking to the situation we have at the moment with this pandemic, and who could potentially gain most from it in future, as the economy collapses and only big businesses can survive, you might understand its possible connection with the above 'gentlemen', and why they're currently (and rightly) subject to an antitrust hearing.
Marco.
Quite.. You didn't say you were going to flout law, just not play along.
There is a big difference.
Indeed, but history has always shown that those who dare to be different/dislike being part of the herd are vilified...;) 'If you're not with us, then you must be against us', type of narrow-minded bullshit.
And what do you think's going to happen in the UK, out with of Wales, when inevitably some folk in shops don't wear a face covering? The government say they're hoping that others will SHAME them into doing it! Yeah, that'll work:doh:
It's going to cause worse fights and confrontations than we saw before with panic buying in supermarkets, as non-wearers of face masks, who should only be subject to punitive action by the police, will instead be harassed, verbally and/or physically abused by the pious 'mask-wearing police'!
If ever the authorities sought to create division among the population, for whatever dubious reason, then this mask-wearing rule is it.
Marco.
Was a point I brought up to Ms Sturgeon [emoji23]
I have serious breathing issues and disabled so am exempt but it's also in my interests to wear one if in contact with folk etc. But suffer from stress due to being ill etc and it's stressful being shouted at, jostled etc by the lynch mob types, often big bruiser women. [emoji23]
Interesting that most supermarkets have said they won't enforce it in england
Of course, and why should they? Their job is simply to observe, not ENFORCE the law!
That's what the police are paid and trained to do, so why should a store manager, or worse, a sales assistant on minimum wage, be expected to tackle some disgruntled and unruly customer for not wearing a face covering, who may not just verbally abuse them, but could also inflict physical harm on them?
I used to work in retail, and I certainly wouldn't do it! So it's simply going to cause more problems than it solves, *unless* their is mass compliance. Or (as in my case if the rule comes to Wales) you just go online, simply because with all the hand-sanitising, social distancing, 'one-way systems' and mandatory face coverings, shopping physically has become more bother than it's worth!:rolleyes:
And the government will only have themselves to blame if that eventually causes the collapse of the high street.
Marco.
Online shopping's the future, allows more time for vibes & chilling :cool:
I'm not a fan at all, Roy, for reasons I've explained many times, as it's not healthy physically [encourages laziness], and in some cases also mentally. So as long as high-street shops exist, where the shopping experience is still pleasurable, and I have two legs that work, I'll shop in stores.
A recluse I'm not mate, nor ever want to be.
Marco.
Local high streets are just full of charity shops selling dead men's clothes & cheap CDs and I don't need the latter since I've got Tidal so no reason to go there.
That's cool, but it's quite different where I am in that respect:)
We also like taking the car out and going to towns and cities out with of our local area, to see something different, such as Liverpool or Manchester, or hopping on the train to Birmingham, as it's a direct line from Wrexham.
Life exists outside of your own house or town, and you won't see any of it by sitting on your backside. There's a big world out there, mate!
Marco.
Don't get me wrong the duracell on my hermit mode chip is almost exhausted, had it with this poxy lockdown but I have to be careful because of my condition.
The interesting shops just aren't out there anymore unless I head into London but I'm still avoiding public transport.
Used to like a traditional gents outfitters but they just don't exist locally.
I totally get that, mate (and also respect your health condition - thankfully so far I have no such concerns). However, I wasn't joking when I said life's better 'oop norf';)
One of the reasons why many of the interesting shops have disappeared 'darn sarf' is because mass commercialism/consumerism has hit harder down there, simply because of the higher population.
The less folk there is to influence change, the less likelihood of life altering radically from how it used to be, which is why the further north you go in the UK, right up to the likes of Orkney and Shetland, generally the less 'spoiled' it is.
That's why I wouldn't live in London for all the money in the world [despite it in some ways being a cool, although overcrowded place], as I simply hate being sucked into the rat race, or inhabiting a plastic, soulless, tiring and materialistic world that I simply don't belong in!:)
Anyway, it's bo-bo time, so nighty, night!:goodnight:
Marco.
Hmm, think some of your arguments are flawed but it's late so nite for now
Flawed they may be (as everything is to an extent), but it's what I fundamentally believe, and indeed see plenty of evidence of. Plus of course, it depends on your definition of 'better'. If that revolves around money, then perhaps not. For me, life is much more about being happy and contented.
Anyway, yes, laters:)
Marco.
RobbieGong
25-07-2020, 10:37
I totally get that, mate (and also respect your health condition - thankfully so far I have no such concerns). However, I wasn't joking when I said life's better 'oop norf';)
One of the reasons why many of the interesting shops have disappeared 'darn sarf' is because mass commercialism/consumerism has hit harder down there, simply because of the higher population.
The less folk there is to influence change, the less likelihood of life altering radically from how it used to be, which is why the further north you go in the UK, right up to the likes of Orkney and Shetland, generally the less 'spoiled' it is.
That's why I wouldn't live in London for all the money in the world [despite it in some ways being a cool, although overcrowded place], as I simply hate being sucked into the rat race, or inhabiting a plastic, soulless, tiring and materialistic world that I simply don't belong in!:)
Anyway, it's bo-bo time, so nighty, night!:goodnight:
Marco.
lol, Have you heard you ? :rolleyes:
- I was born and bred up north in Leeds and have fond memories of good times and good friends.
Used to visit, Bradford, Pudsey, Harrogate, Manchester, Birmingham - all around.
Lived in London longer than I can even remember and love it - it's great place, real people of every persuasion.
Too many green spaces, parks etc to mention, an abundance to see and do, if you so choose.
At busy times it can feel crowded but certainly not all the time.
Untold residential roads, that the moment you turn onto them, you are away from any business and leave that behind.
Like all cities the main stores are a plenty but most, if not all boroughs have their markets and individual local businesses, if you want it, you'll find plenty of 'character'
Literally whatever you want is here commercial, educational, historical, quaint, cheap, classy, stylish, peace, quiet - you name it, it's up to you, ultimately - seek and ye shall find.
The museums and educational places of interest that I've taken my children, when they were kids - too many.
It's the capital and in terms of accommodation can be expensive.
I've met the most amazing people, of all types and have great neighbours too, wherever I've lived in London.
In fact, I've lost count of the people I grew with, up north who are actually down here now and love it. I've been told "wish I'd have done it sooner"
Nowhere is 'perfect' but in my experience and opinion, London is a great place to live and I certainly wont be going anywhere else.
At the end of the day, wherever you are, life is what you make it.
London is a fab place, full of opportunity. If you have the right mindset and attitude, there aren't many better places IME/IMO.
You can stay where you are Marco, we wouldn't want you over here, upsetting the equilibrium... :p :D
Certainly much more crowded i remember seeing wales at about 300 people per mile; london is over 15k
Scotland is lower still at about 100 or so, although the biggest city is nearer 3k
Lol - I was waiting for that, so well done, Robbo!:lol:
As they say, each to his or her own. I don't disagree with anything you're saying, and certainly can't question your fond personal experiences (nice one, btw), but I'm afraid that London will remain as somewhere I'd only choose to visit as a tourist, for say a long weekend, but definitely NOT to live.
I value my peace and tranquility way too much, and the relaxed and unstressed pace of life of North Wales, as well as breathing in clean, fresh air, and being well away from the maddening crowds.
I still stand by my point to Roy though (and sympathise with him), in terms of 'why all the nice shops have gone', and why, IME, that situation tends to have happened more in towns down south.
It's one of the reasons why in Wrexham there are still two independent record shops, a thriving indoor food market (well at least it was before this pandemic), full of independent local suppliers, as well as umpteen places I can obtain interesting food items, plus local farm shops, without having to go near a supermarket - let alone be forced shop online because there's no viable alternative.
Now I know that's not the case in London itself (far from it), but I do see significant evidence of it in the outlying areas, such as in Essex where Roy is, as I've had the same conversation in the past with audio al, who lives in Dagenham, and also in the likes of Basingstoke. I'm not saying this, however, to denigrate where people live (or that I'm unquestionably right in what I'm saying); simply making an observation based on what I know and what I've seen with my own eyes whenever I venture down south into areas where it's vastly more populated.
Of course, there are plenty of places like that elsewhere in the country too, where town centres have been stripped of their 'soul' and ravaged by rampant commercialism, and subsequently turned into ghost towns, and I wouldn't choose to live there either, but that doesn't detract from the thrust of my argument, so please don't take offence, I'm just telling it mate, as I see it:)
Marco.
Certainly much more crowded i remember seeing wales at about 300 people per mile; london is over 15k
Scotland is lower still at about 100 or so, although the biggest city is nearer 3k
Yup, I'm just someone who DETESTS crowds and very busy places, as I doesn't feel comfortable in them (stresses me out) - always has and always will. It's just the way I am:)
Marco.
RobbieGong
25-07-2020, 11:00
Lol - I was waiting for that, so well done, Robbo!:lol:
As they say, each to his or her own. I don't disagree with anything you're saying, and certainly can't question your fond personal experiences (nice one, btw), but I'm afraid that London will remain as somewhere I'd only choose to visit as a tourist, for say a long weekend, but definitely NOT to live.
I value my peace and tranquility way too much, and the relaxed and unstressed pace of life of North Wales, as well as breathing in clean, fresh air, and being well away from the maddening crowds.
I still stand by my point to Roy though (and sympathise with him), in terms of 'why all the nice shops have gone', and why, IME, that situation tends to have happened more down south. It's one of the reasons why in Wrexham there are still two independent record shops, a thriving indoor food market (well at least it was before this pandemic), full of independent local suppliers, as well as umpteen places I can obtain interesting food items, plus local farm shops, without having to go near a supermarket - let alone be forced order online because there's little choice.
Now I know that's not the case in London itself (far from it), but I do see lots of evidence of it in outlying areas, such as in Essex where Roy is, as I've had the same conversation in the past with audio al, who lives in Dagenham. I'm not saying this, however, to denigrate where people live; simply making an observation based on what I know and what I've seen with my own eyes whenever I venture south.
Of course, there are plenty of places like that elsewhere in the country too, where town centres have been stripped of their 'soul' and ravaged by rampant commercialism, and have turned into ghost towns, and I wouldn't choose to live there either, but that doesn't detract from the thrust of the point I'm making, so please don't take offence, I'm just telling it mate, as I see it:)
Marco.
No offence taken Marco, especially as you'll be staying up there.... ;) :lol: :D
RobbieGong
25-07-2020, 11:03
Yup, I'm just someone who HATES crowds and very busy places, as I doesn't feel comfortable in them - always have and always will. It's just the way I am:)
Marco.
Btw - Living here I can tell you London doesnt always feel crowded as I too like and have to have breathing space.
With respect Marco my borough (Havering) & where Al lives (Barking & Dagenham) are quite removed from one another even though we're neighbours. For instance population density in Havering is 6000 per square mile, this increases to 15000 for B&D. Havering is over 50% protected green belt so you don't have to go far to be somewhere fairly rural if that's what floats your boat. Whilst you paint a fairly rosy picture of Wrexham you don't have to google too hard to find it suffers the same problems as most other towns with respect to the retail centre.
The centre of London is crowded but so is the centre of any city. I sometimes visit a friend who lives on Tulse Hill and except for the price of beer you could be in any leafy suburb anywhere.
There's lots of 'artisanal' type shops as well. And Tulse Hill is quite far out from the centre, it's not on the tube. To get those shops you need to live somewhere with a lot of wealthy middle-class professional types. As areas 'gentrify' I notice that these places start springing up.
That or live somewhere where the small specialist shops never disappeared in the first place.
RobbieGong
25-07-2020, 11:15
The centre of London is crowded but so is the centre of any city. I sometimes visit a friend who lives on Tulse Hill and except for the price of beer you could be in any leafy suburb anywhere.
There's lots of 'artisanal' type shops as well. And Tulse Hill is quite far out from the centre, it's not on the tube. To get those shops you need to live somewhere with a lot of wealthy middle-class professional types. As areas 'gentrify' I notice that these places start springing up.
That or live somewhere where the small specialist shops never disappeared in the first place.
Exactly how it is where I am Martin. My wife and I often say, it's so green and peaceful like being in the country, yet we are in the heart of London.
And that's exactly what I like about it here, peaceful when I need/want it, but I can be heading to an abundance of different things, so easily, if I so choose, at any given time and in the same way, escape from just as easily. Great for me and the Mrs and an excellent balance for our young girls.
Exactly how it is where I am Martin. My wife and I often say, it's so green and peaceful like being in the country, yet we are in the heart of London.
And that's exactly what I like about it here, peaceful when I need/want it, but I can be heading to an abundance of different things, so easily, if I so choose, at any given time and in the same way, escape from just as easily. Great for me and the Mrs and an excellent balance for our young girls.
Whereabouts are you Robbie?
We usually go on a pub crawl round central London and I have noticed that you can turn of a main street that is busier than the M1 and walk down a residential street and within a hundred yards it is quiet and you can hear the birds singing.
Having said that, after a life of 'excitement' I like it where I am now. Nothing ever happens and nothing's ever going on and that suits me just fine.
With respect Marco my borough (Havering) & where Al lives (Barking & Dagenham) are quite removed from one another even though we're neighbours. For instance population density in Havering is 6000 per square mile, this increases to 15000 for B&D. Havering is over 50% protected green belt so you don't have to go far to be somewhere fairly rural if that's what floats your boat. Whilst you paint a fairly rosy picture of Wrexham you don't have to google too hard to find it suffers the same problems as most other towns with respect to the retail centre.
Yes I know, and as you say Wrexham is FAR from perfect and undoubtedly has its fair share of problems - BUT the point is, I don't need to experience ANY of that, if I don't want to, as I don't live in any of the slums. I can (and do) cherry pick the best/most desirable bits about living here - and shun the rest!
And I can do that because thankfully I live in a quiet, fairly affluent suburb, just under 2 miles from the town centre. Plus, I'm also fortunate to have Cheshire (and Chester), plus Shropshire on my doorstep, by car, which are beautiful parts of the country, and full of places that are right up my street.
But you're right, I'm a rural (country) person at heart. Among the hills, lakes and mountains is where I'm happiest. A city boy I am not.
Incidentally, in that respect I wouldn't have chosen to live in Wrexham either (that's simply where Del's mum's house was, which we ended up buying and living in). If I'd chosen somewhere to live here from scratch, it'd have been some remote, rural and picturesque little village, still near some amenities, and where there still existed a friendly sense of community, rather than the opposite, and where people still lived their lives with old-fashioned values.
That's just me, as I like to LIVE, not merely 'exist'!:)
Marco.
RobbieGong
25-07-2020, 11:30
Whereabouts are you Robbie?
We usually go on a pub crawl round central London and I have noticed that you can turn of a main street that is busier than the M1 and walk down a residential street and within a hundred yards it is quiet and you can hear the birds singing.
Having said that, after a life of 'excitement' I like it where I am now. Nothing ever happens and nothing's ever going on and that suits me just fine.
Lol, I can be like that at times, just happy to be left alone with zero going on around me ha ha, there's a sense of peace in that, that I really need at times.
I'm in SE4 -Brockley sides, so I'm around Honor Oak and pop into Lewisham, Bromley, Greenwich etc
overall its pretty quiet where i stay, but noisy neighbours are becoming an issue now and the place has gone downhill badly as older residents have died or moved away and new residents who dont give a monkeys for quiet, peaceful living and dont care about doing anything re gardens so its now a bit of a mess compared to years ago.. neighbours who have maybe been here for a few years but never talk to any of their neighbours.. not good i have to say, and for first time in my life i feel need to keep doors locked now.
all very sad, and due to councils attitude of putting bad people in good areas, in the silly hope they will become better, where all that happens is the good folk just leave and more bad neighbours come in..
Exactly how it is where I am Martin. My wife and I often say, it's so green and peaceful like being in the country, yet we are in the heart of London.
And that's exactly what I like about it here, peaceful when I need/want it, but I can be heading to an abundance of different things, so easily, if I so choose, at any given time and in the same way, escape from just as easily. Great for me and the Mrs and an excellent balance for our young girls.
Sounds cool, and of course it's ultimately about whatever best fits with your lifestyle. We don't have kids, and I'm semi-retired, plus Del's due to voluntarily retire soon, so what matters most to us will differ from what matters most to you, or perhaps what you need to consider based on work and family commitments:)
Marco.
I have award winning open spaces on my doorstep
https://www.parksandgardens.org/places/dagnam-park-havering
& wildlife literally outside my window
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phZlsjWaEU4
:)
RobbieGong
25-07-2020, 11:48
I have award winning open spaces on my doorstep
https://www.parksandgardens.org/places/dagnam-park-havering
& wildlife literally outside my window
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phZlsjWaEU4
:)
:)
There's lots of 'artisanal' type shops as well. And Tulse Hill is quite far out from the centre, it's not on the tube. To get those shops you need to live somewhere with a lot of wealthy middle-class professional types. As areas 'gentrify' I notice that these places start springing up.
You're right, but that's not particularly what I'm into, as they can be poncy and grossly overpriced. I'm not interested in discussing the merits of quinoa and mung beans with Tarquin or Felicity!
What I'm talking about are small, independent family-run businesses, some of which have existed for decades in the same place, if not centuries, run by working class people. And all designed to serve the local community, selling superb quality produce at realistic prices, and where people know you (you're greeted with a warm friendly smile) and you feel 'at home'.
And I can still find places like that in Wrexham, let alone some of the outlying small towns and villages. And we make a point of using them, and giving them our business, for the reasons mentioned. It also makes shopping in them a pleasure, not a chore, and which is MILES away from the soulless and robotic experience of food shopping on the Internet, or especially now in supermarkets, with this detestable Covid pish.
Here's a fantastic little deli and ceramics shop, which has recently opened in a nearby village: https://cwtchceramics.co.uk/
It's places like that which I love, and which provide a valuable service for the local community, and most importantly encourage it to THRIVE. We need to try and support these places, or if not they'll soon all be consigned to our history books!
Essentially, I insist on feeling like and LIVING my life as an individual, not simply a 'number', and to enjoy a high quality of LIFE and sense of contentment/well-being, as it's what I've always been used to:)
People need to have some 'feel-good factor' and genuine HAPPINESS in their lives, otherwise what's the point in living?
Marco.
I have award winning open spaces on my doorstep
https://www.parksandgardens.org/places/dagnam-park-havering
& wildlife literally outside my window
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phZlsjWaEU4
:)
:D Quality!
Marco.
RobbieGong
25-07-2020, 12:08
You're right, but that's not particularly what I'm into, as they can be poncy and grossly overpriced. What I'm talking about are small, family-run businesses, some of which have existed for decades in the same area, if not centuries - all designed to serve the local community, selling superb quality local produce at realistic prices, and where people know you (you're greeted with a warm friendly smile) and you feel 'at home'.
And I can still find places like that in Wrexham, let alone some of the outlying small towns and villages. And we make a point of using them, and giving them our business, for the reasons mentioned. It also makes shopping in them a pleasure, not a chore, and which is MILES away from the soulless and robotic experience of food shopping on the Internet.
Here's a fantastic little deli and ceramics shop, which has recently opened in a nearby village: https://cwtchceramics.co.uk/
It's places like that which I love, and which provide a valuable service for the local community, and most importantly encourage it to THRIVE. We need to try and support these places, or if not they'll soon all be consigned to our history books!
Essentially, I insist on feeling like and LIVING my life an individual, not simply a 'number', and to enjoy a high quality of life and sense of contentment and well being, as it's what I've always been used to:)
Marco.
Yep, can only agree.
It's about balance. Heaven help us if our communities only existed of the usual, generic 'big boy' retail / businesses :eek:
I love the individual, local businesses - art/crafts, gifts, delicatessens, meat/butchers etc etc. Creates a sense of community and brings a sense of character to an area.
Thankfully we've a lot around here and scattered across London, of all types. I love poking my head in and having a look around.
I only buy my cards from a local gifts and card business. Not only are the cards quality, interesting and non-generic but it's supporting them/my locality too.
https://www.jumping-bean.co.uk/
Our tyres, tracking etc is always done locally too - great service - https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x48760249cbe535af%3A0x46f71a636230477e!3m1! 7e115!4shttps%3A%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2F p%2FAF1QipOZtmG7STri8FzpTQTWm0y4UoNEDisj5kTXE3G3%3 Dw285-h160-k-no!5swheelpower%20se4%20-%20Google%20Search!15sCgIgAQ&imagekey=!1e10!2sAF1QipOZtmG7STri8FzpTQTWm0y4UoNED isj5kTXE3G3&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCo9DcsejqAhVPecAKHR73C8IQoiowCnoECBYQB g
https://www.lewishamtyres.co.uk/
You're right, but that's not particularly what I'm into, as they can be poncy and grossly overpriced. I'm not interested in discussing the merits of quinoa and mung beans with Tarquin or Felicity!
What I'm talking about are small, independent family-run businesses, some of which have existed for decades in the same place, if not centuries, run by working class people. And all designed to serve the local community, selling superb quality produce at realistic prices, and where people know you (you're greeted with a warm friendly smile) and you feel 'at home'.
.
When I moved here 30 years ago that's all there was. Now 90% of them are gone, supermarkets and chain stores took over. Up the road from me a bit where the ghetto ends and trees start there are a few new versions of the same thing starting to appear - that's what I mean by 'artisanal'. And they tend to be run by Tristram or Felicity types.
We still have the market three days a week and that's still old-school. But the punters all seem to be old people so don't know how long it will last.
When I moved here 30 years ago that's all there was. Now 90% of them are gone, supermarkets and chain stores took over. Up the road from me a bit where the ghetto ends and trees start there are a few new versions of the same thing starting to appear - that's what I mean by 'artisanal'. And they tend to be run by Tristram or Felicity types.
We still have the market three days a week and that's still old-school. But the punters all seem to be old people so don't know how long it will last.
Indeed, and unfortunately now it's happening all over the country, and something I DETEST. The difference between you and me though is that I'd have upped sticks long ago and escaped from it [yes, I know that's easier said than done, but where there's a WILL, there's always a way], as I'd no longer have been happy living somewhere that had become totally alien from what I was used to or had been brought up with.
The old school market you describe is *exactly* what I'm talking about, but also small towns with High Streets still populated by independent shops, run by the same types of people - and trust me, they still exist! But you've got to WANT to FIND them and live there, plus passionately WANT to improve your quality of life, and not simply just give up and settle for whatever the future brings. MAKE your OWN future!
Put YOURSELF in control of your life, as much as possible, not the fucking government, and don't simply become what society or the 'powers that be' want you to become... It's so easy to fall into that trap, without even knowing it, simply to 'fit in' with the norm.... Then pretty soon that norm (which really you weren't that keen on in the first place] becomes *your* new norm, and an integral part of your life. Once they've 'reeled you in' mate, it's hard to get back out.
But you can, by *actively* seeking to live somewhere that fits with YOUR core values and how YOU choose to live, not simply what today's society has sadly become or turned our towns into. If you can't force change, then rewind the clock and live in the past [read as NOT what has become the dreadful 'new normal'], and run your life under old school values, *if* in doing so you'd be genuinely happier. It CAN be done:)
Now btw, none of that is necessarily aimed at you, as you seem fairly happy and contented where you are, but it may apply to others who, if they REALLY wanted to, and still had the HUNGER, could make fundamental changes to their lives for the BETTER.
My view? NEVER simply settle for mediocrity, or worse, if you have the gumption, desire and wherewithal to do much better! :cool:
Marco.
our high st has no interesting shops...none at all... whole town has pubs, eateries, carryouts, bookies, charity shops...a sad reflection on a once great high st and surrounding area
Shame that, mate... But the cool thing, where you are, is if you were fit, you could shoot into Glasgow, Edinburgh or any number of nearby towns full of the types of interesting places we've been discussing.
That's certainly what I'd be doing if I lived where you did - the car would become an integral part of my life. If you're fit and well, a car provides you with the FREEDOM to live and not simply become shackled by the drudgery of your immediate environment!:)
When Del and I had our flat in Crookston, on the south side of Glasgow, in the early 90s, the immediate surroundings weren't exactly salubrious, but we were hardly ever there. If we weren't out working, we were off into town or went on a run up to the Trossachs!
In that respect, it never ceases to amaze me how people who don't *need* to, chain themselves to their immediate environment, rather than exploring the world that surrounds them, by car, bus, train or whatever... Is that down to sheer laziness, apathy, poverty, or a complete lack of adventurousness? I've no idea, but one thing it'd be for me, is fatally BORING...
Marco.
Shame that, mate... But the cool thing, where you are, is if you were fit, you could shoot into Glasgow, Edinburgh or any number of interesting towns full of the types of places we've been discussing.
That's certainly what I'd be doing if I lived where you did - the car would become a core part of my life. If you're fit and well, a car provides you with the FREEDOM to live and not simply become shackled by the drudgery of your immediate environment!:)
When Del and I had our flat in Crookston, on the south side of Glasgow, in the early 90s, the immediate surroundings weren't exactly salubrious, but we were hardly ever there. If we weren't working, we were off into town or went on a run up to the Trossachs!
In that respect, it never ceases to amaze me how people who don't *need* to, shackle themselves to their immediate environment, rather than exploring the world that surrounds them, by car, bus, train or whatever... Is that down to sheer laziness, apathy, poverty, or a complete lack of adventurousness? I've no idea, but one thing it'd be for me is fatally BORING...
Marco.
can be a bit of them all i guess. being on your own, and disabled isnt a great mix for going around places tho.. it can be a bit dodgy if anything goes amiss etc and its not as much fun. your inclined to get stuck in corner at a small wobbly table for food too.
Here's a fantastic little deli and ceramics shop, which has recently opened in a nearby village: https://cwtchceramics.co.uk/
Looks nice - but the prices are no cheaper than in our local cake, coffee and lunch snack café, here 'darn sarf'. ;)
Yeah, but I'm not talking about you, mate. I'm talking about people who are young and healthy, or at least younger and healthier, who for reasons I simply can't fathom, just 'settle' for living somewhere that is deeply dull, grey and boring, or worse, really not much fun at all, when they don't *have* to and indeed could do something about it.... Why, I wonder?:scratch:
Marco.
Looks nice - but the prices are no cheaper than in our local cake, coffee and lunch snack café, here 'darn sarf'. ;)
Lol - it's 'cos Rossett (and Gresford down from it, where Del was born) is considered as 'posh'!:D
There are any number of places like that in Wrexham town centre (but purely cafes), which offer similar food, but much cheaper:cool:
Marco.
Yeah, but I'm not talking about you, mate. I'm talking about people who are young and healthy, or at least younger and healthier, who for reasons I simply can't fathom, just 'settle' for living somewhere that is deeply dull, grey and boring, or worse, really not much fun at all, when they don't *have* to and indeed could do something about it.... Why, I wonder?:scratch:
Marco.
1) Money- interesting and/or beautiful places tend to be desirable and so expensive to buy or rent in.
2) Stay close to family and friends - most women IME don't like to live too far away from their mothers.
3) Work - if you can't get a job somewhere else then probably best not to move there.
4) It's where they grew up and they're comfortable with those surroundings.
Scousers who make it rarely move any further than west Cheshire. Round here if you make it you just move to the posh neighbourhood on top of the hill a quarter of a mile away. Or onto the moors a couple of miles away.
This joint, an annex onto The Nightingale Hospice, is within a 10-min walk of my house, and run by a multi-award winning chef: https://www.nightingalehouse.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Meals-Matter-v4-WEB.pdf
You can also get the delicious meals they make delivered to your door!:cool:
Then there's my favourite coffee shop in Wrexham town centre: https://lot-11-cafe-and-hideout.business.site/
And probably the best pub/eatery in town: https://www.thefatboarwrecsam.co.uk/
All privately owned - no fooking soulless chains in sight!:rolleyes:
Marco.
1) Money- interesting and/or beautiful places tend to be desirable and so expensive to buy or rent in.
2) Stay close to family and friends - most women IME don't like to live too far away from their mothers.
3) Work - if you can't get a job somewhere else then probably best not to move there.
4) It's where they grew up and they're comfortable with those surroundings.
Scousers who make it rarely move any further than west Cheshire. Round here if you make it you just move to the posh neighbourhood on top of the hill a quarter of a mile away. Or onto the moors a couple of miles away.
Ok, thanks for that. Tell me though, how much (if any) of the above is the reason why you live in Stoke? And correct me if I'm wrong, it's my understanding that if you really wanted, you could afford to live somewhere nicer? As we've discussed before, I'd far rather be in Liverpool!:)
However, to address your points in order:
1) Often, but not always. Seek and ye shall find. It's amazing what kind of properties/bargains that are available out in the sticks or in small towns, when there aren't any schools nearby or a great number of amenities, or if the property in question needs some work done. But how many folk bother doing the research/leg work to find them?
'Safe' choices in life are rarely the most rewarding!
2) Sure, but at the end of the day you have to make your own way in life and can't stay tied to your mum's apron strings forever. You never achieve anything with that attitude. Del moved down to London to live on her own when she was in her early 20s, and became totally self-sufficient, getting a job working for House of Fraser and never taking a penny from her parents, despite them not being short of cash, and who would've gladly funded her lifestyle in the big smoke.
And that determined attitude and desire to make something of her life has undoubtedly been the reason why she's had such a rewarding and successful career!
3) Yeah sure, but if you're *really* good at what you do, confident and driven, and have desirable skillsets, I contend that you could find a job almost anywhere. So... I'd choose where *I* wanted to live FIRST, then find a job that suited me somewhere in that area. Plus, if necessary, I'd be willing to drive a decent distance to work, in order to live somewhere that was nice. It's a question of switching priorities, as ultimately, above all else, I'd need to be happy with where I lived.
Too many folk allow jobs to TOTALLY RULE their lives, when it needn't be like that. Have an unswerving level of self-belief, and consider that *you* DESERVE the best, and so others (employers) are lucky to have you!!;)
Then you'll find that opportunities come to YOU, rather than you having to find them... It's a mindset thing.
4) No longer really applicable, if that place has now become unrecognisable from where they grew up. If the surroundings have totally changed, as you've described has happened in Stoke, and you dislike what they've become, then how can you still be comfortable with them?:hmm:
I could totally get that and see the point if the place in question had hardly changed in years, but otherwise, no. It does smack of being very unadventurous, though!
Marco.
Well all those things are conditional. Most people I think just want to live peaceful, unstressful lives. They don't like to go out of any comfort zones and they're not driven to be wealthy or successful. Family, friends, children, football, a week or two in the Canaries or maybe Blackpool and they're good. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm where I am because my girlfriend still had a year to do at University. Met lots of local people in that year, decided to stay.
Also I liked that it was 30 years behind the rest of the country, like living back in time. All the old shops and pubs were unchanged, in some cases from before the war. Of course nothing stays the same forever. But that's true of wherever you live. Except maybe the Lake District or somewhere like that.
I recall Donald Fagen saying in an interview that it didn't matter to him where he lived since he didn't go out much anyway.
Lol - fair enough... I've always been the ambitious and driven type, hence why I was able to semi-retire at 43. I missed my goal though, as I wanted to get there by 40!:doh:
Marco.
Lol - fair enough... I've always been the ambitious and driven type, hence why I was able to semi-retire at 43. I missed my goal though, as I wanted to get there by 40!:doh:
Marco.
Don't feel too bad - I wanted to fully retire at 55, but it took me a further three years to do it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.