Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by super_realist Tue 19 May - 7:58

First topic message reminder :

I'm fine with immigration of people who bring value to the country in one way or another, who wouldn't be? What I'm not in favour of is people who bring nothing to the country in terms of skills, education, money etc. I wouldn't expect the many millions of useless Britons to be able to go the other way either just for balance.

What policy is has actively being engaged to stop people of a particular race unable to enter the country anyway? I've not seen any.

by super_realist Fri 5 Jun - 13:50

Dismantling the unions of the 1980's was a bloody great thing. British industry was a joke in the 1980's due to so many pointlessly public industries which had no incentive to be efficient.
Labour also had a roll in Windrush by the way.
Poll tax never got going and was replaced.
Tories are only against unmanaged immigration.
Brexit was decided by the electorate.

It's fine you don't like them, I've never voted for them either, but taking on a deranged Alistair Campbell persona won't out Labour back in.

by kwinigolfer Fri 5 Jun - 13:53

JAS,
Wouldn't you add geographical diversity to that lot?
By and large, BoJo has stuffed his Cabinet full of public school, London-centric, Home County ministers - it seemed that following the daily presser that there was little or no sensibility to what was happening outside the Greater London area. That was a problem in the Thatcher/Major eras and just seems exacerbated under Johnson.

by super_realist Fri 5 Jun - 14:05

Political parties left and right have always been chock full of public school educated ministers. Its a total myth that Labour is in any way representative of the general public either, apart from perhaps by virtue of Dianne Flabbots police assaulting publically educated son.

by Soul Requiem Fri 5 Jun - 14:14

JAS wrote:

To be fair I do see both the converses that you mention too, yes, it's not unreasonable to say the Tories try to create opportunity. I also see that one of the biggest problems of the left and of the Labour party in particular is that they don't do enough to dispel the notion of supporting a dependency culture. Blair came close to connecting the the Labour party with the aspirational classes but then he blew it. His successors don't even seem to have tried, early days yet for Starmer but not holding out much hope. However even though I see both sides of the coin I also hold the view that we need a period of all working for the common good rather than creating opportunities for a greedy few to dance on the faces of the poor.

Blair was very nearly the perfect PM and his first term did offer hope of prosperity for all but after that he slowly eroded away his own reputation and he'll sadly be remembered more for Iraq than all the good he initially did.

A lot of people are fawning over Starmer and i'm not entirely sure why, comes across as being a bit soft to and the fact he was head of the CPS seems to be the main reason as if that automatically makes him capable of making a good PM, his one saving grace is that Johnson rather than Cameron is the incumbent.

by JAS Fri 5 Jun - 14:21

super_realist wrote:Dismantling the unions of the 1980's was a bloody great thing. British industry was a joke in the 1980's due to so many pointlessly public industries which had no incentive to be efficient.
Labour also had a roll in Windrush by the way.
Poll tax never got going and was replaced.
Tories are only against unmanaged immigration.
Brexit was decided by the electorate.

It's fine you don't like them, I've never voted for them either, but taking on a deranged Alistair Campbell persona won't out Labour back in.

You're painting a picture that British industry was a joke it the 1970's. Nowadays the joke is the size of it. Manufacturing was utterly decimated by the Tories, throwing millions on the unemployment scrapheap (which was "a price worth paying" according to a Tory chancellor....unifying as f*** eh?) Did you ever consider for one second that there might be 2 sides in an industrial dispute?? Given that Germany, one of the most successful industrial nations on the planet has strong unions your penchant for blaming union power for the country's ills in the 80s is a rather flimsy one. Regardless of whose fault it was the central point is that Thatchers policies in the 80's caused division, Christ even most Tories would admit that. Did NEW Labour have a role in windrush?. The poll tax never got going because the people revolted, it caused plenty of division before it was finally canned. Brexit should NEVER have been put to the electorate the way it was, and because it was put the way it was it HAS caused some very polarised division. Remember you asked for examples of division, I gave you a selection. Kwini has kindly supplied another one highlighting the North/South divide. I'm not asking you to defend and rebut attacks on Tory policy, I'm asking you to recognise that they caused division.

by JAS Fri 5 Jun - 14:34

Soul Requiem wrote:
JAS wrote:

To be fair I do see both the converses that you mention too, yes, it's not unreasonable to say the Tories try to create opportunity. I also see that one of the biggest problems of the left and of the Labour party in particular is that they don't do enough to dispel the notion of supporting a dependency culture. Blair came close to connecting the the Labour party with the aspirational classes but then he blew it. His successors don't even seem to have tried, early days yet for Starmer but not holding out much hope. However even though I see both sides of the coin I also hold the view that we need a period of all working for the common good rather than creating opportunities for a greedy few to dance on the faces of the poor.

Blair was very nearly the perfect PM and his first term did offer hope of prosperity for all but after that he slowly eroded away his own reputation and he'll sadly be remembered more for Iraq than all the good he initially did.

A lot of people are fawning over Starmer and i'm not entirely sure why, comes across as being a bit soft to and the fact he was head of the CPS seems to be the main reason as if that automatically makes him capable of making a good PM, his one saving grace is that Johnson rather than Cameron is the incumbent.

Aye, the jury's out on Starmer, he certainly doesn't have the charisma of Blair (some might say that's a good thing as charisma morphed into sinister snake oil salesman over 10 years). Blair had a better start because after the electoral disaster of Foot, Kinnock cleared up the mess, Smith then came in and garnered quite a bit of good will before popping his clogs. Blair then came in riding a tidal wave of hope which had been tee'd up for him. Starmer is essentially tasked with both the Kinnock role of clearing up another "too far left experiment" failure within the party AND the Blair role of inspiring the electorate at large. That is a HUGE ask to be fair. He's probably the most capable, talented and forensic a leader labour have had but he just doesn't project dynamism. I think he would make an excellent PM but I have to say I don't see him being elected.

by super_realist Fri 5 Jun - 14:38

Look at what we were making in the 1970' and 1980's, absolute rubbish. British Leyland were stinking cars. Nice try with Germany, but they make quality products and their businesses are profitable and world leading. Unions using power to keep their products rubbish isn't a good thing
In terms of coal we absolutely had to get rid of that. No one should be sending anyone down a mine.
Ah right, it's only if it's New Labour that it matter to you? It was New Labour who put tuition fees for students at university, isn't that divisive?
Labour won't get in again until they are more like New Labour.
We have had a North/South divide under every government we have ever had.
Why do you have to hark back to Thatchers days? Of course she was divisive, but which PM hasn't been?

You're right about Starmer not being PM though, he's simply there to bring Labour back more to the centre, although for a while he was even more unpopular then Corbyn, which takes some doing.
It seems that the success of political parties in the UK is determined by how bad the opposition is, and I don't see anything changing soon.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 5 Jun - 16:54

super_realist wrote:I think your tired old rhetoric gets you nowhere.
We know you don't like the Tories, but you dont seem to hold Labour responsible for us having a Tory government.
Labour had an open goal from six inches and it went out for a throw-in.
You should have equal disdain for them both.

Why don't you give us your best example of "stoking division"

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 5 Jun - 16:57

McLaren wrote:On the masks I assume the differences in whether it is beneficial to wear them comes from what outcomes you measure. In South East Asia they formed a major part of the anti covid strategy whereas in Europe we are convinced they don't work.

The UK experts I have heard say masks are useless focus a lot on lab tests measuring droplet formation, dispersion, viral particle spray etc with and without masks. Then extrapolate that without good numbers there masks are not worth it.

But you could also think about measuring the impact of masks on R0, comparing populations that wear them and those that don't (obviously isolating the masks effect).

It is like when clinical trials measure something like blood pressure decrease at x months instead of changes to death rates or quality of life.

If you measure just one particular effect instead of a more all encompassing one you might not get a good picture of whether something has a benefit on the outcome you actually care about.

Doesn't matter if Asia uses them as a knee-jerk response; doesn't make them any more efficacious. Almost impossible to separate mask wearing from all the other variables that might have made, say, South Korea 'better' so far and not ethical to conduct a live trial where sub-groups each trial a different single intervention I'm afraid.

R0 doesn't change. You might be thinking of R.

by McLaren Fri 5 Jun - 17:28

Navy

I have no idea if anyone has tried to isolate the effect of masks if a population wears them during an epidemic (although I am sure someone has). But would you agree that lab tests on droplet and spray would not give the full picture on whether masks are worth wearing?

In SE Asia it is thought that the science backs up wearing masks for covid.

by super_realist Fri 5 Jun - 17:31

McLaren wrote:Navy

I have no idea if anyone has tried to isolate the effect of masks if a population wears them during an epidemic (although I am sure someone has). But would you agree that lab tests on droplet and spray would not give the full picture on whether masks are worth wearing?

In SE Asia it is thought that the science backs up wearing masks for covid.

Leave your Chinese medicine out of it Mac. laughing

You often saw Asians wearing masks before covid, doesn't mean it protected them from pollution though.
The point from the majority seems to be that the benefit is negligible.

Anyway, if you want to test it you don't compare two different countries yet again.

by kwinigolfer Fri 5 Jun - 17:32

McLaren wrote:Navy

I have no idea if anyone has tried to isolate the effect of masks if a population wears them during an epidemic (although I am sure someone has). But would you agree that lab tests on droplet and spray would not give the full picture on whether masks are worth wearing?

In SE Asia it is thought that the science backs up wearing masks for covid.

Mac,
I think you only need to look at Hong Kong to see that, circumstantially at least, routine face-mask wearing is probably beneficial. Hate wearing them but we have to wear them in stores and glad we do.

by super_realist Fri 5 Jun - 17:34

kwinigolfer wrote:
McLaren wrote:Navy

I have no idea if anyone has tried to isolate the effect of masks if a population wears them during an epidemic (although I am sure someone has). But would you agree that lab tests on droplet and spray would not give the full picture on whether masks are worth wearing?

In SE Asia it is thought that the science backs up wearing masks for covid.

Mac,
I think you only need to look at Hong Kong to see that, circumstantially at least, routine face-mask wearing is probably beneficial. Hate wearing them but we have to wear them in stores and glad we do.

I'll take the words circumstantial and probably as justification that we have absolutely no idea of whether there is a benefit or not.

by kwinigolfer Fri 5 Jun - 18:19

Would you not concede that it's remarkable that HK has only seen 4 deaths attributable to COVID?

PS: Late to respond, but when has there been a significant North/South divide in Labour Cabinets? But would probably agree that Scotland has been underrepresented (except for recent PM's).

by McLaren Fri 5 Jun - 18:31

On BBC inside science a few weeks back some guy who was anti masks was complaining they only reduced droplet spread by some single digit percentage. Maybe you need to consider the accumulative effect of these things. Masks don't have to totally stop transmission to be effective on a national scale.

by super_realist Fri 5 Jun - 18:43

kwinigolfer wrote:Would you not concede that it's remarkable that HK has only seen 4 deaths attributable to COVID?

PS: Late to respond, but when has there been a significant North/South divide in Labour Cabinets? But would probably agree that Scotland has been underrepresented (except for recent PM's).

None of which has been proven to be due to facemasks.

by kwinigolfer Fri 5 Jun - 19:35

super_realist wrote:
kwinigolfer wrote:Would you not concede that it's remarkable that HK has only seen 4 deaths attributable to COVID?

PS: Late to respond, but when has there been a significant North/South divide in Labour Cabinets? But would probably agree that Scotland has been underrepresented (except for recent PM's).

None of which has been proven to be due to facemasks.

That's why I said "circumstantially". What's your theory?
"Proven" is a bit TransAtlantic for you supes.

by super_realist Fri 5 Jun - 19:41

kwinigolfer wrote:
super_realist wrote:
kwinigolfer wrote:Would you not concede that it's remarkable that HK has only seen 4 deaths attributable to COVID?

PS: Late to respond, but when has there been a significant North/South divide in Labour Cabinets? But would probably agree that Scotland has been underrepresented (except for recent PM's).

None of which has been proven to be due to facemasks.

That's why I said "circumstantially". What's your theory?
"Proven" is a bit TransAtlantic for you supes.

What I'm saying is it would be fallacious to claim its because of the masks, especially considering how much face masks are already endemic as part of Asian culture and plenty of places there have done poorly. Not like Hong Kong are the only place to use them.

by kwinigolfer Fri 5 Jun - 19:58

You're tying yourself in knots super, Vietnam, for instance, no deaths, Thailand with "only" 58 though agree that some national reports may not be entirely trustworthy.

It would certainly be fallacious to say that masks have nothing to do with it.

by super_realist Fri 5 Jun - 20:20

kwinigolfer wrote:You're tying yourself in knots super, Vietnam, for instance, no deaths, Thailand with "only" 58 though agree that some national reports may not be entirely trustworthy.

It would certainly be fallacious to say that masks have nothing to do with it.

You don't know that they have had any effect whatsoever, that's the point. That's why you can't claim they are effective or have played a part in the numbers of some Asian countries..
You can't tell whether they do or don't and you have no way of telling whether masks have had an influence on any country because you have no idea to what extent they use them or not.

Have you seen these idiots protesting outside Cummings House? Funny that they're not at Barry Gardiners or any of the BLM virtue signallers houses.

by McLaren Fri 5 Jun - 20:37

Super

From a pragmatic perspective would it be not be better to copy as many things as possible from countries who dealt with covid better and who have dealt with epidemics more recently?

by super_realist Fri 5 Jun - 20:46

Perhaps Mac, but the evidence on masks is incredibly patchy and dubious.
There's no point in copying things which haven't been proven to be effective in fact it's a bit Trumpian just like his UV radiation claim.

By the way, lower death numbers don't necessarily mean a country has dealt with it better as you very well know, it could simply mean they have suffered less but that doesn't mean its because of how they handled it.

by kwinigolfer Fri 5 Jun - 20:56

Nothing to do with Drumpf, or Merkel etc; much more to do with people saying, this might help, certainly can't harm, doesn't hurt the economy, just do it.
A bit like the daft imposition of travel quarantine, making things up as they go along.

Anyway, much better to have 4 deaths than 40,000.

by super_realist Fri 5 Jun - 21:03

kwinigolfer wrote:Nothing to do with Drumpf, or Merkel etc; much more to do with people saying, this might help, certainly can't harm, doesn't hurt the economy, just do it.
A bit like the daft imposition of travel quarantine, making things up as they go along.

Anyway, much better to have 4 deaths than 40,000.

The "can't do any harm" is also not true. I've heard some scientists say that a mask not worn properly can be potentially more likely to lead to infection. Furthermore the effect of an individual or population believing falsely that a mask will protect better than it can could put themselves in more infectious situations, so it's simply not true to say that masks won't do any harm.

by Plunky Fri 5 Jun - 21:30

If an infected person is near me I think I'd rather have two masks between my face and theirs than no masks at all. Experts are divided, so who knows whether the masks help significantly or not. But if they don't, then the only downside for me is temporary inconvenience. If people got a false sense of security from them that could be an issue, but I haven't seen that. Consider the downside if masks really do help and nobody is wearing them. Mr. p says if masks are good enough for medical professionals then they're good enough for him, and I must admit he looks pretty dapper in his. thumbsup

by pedro Sat 6 Jun - 10:04

Re masks. Everything is on the assumption people can’t use them correctly. Well, in stead of imposing a lockdown costing billions maybe it would be worthwhile ensuring / teaching people how to use them correctly.

by beninho Sat 6 Jun - 10:11

A tory mp, now reported he went to a racist bbq against the guidelines. Tge guest list looks bloody horrendous.

by super_realist Sat 6 Jun - 10:11

Using masks correctly wouldn't mean we could end lockdown. WHO who have changed their tune a bit today have stated that a mask doesn't protect you from getting coronavirus and that washing hands and social distancing remains the best practice for stopping the spread.

by super_realist Sat 6 Jun - 10:14

beninho wrote:A tory mp, now reported he went to a racist bbq against the guidelines. Tge guest list looks bloody horrendous.

What is a racist BBQ?

by Soul Requiem Sat 6 Jun - 10:15

beninho wrote:A tory mp, now reported he went to a racist bbq against the guidelines. Tge guest list looks bloody horrendous.

Out of interest why do you only have a problem when it's a Tory?

by super_realist Sat 6 Jun - 10:19

Soul Requiem wrote:
beninho wrote:A tory mp, now reported he went to a racist bbq against the guidelines. Tge guest list looks bloody horrendous.

Out of interest why do you only have a problem when it's a Tory?

Of course , he never made a peep about Barry Gardiner, Rosie Duffield, Stephen Kinnock or any of those BLM virtue signallers. To him, the only people who deserve criticism for breaking lockdown rules are those who he doesn't agree with politically, bit like his hero Keir Starmer and his lefty media who only call people out who they don't like and just ignore those they do like.

by beninho Sat 6 Jun - 10:25

super_realist wrote:
beninho wrote:A tory mp, now reported he went to a racist bbq against the guidelines. Tge guest list looks bloody horrendous.

What is a racist BBQ?

Look at the guest list.

by beninho Sat 6 Jun - 10:28

Soul Requiem wrote:
beninho wrote:A tory mp, now reported he went to a racist bbq against the guidelines. Tge guest list looks bloody horrendous.

Out of interest why do you only have a problem when it's a Tory?

Generally, I dont really have an issue with any of the mps that have broken lockdown bar Cummings. Every single one has been incredibly minor. I raise the tory ones on here, because, its generally more fun.

by super_realist Sat 6 Jun - 10:31

beninho wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
beninho wrote:A tory mp, now reported he went to a racist bbq against the guidelines. Tge guest list looks bloody horrendous.

Out of interest why do you only have a problem when it's a Tory?

Generally, I dont really have an issue with any of the mps that have broken lockdown bar Cummings. Every single one has been incredibly minor. I raise the tory ones on here, because, its generally more fun.

Is it hard to type when on one knee Ben?

by beninho Sat 6 Jun - 10:34

super_realist wrote:
beninho wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
beninho wrote:A tory mp, now reported he went to a racist bbq against the guidelines. Tge guest list looks bloody horrendous.

Out of interest why do you only have a problem when it's a Tory?

Generally, I dont really have an issue with any of the mps that have broken lockdown bar Cummings. Every single one has been incredibly minor. I raise the tory ones on here, because, its generally more fun.

Is it hard to type when on one knee Ben?

No idea what you mean.

by Soul Requiem Sat 6 Jun - 10:45

beninho wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
beninho wrote:A tory mp, now reported he went to a racist bbq against the guidelines. Tge guest list looks bloody horrendous.

Out of interest why do you only have a problem when it's a Tory?

Generally, I dont really have an issue with any of the mps that have broken lockdown bar Cummings. Every single one has been incredibly minor. I raise the tory ones on here, because, its generally more fun.

There's a surprise.

by pedro Sat 6 Jun - 11:23

super_realist wrote:
beninho wrote:A tory mp, now reported he went to a racist bbq against the guidelines. Tge guest list looks bloody horrendous.

What is a racist BBQ?

Burning crosses made of sausages.

by super_realist Sat 6 Jun - 16:29

Stupid Britain again. Here's where the second wave starts. Effing morons, yet no fake indignation from all those lefties and Liberal media

by beninho Sat 6 Jun - 17:25

You say liberal like its a bad thing, like trump talking about anti fascists.

Are you liberal?

by super_realist Sat 6 Jun - 17:31

beninho wrote:You say liberal like its a bad thing, like trump talking about anti fascists.

Are you liberal?

I mean in the way that the Liberal press are described, the simpering pathetic papers like The Guardian and Channel 4 News who if this was Tories would be frothing at the mouth, but because it isn't, they are all in favour of it, a bit like you admitted to being this morning.
This is an absolute scandal that it is being allowed to happen and no person who was sane could think this ought to be permissable. Why have the government and terminal Plank Sadiq Khan done nothing about this?

Are you fine with the mass hypocrisy of these protestors?

by beninho Sat 6 Jun - 18:01

The horse bolted weeks ago. The beaches have been full for a while, don't think they can clamp down on protesting after the rest have been allowed.

Of course they shouldn't be out protesting and it's against the guidelines, but aren't to guidelines in Scotland 5 miles and you drove 50 for a game of golf? A lot of people aren't respecting the guidelines anymore.

by super_realist Sat 6 Jun - 18:07

Ha ha ha, that is possibly the worst excuse ever not to criticise these oafs.
It's the social distancing that is key, plus its not mandatory for me to remain 5 miles.

We had thousands of people in London, mostly virtue signalling middle class white people acting like vectors. There hasn't been anything like that sort of mass gatherings on beaches.

by beninho Sat 6 Jun - 18:16

Whats the guideline in Scotland for travel?

Its not mandatory for anyone to stay 2 metres apart. Its a guideline.

Your saw the videos of Southend beach a few weeks ago. The lido near me, was also rammed. You have no idea how many people attended beaches over the last few weeks.

The rules were relaxed, people could go anywhere they want for as long as they want. Would I do it, nope on all counts.

But, I'm unsure on the argument, people, shouldn't be breaking the guidelines. But, hey, my dad came round and sat in my garden before it was generally allowed.

by super_realist Sat 6 Jun - 18:18

beninho wrote:Whats the guideline in Scotland for travel?

Its not mandatory for anyone to stay 2 metres apart. Its a guideline.

Your saw the videos of Southend beach a few weeks ago. The lido near me, was also rammed. You have no idea how many people attended beaches over the last few weeks.

The rules were relaxed, people could go anywhere they want for as long as they want. Would I do it, nope on all counts.

But, I'm unsure on the argument, people, shouldn't be breaking the guidelines. But, hey, my dad came round and sat in my garden before it was generally allowed.

So why do you have one standard for Cummings, but don't give a toss about far more people with considerably more risk of infecting more people?
Who will you blame if there's a second wave, bearing in mind large groups were at it long before Cummings stupid trip was announced?

by beninho Sat 6 Jun - 18:30

To me, I think the chief political advisor to the prime minister is treated differently to the general public. We have different views, obvs.

Will there be a se on wave, read a really interesting article in the telegraph about it looking unlikely. And as you say, people have been doing things for weeks without a surge.

by super_realist Sat 6 Jun - 18:50

So, do what you like unless you're a Tory?

I don't think Cummings was right to do what he did either, but I don't think blatantly breaking social distancing rules in a large virtue signaling pointless rally should simply be shrugged off as if it doesn't matter.

I hope you're right about the second wave, as no other country has experienced it, but we have a whole new level of stupidity in this country that can't really be underestimated.

by beninho Sat 6 Jun - 19:05

super_realist wrote:So, do what you like unless you're a Tory?

I don't think Cummings was right to do what he did either, but I don't think blatantly breaking social distancing rules in a large virtue signaling pointless rally should simply be shrugged off as if it doesn't matter.

I hope you're right about the second wave, as no other country has experienced it, but we have a whole new level of stupidity in this country that can't really be underestimated.

Not do as you like, as I'm not fussed with Jenrick or the bbq guy just as I'm not that fussed with Kinnock and rmthe one who resigned, nor the prof.

I do think the Cummings thing was on a whole new level from the covering it up to the bullsht excuses, and while not an mp, he is more involved then all the others.

The one thing about the rally, apart from it breaching guidelines is I wouldn't call it pointless. I don't think its my place to tell black people how to feel and I have no idea what challenges or issues they face. I don't think any of us do. I make that assumption that we are all generally white and middle class.

by McLaren Sat 6 Jun - 21:09

Do we all agree that you cannot protest in a way that is safe in terms of covid transmission?

It's hard to imagine what would make me oppose protests for black rights taking place but adhering to covid mitigation might be one example.

by westisbest Sat 6 Jun - 21:22

Protesting is fine and it’s for a very serious issue all around the world, not just the states.

Now unfortunately is not the time for hundreds of people to be protesting, or any other large gatherings.

by kwinigolfer Sat 6 Jun - 22:00

westisbest wrote:Protesting is fine and it’s for a very serious issue all around the world, not just the states.

Now unfortunately is not the time for hundreds of people to be protesting, or any other large gatherings.

As far as the States is concerned, though, they're protesting the wrong thing.
Good that they're doing the BLM thing, but that helps to miss the point about intolerance in the US, Black, White, Yellow, Brown, some sort of discrimination is everywhere, and it starts from the top down.

by Sponsored content