Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[ralphjohn69]

First topic message reminder :

It's not logic. Most pot 4 teams are no worse than Rangers. If Rangers were the worst ever pot 4 team last year, what makes them any better now?

Because instead of playing another Pot 3 team they will be playing a Pot 4 team, who will probably be worse than a Pot 3 team so they have a better chance of getting 3rd, although it's obviously not guaranteed. You really don't help yourself when you post about football....

[super_realist]

Super

In an alternative reality where Israel behaved responsibility towards Palestinian people they would have the right to launch a military operation in Palestine against hamas. We don't live in that universe. Israel should be kept away from Palestine.

Do you think that civilian targets are a legitimate target?
Palestine doesn't exist Mac, there's no such place.

[McLaren]

Obviously not. Did you read my posts? That was kind of my issue.

[super_realist]

Obviously not. Did you read my posts? That was kind of my issue.

Then are Hamas not a legitimate target?

[McLaren]

Not if you can't target them without indiscriminately killing Palestinians.

[super_realist]

Not if you can't target them without indiscriminately killing Palestinians.

Hamas don't care about Palestinians. They actively put them in danger.
What do you expect Israel to do? You're advocating that the use of human shields by Hamas is a legitimate act of war.

(I'm not in favour of either state by the way, they're both pathetic)

[McLaren]

Even if we just limit it to the conflict of the past month or so, Israel have now murdered more Palestinians than Hamas did Israelis on 7th October. By your logic I think Hamas should be able to kill several thousand more Israelis to even things up.

[navyblueshorts]

Super

What point are you trying to make? Because your posts read like you are hairs breadth away from saying you think Israel are giving the Palestinians what they deserve.

Super, are you just ignoring this?

Not at all Mac, I'm referring to the dreadful coverage of this entire conflict by the supposedly "impartial" BBC Mac. I've yet to see any evidence of the BBC making any similar dreadful journalism mistakes against the Palestine side, funny that.

As to your question, why aren't Palestine giving up the Hamas terrorists?

Not really. It's the IDF doing all the killing just now, in case you hadn't noticed...

[navyblueshorts]

Even if we just limit it to the conflict of the past month or so, Israel have now murdered more Palestinians than Hamas did Israelis on 7th October. By your logic I think Hamas should be able to kill several thousand more Israelis to even things up.  

More than Vlad the Mad has murdered in Ukraine as well. In a fraction of the time. Well done, the IDF; you must be really proud.

[navyblueshorts]

Not if you can't target them without indiscriminately killing Palestinians.

Hamas don't care about Palestinians. They actively put them in danger.
What do you expect Israel to do? You're advocating that the use of human shields by Hamas is a legitimate act of war.

(I'm not in favour of either state by the way, they're both pathetic)

For me, I expect Israel to do exactly what it is doing, because its history re. the treatment of the Palestinians suggests they're genocidal and don't give a 4X about any of them. What Israel is currently doing is pathetic, and a childish reaction, even if somewhat understandable. It's what a stronger (but somewhat bullying) child would do, in response to being punched by someone several years lower at school.

Hamas are cr@p, militarily, cf. the IDF. Their missiles are cr@p and Israel's Iron Dome is pretty much impregnable and propped up by the U.S. What Israel could have done following Oct 7th, is wipe out all the terrorist incursions and then simply stood off the Strip while covering any further intrusions from it while it decided on an adult way of dealing w/ Hamas. They have no compunction about extra-judicial killings - perhaps they could have assassinated the Hamas leadership in Qatar if, having asked the Qatari's for them to be handed over, Qatar refused. Perhaps (shock! horror!) Israel and Netanyahu could have stopped funding Hamas in the Strip simply to divide the Palestinians and prevent the formation of a Palestinian state, the creation of which is required under UN convention. Of course, Israel wants all of what was Mandatory Palestine, wants all arabs out and will continue to be supported in that aim by the U.S.

[Soul Requiem]

Not if you can't target them without indiscriminately killing Palestinians.

Hamas don't care about Palestinians. They actively put them in danger.
What do you expect Israel to do? You're advocating that the use of human shields by Hamas is a legitimate act of war.

(I'm not in favour of either state by the way, they're both pathetic)

For me, I expect Israel to do exactly what it is doing, because its history re. the treatment of the Palestinians suggests they're genocidal and don't give a 4X about any of them. What Israel is currently doing is pathetic, and a childish reaction, even if somewhat understandable. It's what a stronger (but somewhat bullying) child would do, in response to being punched by someone several years lower at school.

Hamas are cr@p, militarily, cf. the IDF. Their missiles are cr@p and Israel's Iron Dome is pretty much impregnable and propped up by the U.S. What Israel could have done following Oct 7th, is wipe out all the terrorist incursions and then simply stood off the Strip while covering any further intrusions from it while it decided on an adult way of dealing w/ Hamas. They have no compunction about extra-judicial killings - perhaps they could have assassinated the Hamas leadership in Qatar if, having asked the Qatari's for them to be handed over, Qatar refused. Perhaps (shock! horror!) Israel and Netanyahu could have stopped funding Hamas in the Strip simply to divide the Palestinians and prevent the formation of a Palestinian state, the creation of which is required under UN convention. Of course, Israel wants all of what was Mandatory Palestine, wants all arabs out and will continue to be supported in that aim by the U.S.

Maybe the smaller child should avoid hitting the school bully given he has the knowledge that the reaction will be ten fold.

[McLaren]

Soul

Are you joining super in essentially saying that Palestinians deserve what they are getting?

[Duty281]

Duty

As a right winger yourself would you like to see the conservatives move further right than they are are the moment?

And is it social or fiscal issues that particularly drive yours right wing philosophy?

Not fussed where the Conservatives go. I'm just pointing out that they're not right-wing, and there's a huge market of voters who want them to be more right-wing (mostly in England, as you said).

And fiscal. Socially I'm quite liberal.

[navyblueshorts]

Not if you can't target them without indiscriminately killing Palestinians.

Hamas don't care about Palestinians. They actively put them in danger.
What do you expect Israel to do? You're advocating that the use of human shields by Hamas is a legitimate act of war.

(I'm not in favour of either state by the way, they're both pathetic)

For me, I expect Israel to do exactly what it is doing, because its history re. the treatment of the Palestinians suggests they're genocidal and don't give a 4X about any of them. What Israel is currently doing is pathetic, and a childish reaction, even if somewhat understandable. It's what a stronger (but somewhat bullying) child would do, in response to being punched by someone several years lower at school.

Hamas are cr@p, militarily, cf. the IDF. Their missiles are cr@p and Israel's Iron Dome is pretty much impregnable and propped up by the U.S. What Israel could have done following Oct 7th, is wipe out all the terrorist incursions and then simply stood off the Strip while covering any further intrusions from it while it decided on an adult way of dealing w/ Hamas. They have no compunction about extra-judicial killings - perhaps they could have assassinated the Hamas leadership in Qatar if, having asked the Qatari's for them to be handed over, Qatar refused. Perhaps (shock! horror!) Israel and Netanyahu could have stopped funding Hamas in the Strip simply to divide the Palestinians and prevent the formation of a Palestinian state, the creation of which is required under UN convention. Of course, Israel wants all of what was Mandatory Palestine, wants all arabs out and will continue to be supported in that aim by the U.S.

Maybe the smaller child should avoid hitting the school bully given he has the knowledge that the reaction will be ten fold.

Fair point, but as usual with a bully, they're a bit thick really and can't come up with any just chastisement and/or act the part of the grown up. Also, bullies tend to be just that, so even if the smaller child does nothing, they get it in the neck anyway. Bullies always have their go-to targets, don't they?

[JAS]

Trouble is how do you deal with the school bully in the playground? You either face him/her head on, somehow befriend someone who can put them in their place/warn them off  for you or hope authority (teachers or police) will intervene. In that analogy Hamas are going about things the wrong way to attract any friendships that will slap the bully into place and the teachers "appear" to be on the bullies side. Hence they saw their only option as taking the fight head on them selves. The fact that they felt that was the only option says as much about both a Netanyahu led Israel and the current leading lights of the international community as it does about them.They have to understand how not to be a pariah though. Re the distinction between Palastinian people and Hamas, most people outside Israel (and even many within it) can make that distinction but in a war?? Palestinian electorate voted for a Hamas government, not all of them obviously. Imagine if Parliament voted to go to war with France Tory MPs voted for it, Labour opposed it. If the French subsequently invaded they're not going to politely ask...all non Tory voters...get out of that town, we're gonna bomb it. Obviously in the middle East and Israel/Palestine in particular it's much more complex than that. If Palestine voted now and Hamas were electorally ejected they would still exist and still wreak havoc, whether they had a mandate or not. So Israel does have a dilemma, from what I've heard in the past though Mossad should be more than capable of a more more surgical approach to removing Hamas than the blood curdling approach Netanyahu has been pursuing.

Where does one make progress from that scenario??

[navyblueshorts]

Nice regime...

https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/11/22/23972908/palestinian-prisoners-israel-administrative-detention

https://newrepublic.com/maz/article/177074/israel-arms-worlds-autocratswith-weapons-tested-palestinians

[super_realist]

Soul

Are you joining super in essentially saying that Palestinians deserve what they are getting?

I didn't say that at all Mac. I didn't even imply it.
Hamas should get what they deserve. Can you not see a distinction?
Perhaps you are like that racist arse Corbyn, unable to state whether Hamas should stay in power or can't bring yourself to call them terrorists?

Here's a question for you Mac, given that Hamas do not care about human life in Gaza, and given that Hamas are the reason that Palestinians are dying as a result of justified reprisals against Hamas, why don't Palestinians give up Hamas to Israel?
Wouldn't that be better than silly ceasefires?

Israel doesn't want to kill civilians, but Hamas deliberately put innocent Palestinians in the way. Why dont they simply tell Israel the location of Hamas terrorists?

[super_realist]

Even if we just limit it to the conflict of the past month or so, Israel have now murdered more Palestinians than Hamas did Israelis on 7th October. By your logic I think Hamas should be able to kill several thousand more Israelis to even things up.  

Funny you can't condemn Hamas action Mac.

[navyblueshorts]

...why don't Palestinians give up Hamas to Israel?
Wouldn't that be better than silly ceasefires?...

A valid question, but is it as easy as that? It takes someone pretty brave to confront armed, repressive regimes and expect to get away with their own lives, or those of their family. Why haven't the Russians kicked Putin out? Why didn't they get rid of Stalin? Why didn't the Iraqis get rid of Hussein? How come the Cambodians never deposed Pol Pot? Why is Iran still a hideous, repressive theocracy? Why haven't the North Koreans deposed the Kims? How about the al-Assads of Syria? Etc.

A reasonable question, on the face of it, but I wonder how many of us would stand up and take on an armed regime that we were living under? Not many I suspect.

[super_realist]

...why don't Palestinians give up Hamas to Israel?
Wouldn't that be better than silly ceasefires?...

A valid question, but is it as easy as that? It takes someone pretty brave to confront armed, repressive regimes and expect to get away with their own lives, or those of their family. Why haven't the Russians kicked Putin out? Why didn't they get rid of Stalin? Why didn't the Iraqis get rid of Hussein? How come the Cambodians never deposed Pol Pot? Why is Iran still a hideous, repressive theocracy? Why haven't the North Koreans deposed the Kims? How about the al-Assads of Syria? Etc.

A reasonable question, on the face of it, but I wonder how many of us would stand up and take on an armed regime that we were living under? Not many I suspect.

They don't need to physically collar them and march them up to an Israeli plod. They could just provide information.
Wouldn't you if they were using your residences and hospitals as a human shield?
The other countries you mentioned didn't have any agency to which they could renounce those despots to.

[navyblueshorts]

...why don't Palestinians give up Hamas to Israel?
Wouldn't that be better than silly ceasefires?...

A valid question, but is it as easy as that? It takes someone pretty brave to confront armed, repressive regimes and expect to get away with their own lives, or those of their family. Why haven't the Russians kicked Putin out? Why didn't they get rid of Stalin? Why didn't the Iraqis get rid of Hussein? How come the Cambodians never deposed Pol Pot? Why is Iran still a hideous, repressive theocracy? Why haven't the North Koreans deposed the Kims? How about the al-Assads of Syria? Etc.

A reasonable question, on the face of it, but I wonder how many of us would stand up and take on an armed regime that we were living under? Not many I suspect.

They don't need to physically collar them and march them up to an Israeli plod. They could just provide information.
Wouldn't you if they were using your residences and hospitals as a human shield?
The other countries you mentioned didn't have any agency to which they could renounce those despots to.

Yeah, right. You just "provide information"....and then wonder why you're trussed up and shot. Or your family are. Hamas obviously wouldn't have any informers etc, would they? I'd love to see precisely how you'd act if you were in exactly their situation.

You're also apparently suggesting that Palestinians should obviously trust the IDF and Israeli Government to treat them well. Yep; that's worked out well over the last 80 or so years, hasn't it? Perhaps they would trust a body such as the UN, but I doubt it when it's not fit for purpose and subject to petty vetos by, you've guessed it, the knee-jerk supporting, never mind the crimes against humanity, United States. I'm not surprised at all, that when it's obvious no-one gives a 4X about them, they turn to Hamas etc or the Palestinian youth take up what arms they can get their hands on.

[super_realist]

Hamas are incredibly poor in regards to technology or intelligence. They've also only got 40,000 soldiers.
Something like 30% of their missiles never leave Gaza, that's how inept they are.
Simple fact is that Palestinians would appear to support Hamas.

Why would Palestinians trust the UN, like the weak BBC they're too afraid to label them as terrorists.

The question to which there's a very obvious answer is are Palestinians better off without Hamas?

[McLaren]

Funny you can't condemn Hamas action Mac.

Not sure how that is your defense. But just in case something about my posts over the years made you think I was ok with murdering and kidnapping people, I condemn Hamas.

[McLaren]

Israel doesn't want to kill civilians

Is that the most ingenue comment ever made?

[McLaren]

They could just provide information.

Actually this is going to run it pretty close.

[navyblueshorts]

Hamas are incredibly poor in regards to technology or intelligence. They've also only got 40,000 soldiers.
Something like 30% of their missiles never leave Gaza, that's how inept they are.
Simple fact is that Palestinians would appear to support Hamas.

Why would Palestinians trust the UN, like the weak BBC they're too afraid to label them as terrorists.

The question to which there's a very obvious answer is are Palestinians better off without Hamas?

History would suggest it makes no difference. History suggests Israel can murder Palestinians with impunity. They may as well try Hamas, eh? Hamas were elected, democratically, but just because that wasn't the right result (according to the US, UK etc), they were undermined (see, for example, here or here). I'm not saying they would have turned into paragons of democracy and free speech etc, but Israel, the US etc ensured they were never given the chance. Oh yeah, and Likud ensured that Hamas would be supported financially etc as a policy decision in order to divide Gaza from the West Bank etc and ensure any political solution never comes to pass.

[super_realist]

Ha ha, yeah "elected" in 2007.
Imagine how you'd be moaning if we hadn't had an election since 2007 in the UK.

Changing the subject, how much of a waste of time is this COVID inquiry. They really aren't focussing on what they should be doing.

[I'm never wrong]

Changing the subject, how much of a waste of time is this COVID inquiry. They really aren't focussing on what they should be doing.

A total waste of time in my mind if no one is going to be accountable and some sort of action taken against them. But I suppose the promise of no action was the only way to get politicians to speak. To me, this just confirms how incompetent politicians are.

[super_realist]

They aren't asking anything remotely pertinent, such as "were lockdowns the right path".
This will cost over a billion quid, come to no conclusions and make no difference to the next one.
How is it Sweden and France can already have completed theirs, and Britain has barely started.
Did find it hilarious Sadiq Khunt thought he could have "saved lives" if he'd been included in meetings. I could punch that guy until my arm was a bloody stump.

[navyblueshorts]

Ha ha, yeah "elected" in 2007.
Imagine how you'd be moaning if we hadn't had an election since 2007 in the UK.

Changing the subject, how much of a waste of time is this COVID inquiry. They really aren't focussing on what they should be doing.

Missing the point. They weren't "elected"; they actually were elected. A simple fact; not up for debate.

The COVID inquiry is only a waste of time for those with the attention span of a goldfish. If it warrants doing, I'd expect them to go over the whole shebang.

[navyblueshorts]

Changing the subject, how much of a waste of time is this COVID inquiry. They really aren't focussing on what they should be doing.

A total waste of time in my mind if no one is going to be accountable and some sort of action taken against them.  But I suppose the promise of no action was the only way to get politicians to speak. To me, this just confirms how incompetent politicians are.

In what way would you hold them "accountable"? Are you suggesting criminal intent etc?

[navyblueshorts]

They aren't asking anything remotely pertinent, such as "were lockdowns the right path".
This will cost over a billion quid, come to no conclusions and make no difference to the next one.
How is it Sweden and France can already have completed theirs, and Britain has barely started.
Did find it hilarious Sadiq Khunt thought he could have "saved lives" if he'd been included in meetings. I could punch that guy until my arm was a bloody stump.

They should get you onboard at the enquiry to ask all the relevant questions!

What makes you think Sweden and France have done theirs in any way remotely comprehensively, or better ultimately than this one? Just because they held them quicker than the UK?

Tend to agree with you on Kahn, though.

[I'm never wrong]

Changing the subject, how much of a waste of time is this COVID inquiry. They really aren't focussing on what they should be doing.

A total waste of time in my mind if no one is going to be accountable and some sort of action taken against them.  But I suppose the promise of no action was the only way to get politicians to speak. To me, this just confirms how incompetent politicians are.

In what way would you hold them "accountable"? Are you suggesting criminal intent etc?

In my fantasy world, for a MP, barred from holding any office other than that of an MP. Suspension from the House? Removal of priveleges?

[super_realist]

They aren't asking anything remotely pertinent, such as "were lockdowns the right path".
This will cost over a billion quid, come to no conclusions and make no difference to the next one.
How is it Sweden and France can already have completed theirs, and Britain has barely started.
Did find it hilarious Sadiq Khunt thought he could have "saved lives" if he'd been included in meetings. I could punch that guy until my arm was a bloody stump.

They should get you onboard at the enquiry to ask all the relevant questions!

What makes you think Sweden and France have done theirs in any way remotely comprehensively, or better ultimately than this one? Just because they held them quicker than the UK?

Tend to agree with you on Kahn, though.

Well first of all they haven't asked why we deviated from standard WHO Pandemic response to follow that of a communist state, secondly NOTHING has come out of our inquiry other than people name calling.

They haven't once asked if lockdowns work or whether we needed them, they seem to have an agenda that we should have locked down sooner and that nothing else should be considered.
Look at how long the Chilcot inquiry took. Was that worth it? Duration doesn't mean they are being comprehensive.

[super_realist]

Ha ha, yeah "elected" in 2007.
Imagine how you'd be moaning if we hadn't had an election since 2007 in the UK.

Changing the subject, how much of a waste of time is this COVID inquiry. They really aren't focussing on what they should be doing.

Missing the point. They weren't "elected"; they actually were elected. A simple fact; not up for debate.

The COVID inquiry is only a waste of time for those with the attention span of a goldfish. If it warrants doing, I'd expect them to go over the whole shebang.

What are you on about? You wouldn't stand for a party elected in 2007 if it was the UK with no subsequent elections since. A 16 year old administration would be something you would not respect or recognise, so why do you accept the legitimacy of Hamas elected 16 years ago, doesn't mean it's the will of Palestinians now, and doesn't mean that for the good of Palestinians they shouldn't  divulge intelligence to have them wiped out.

The thing about the covid inquiry is that NONE of the 35 points pencilled in for review is to ask if lockdowns were necessary/effective or what alternatives were considered/available and also it isn't being considered if turning the NHS into a COVID only service was the right move
If anything, it seems that regardless of how long it takes it isn't going to be comprehensive.

[navyblueshorts]

Changing the subject, how much of a waste of time is this COVID inquiry. They really aren't focussing on what they should be doing.

A total waste of time in my mind if no one is going to be accountable and some sort of action taken against them.  But I suppose the promise of no action was the only way to get politicians to speak. To me, this just confirms how incompetent politicians are.

In what way would you hold them "accountable"? Are you suggesting criminal intent etc?

In my fantasy world, for a MP, barred from holding any office other than that of an MP. Suspension from the House? Removal of priveleges?

You'd still have to prove intent or some other formal breech of whatever rules they're meant to follow. At the moment, I suspect all anyone will be able to say is that there was incompetence during a period of panic. I guess voters will ultimately decide, which is as it should be.

[navyblueshorts]

They aren't asking anything remotely pertinent, such as "were lockdowns the right path".
This will cost over a billion quid, come to no conclusions and make no difference to the next one.
How is it Sweden and France can already have completed theirs, and Britain has barely started.
Did find it hilarious Sadiq Khunt thought he could have "saved lives" if he'd been included in meetings. I could punch that guy until my arm was a bloody stump.

They should get you onboard at the enquiry to ask all the relevant questions!

What makes you think Sweden and France have done theirs in any way remotely comprehensively, or better ultimately than this one? Just because they held them quicker than the UK?

Tend to agree with you on Kahn, though.

Well first of all they haven't asked why we deviated from standard WHO Pandemic response to follow that of a communist state, secondly NOTHING has come out of our inquiry other than people name calling.

They haven't once asked if lockdowns work or whether we needed them, they seem to have an agenda that we should have locked down sooner and that nothing else should be considered.
Look at how long the Chilcot inquiry took. Was that worth it? Duration doesn't mean they are being comprehensive.

Maybe you should wait a little bit, and perhaps allow the experts to conduct the enquiry?

[navyblueshorts]

Ha ha, yeah "elected" in 2007.
Imagine how you'd be moaning if we hadn't had an election since 2007 in the UK.

Changing the subject, how much of a waste of time is this COVID inquiry. They really aren't focussing on what they should be doing.

Missing the point. They weren't "elected"; they actually were elected. A simple fact; not up for debate.

The COVID inquiry is only a waste of time for those with the attention span of a goldfish. If it warrants doing, I'd expect them to go over the whole shebang.

What are you on about? You wouldn't stand for a party elected in 2007 if it was the UK with no subsequent elections since. A 16 year old administration would be something you would not respect or recognise, so why do you accept the legitimacy of Hamas elected 16 years ago, doesn't mean it's the will of Palestinians now, and doesn't mean that for the good of Palestinians they shouldn't  divulge intelligence to have them wiped out.

The thing about the covid inquiry is that NONE of the 35 points pencilled in for review is to ask if lockdowns were necessary/effective or what alternatives were considered/available and also it isn't being considered if turning the NHS into a COVID only service was the right move
If anything, it seems that regardless of how long it takes it isn't going to be comprehensive.

[super_realist]

They aren't asking anything remotely pertinent, such as "were lockdowns the right path".
This will cost over a billion quid, come to no conclusions and make no difference to the next one.
How is it Sweden and France can already have completed theirs, and Britain has barely started.
Did find it hilarious Sadiq Khunt thought he could have "saved lives" if he'd been included in meetings. I could punch that guy until my arm was a bloody stump.

They should get you onboard at the enquiry to ask all the relevant questions!

What makes you think Sweden and France have done theirs in any way remotely comprehensively, or better ultimately than this one? Just because they held them quicker than the UK?

Tend to agree with you on Kahn, though.

Well first of all they haven't asked why we deviated from standard WHO Pandemic response to follow that of a communist state, secondly NOTHING has come out of our inquiry other than people name calling.

They haven't once asked if lockdowns work or whether we needed them, they seem to have an agenda that we should have locked down sooner and that nothing else should be considered.
Look at how long the Chilcot inquiry took. Was that worth it? Duration doesn't mean they are being comprehensive.

Maybe you should wait a little bit, and perhaps allow the experts to conduct the enquiry?

You clearly missed the part about the inquiry only looking at 35 issues. None of which pertain to whether lockdowns should have happened, none of which relate to what reason we diverged from established WHO Pandemic standard response to follow the CPP.
They're also not looking into why people weren't allowed to visit flying people or attend funerals or were allowed to go to the the pub as long as they had a scotch egg.

[navyblueshorts]

They aren't asking anything remotely pertinent, such as "were lockdowns the right path".
This will cost over a billion quid, come to no conclusions and make no difference to the next one.
How is it Sweden and France can already have completed theirs, and Britain has barely started.
Did find it hilarious Sadiq Khunt thought he could have "saved lives" if he'd been included in meetings. I could punch that guy until my arm was a bloody stump.

They should get you onboard at the enquiry to ask all the relevant questions!

What makes you think Sweden and France have done theirs in any way remotely comprehensively, or better ultimately than this one? Just because they held them quicker than the UK?

Tend to agree with you on Kahn, though.

Well first of all they haven't asked why we deviated from standard WHO Pandemic response to follow that of a communist state, secondly NOTHING has come out of our inquiry other than people name calling.

They haven't once asked if lockdowns work or whether we needed them, they seem to have an agenda that we should have locked down sooner and that nothing else should be considered.
Look at how long the Chilcot inquiry took. Was that worth it? Duration doesn't mean they are being comprehensive.

Maybe you should wait a little bit, and perhaps allow the experts to conduct the enquiry?

You clearly missed the part about the inquiry only looking at 35 issues. None of which pertain to whether lockdowns should have happened, none of which relate to what reason we diverged from established WHO Pandemic standard response to follow the CPP.
They're also not looking into why people weren't allowed to visit flying people or attend funerals or were allowed to go to the the pub as long as they had a scotch egg.

[super_realist]

Surprised Mac isn't in outrage at Charles being "outed" as the person who dared to speculate about The Colour of the Duke and Duchess of Netflix's unborn brat.

[JAS]

They aren't asking anything remotely pertinent, such as "were lockdowns the right path".
This will cost over a billion quid, come to no conclusions and make no difference to the next one.
How is it Sweden and France can already have completed theirs, and Britain has barely started.
Did find it hilarious Sadiq Khunt thought he could have "saved lives" if he'd been included in meetings. I could punch that guy until my arm was a bloody stump.

They should get you onboard at the enquiry to ask all the relevant questions!

What makes you think Sweden and France have done theirs in any way remotely comprehensively, or better ultimately than this one? Just because they held them quicker than the UK?

Tend to agree with you on Kahn, though.

Well first of all they haven't asked why we deviated from standard WHO Pandemic response to follow that of a communist state, secondly NOTHING has come out of our inquiry other than people name calling.

They haven't once asked if lockdowns work or whether we needed them, they seem to have an agenda that we should have locked down sooner and that nothing else should be considered.
Look at how long the Chilcot inquiry took. Was that worth it? Duration doesn't mean they are being comprehensive.

Maybe you should wait a little bit, and perhaps allow the experts to conduct the enquiry?

You clearly missed the part about the inquiry only looking at 35 issues. None of which pertain to whether lockdowns should have happened, none of which relate to what reason we diverged from established WHO Pandemic standard response to follow the CPP.
They're also not looking into why people weren't allowed to visit flying people or attend funerals or were allowed to go to the the pub as long as they had a scotch egg.

You've clearly missed that part that we're having an enquiry because we had a situation where around a quarter of a million people died ffs. When a plane crash happens and a couple of hundred people die, there are EXTENSIVE investigations as to what happened and what could have been done to prevent it. So take that scenario and multiply it by a thousand. One of the reasons it's going to take so long is because the crisis was managed by a bunch of self serving, track covering pathological liars who it would appear were more concerned about helping their mates make as much money out of the carnage as possible (track & trace, ppe etc). So it's going to take a while to peel back all the coverup to get to any sort of truth that we may be able to learn from. As for the banal comment about Communist states, the biggest casualty numbers were in the countries run by populist right Loony freedom advocates like Trump and Bolsonaro

[super_realist]

That isn't what they are doing with this inquiry though. They aren't considering all aspects of the pandemic handling. They're spending millions (140m in first six months) on politicians bitching about one another instead of actually addressing the main points.
For example, why aren't they asking why SAGE is staffed by people who have a proven record of failure, such as Neil Ferguson who has never been correct with his modelling or that communist psychologist Susan Michie who isn't even a scientist in anything remotely relevant?

You seriously believe CCP death figures?

Why are they not addressing why they adopted Chinese Communist responses to a pandemic and not WHO Pandemic response as planned and which result in less excess deaths?

At least Jenny Harries effectively admitted that face masks were a waste of time.

[JAS]

That isn't what they are doing with this inquiry though. They aren't considering all aspects of the pandemic handling. They're spending millions (140m in first six months) on politicians bitching about one another instead of actually addressing the main points.
For example, why aren't they asking why SAGE is staffed by people who have a proven record of failure, such as Neil Ferguson who has never been correct with his modelling or that communist psychologist Susan Michie who isn't even a scientist in anything remotely relevant?

You seriously believe CCP death figures?

Why are they not addressing why they adopted Chinese Communist responses to a pandemic and not WHO Pandemic response as planned and which result in less excess deaths?

At least Jenny Harries effectively admitted that face masks were a waste of time.

If your mind is so closed why do you even bother trying to engage in debates. Given your closed mind status I can see you would struggle with the whole concept of an enquiry in the first place.

For the record no I do not believe Chinese Covid numbers, I am very skeptical of ANY data coming out of China. At the same time that has absolutely zero relevance to our enquiry anyway.

I get the feeling you don't like the truth if you don't agree with it, if you don't agree, it cant be true and anything that tries to uncover the truth must be discredited and if a debate starts getting uncomfortably away from your beliefs, change it or add in distractions, I get it... we have a proper little Trumpian!!

[McLaren]

Super

It shouldn't be news to anyone that the royals are racist.

[beninho]

Still arguing?

Love it!

[super_realist]

Whoa, where have you been Ben?

[super_realist]

Super

It shouldn't be news to anyone that the royals are racist.

It isn't racist to speculate how the child of two very different people will appear. Just as people speculate about eye colour, hair colour or any which characteristics will be inherited. It's human nature and not remotely racist.

[super_realist]

That isn't what they are doing with this inquiry though. They aren't considering all aspects of the pandemic handling. They're spending millions (140m in first six months) on politicians bitching about one another instead of actually addressing the main points.
For example, why aren't they asking why SAGE is staffed by people who have a proven record of failure, such as Neil Ferguson who has never been correct with his modelling or that communist psychologist Susan Michie who isn't even a scientist in anything remotely relevant?

You seriously believe CCP death figures?

Why are they not addressing why they adopted Chinese Communist responses to a pandemic and not WHO Pandemic response as planned and which result in less excess deaths?

At least Jenny Harries effectively admitted that face masks were a waste of time.

If your mind is so closed why do you even bother trying to engage in debates. Given your closed mind status I can see you would struggle with the whole concept of an enquiry in the first place.

For the record no I do not believe Chinese Covid numbers, I am very skeptical of ANY data coming out of China. At the same time that has absolutely zero relevance to our enquiry anyway.

I get the feeling you don't like the truth if you don't agree with it, if you don't agree, it cant be true and anything that tries to uncover the truth must be discredited and if a debate starts getting uncomfortably away from your beliefs, change it or add in distractions, I get it... we have a proper little Trumpian!!

I don't know what you aren't getting here. My point is the enquiry appears ONLY to be addressing the pandemic from a particular viewpoint. It isn't asking anything in regards to whether we followed the correct path.
Nice trope of calling me a Trumpian because I have a different view to you. Apparently I'm Trumpian because I wanted a WHO Pandemic Response based on tried and tested science and not a made up, fly by the seat of your pants knee jerk CCP policy? Great logic.

[JAS]

That isn't what they are doing with this inquiry though. They aren't considering all aspects of the pandemic handling. They're spending millions (140m in first six months) on politicians bitching about one another instead of actually addressing the main points.
For example, why aren't they asking why SAGE is staffed by people who have a proven record of failure, such as Neil Ferguson who has never been correct with his modelling or that communist psychologist Susan Michie who isn't even a scientist in anything remotely relevant?

You seriously believe CCP death figures?

Why are they not addressing why they adopted Chinese Communist responses to a pandemic and not WHO Pandemic response as planned and which result in less excess deaths?

At least Jenny Harries effectively admitted that face masks were a waste of time.

If your mind is so closed why do you even bother trying to engage in debates. Given your closed mind status I can see you would struggle with the whole concept of an enquiry in the first place.

For the record no I do not believe Chinese Covid numbers, I am very skeptical of ANY data coming out of China. At the same time that has absolutely zero relevance to our enquiry anyway.

I get the feeling you don't like the truth if you don't agree with it, if you don't agree, it cant be true and anything that tries to uncover the truth must be discredited and if a debate starts getting uncomfortably away from your beliefs, change it or add in distractions, I get it... we have a proper little Trumpian!!

I don't know what you aren't getting here. My point is the enquiry appears ONLY to be addressing the pandemic from a particular viewpoint. It isn't asking anything in regards to whether we followed the correct path.
Nice trope of calling me a Trumpian because I have a different view to you. Apparently I'm Trumpian because I wanted a WHO Pandemic Response based on tried and tested science and not a made up, fly by the seat of your pants knee jerk CCP policy? Great logic.

I'm not not getting anything, YOU think the enquiry isn't covering the things you think it should cover (I'm assuming you've looked through the terms of reference and came to an evidence based judgement rather than just made an assumption?)

It's not that you have a different view to me that makes you come across as Trumpian. It's the fact that your view and the truth don't exactly share the same page. In that scenario both you and Trump share the same traits, you ridicule factual evidence, you randomly discredit other experts in the field that would support the argument you don't agree with and....randomly you throw rocks at China and how awful they are...THAT is classic Trump!!

[super_realist]

That isn't what they are doing with this inquiry though. They aren't considering all aspects of the pandemic handling. They're spending millions (140m in first six months) on politicians bitching about one another instead of actually addressing the main points.
For example, why aren't they asking why SAGE is staffed by people who have a proven record of failure, such as Neil Ferguson who has never been correct with his modelling or that communist psychologist Susan Michie who isn't even a scientist in anything remotely relevant?

You seriously believe CCP death figures?

Why are they not addressing why they adopted Chinese Communist responses to a pandemic and not WHO Pandemic response as planned and which result in less excess deaths?

At least Jenny Harries effectively admitted that face masks were a waste of time.

If your mind is so closed why do you even bother trying to engage in debates. Given your closed mind status I can see you would struggle with the whole concept of an enquiry in the first place.

For the record no I do not believe Chinese Covid numbers, I am very skeptical of ANY data coming out of China. At the same time that has absolutely zero relevance to our enquiry anyway.

I get the feeling you don't like the truth if you don't agree with it, if you don't agree, it cant be true and anything that tries to uncover the truth must be discredited and if a debate starts getting uncomfortably away from your beliefs, change it or add in distractions, I get it... we have a proper little Trumpian!!

I don't know what you aren't getting here. My point is the enquiry appears ONLY to be addressing the pandemic from a particular viewpoint. It isn't asking anything in regards to whether we followed the correct path.
Nice trope of calling me a Trumpian because I have a different view to you. Apparently I'm Trumpian because I wanted a WHO Pandemic Response based on tried and tested science and not a made up, fly by the seat of your pants knee jerk CCP policy? Great logic.

I'm not not getting anything, YOU think the enquiry isn't covering the things you think it should cover (I'm assuming you've looked through the terms of reference and came to an evidence based judgement rather than just made an assumption?)

It's not that you have a different view to me that makes you come across as Trumpian. It's the fact that your view and the truth don't exactly share the same page. In that scenario both you and Trump share the same traits, you ridicule factual evidence, you randomly discredit other experts in the field that would support the argument you don't agree with and....randomly you throw rocks at China and how awful they are...THAT is classic Trump!!

No, it isn't covering by definition what ANY inquiry should be asking. Crucially it isn't asking WHY?
We don't need to hear from bereaved relatives. We should be asking "why did you do that, or why didn't you do that"
"What evidence did you have to make that decision" etc, what is this person's "expertise" and why did you listen to them?

I didn't "throw rocks at China " I asked WHY we followed their pandemic response and abandoned our WHO approved pandemic response, and if anything we should be asking why the bloody inquiry glossed over that China were responsible for what is highly likely to be a man made virus.

So far it's just a preposterous stage for a pathetic grandstanding KC who seems only concerned with swear words in WhatsApp conversations instead of working out where the UK response definitively failed and it doesn't look like the agenda is going to delve much deeper.
140m spent already and NOTHING of any worth coming out.

If we had the same thing again, it sounds like you'd be happy to follow EXACTLY the same response.

[Sponsored content]