Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JAS]

First topic message reminder :

Anyone fancy taking a sweep on when Labour are going to say "we've looked at the books, and it's worse than we thought, so we have to raise taxes"

Well...if Starmer hasn't done it by Friday 6:00pm it'll have to wait until next week :-p

[JAS]

What's the "Rachel from Accounts" nickname about? Can anyone explain.

I really struggle to keep up with all of SR's nomenclature.

I think the inference was that she was in a lower position in one of her previous employments than her CV may originally have implied. Not sure how over egging the pudding on your CV before you became an MP never mind Minister constitutes a breach of the Ministerial code but hey ho, the frothing at the mouth of the anti Labour brigade at the moment is bordering on the hysterical.

The desperation in the “petition” is bloody hilariously ironic given the scorn that the very same people poured on the article 50 petition. Almost tempted to say “You lost, get over it” but that would just be unhelpful antagonistic gloating.

Am I happy with how they’re going about clearing up the mess, NO definitely not BUT, back in July there were the least worst option and that remains the case, infact despite their clangers maybe even more so as the Tories have lurched further to the right and the new kids on the block have a leader spending more time in Washington than Clacton.

[super_realist]

What's the "Rachel from Accounts" nickname about? Can anyone explain.

I really struggle to keep up with all of SR's nomenclature.

I think the inference was that she was in a lower position in one of her previous employments than her CV may originally have implied. Not sure how over egging the pudding on your CV before you became an MP never mind Minister constitutes a breach of the Ministerial code but hey ho, the frothing at the mouth of the anti Labour brigade at the moment is bordering on the hysterical.

The desperation in the “petition”  is bloody hilariously ironic given the scorn that the very same people poured on the article 50 petition. Almost tempted to say “You lost, get over it” but that would just be unhelpful antagonistic gloating.

Am I happy with how they’re going about clearing up the mess, NO definitely not BUT, back in July there were the least worst option and that remains the case, infact despite their clangers maybe even more so as the Tories have lurched further to the right and the new kids on the block have a leader spending more time in Washington than Clacton.

The question that Labour need to ask themselves given that they claimed they'd be transparent and honest, is how they'd react to these things if it was the other side doing it.
They were falling over themselves to ask for resignations at ANY similar things when they were in opposition, but now it's "nothing to see here" just as they did with their Lord Ali buying them everything.
If you have made a point of projecting yourself as an Economist and have LIED about your experience and LIED about how long you have done it  then perhaps you shouldn't be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if she is an Economist, why was her budget so bad, received so badly and roundly regarded by financial institutions as being a terrible budget.
Just call her Rachel Kwartang.
It's just a other example of the utter hypocrisy of this truly dreadful government.

[super_realist]

What's the "Rachel from Accounts" nickname about? Can anyone explain.

I really struggle to keep up with all of SR's nomenclature.

I think the inference was that she was in a lower position in one of her previous employments than her CV may originally have implied. Not sure how over egging the pudding on your CV before you became an MP never mind Minister constitutes a breach of the Ministerial code but hey ho, the frothing at the mouth of the anti Labour brigade at the moment is bordering on the hysterical.

The desperation in the “petition”  is bloody hilariously ironic given the scorn that the very same people poured on the article 50 petition. Almost tempted to say “You lost, get over it” but that would just be unhelpful antagonistic gloating.

Am I happy with how they’re going about clearing up the mess, NO definitely not BUT, back in July there were the least worst option and that remains the case, infact despite their clangers maybe even more so as the Tories have lurched further to the right and the new kids on the block have a leader spending more time in Washington than Clacton.

I agree the petition is stupid, but isn't it funny how such petitions weren't stupid when it was Brexit, something Sir Keir Stalin himself wanted to have rerun.

[super_realist]

Spoiler:

The BBC will call a convicted murderer etc what they've been convicted of. Just so you know, Hamas did attack plenty of military targets and there's a valid case that that was their primary objective. Suggest you go watch Aljazeera's documentary, 'October 7th'. You won't do so, but I'll suggest it nonetheless. Even if you do broaden your narrow horizons, you'll still fixate on the civilian attacks alone.

Hamas attacked a Music Festival, that's an act of terrorism by definition. There is no justification or mitigation for this. It is not attacking a military target, it is not collateral damage it is an inexcusable act of terror.

I'm not supporting Israel, I'm condemning a terrorist organisation that you refuse to condemn and even imply have just cause.

[navyblueshorts]

Spoiler:

The BBC will call a convicted murderer etc what they've been convicted of. Just so you know, Hamas did attack plenty of military targets and there's a valid case that that was their primary objective. Suggest you go watch Aljazeera's documentary, 'October 7th'. You won't do so, but I'll suggest it nonetheless. Even if you do broaden your narrow horizons, you'll still fixate on the civilian attacks alone.

Hamas attacked a Music Festival, that's an act of terrorism by definition. There is no justification or mitigation for this. It is not attacking a military target, it is not collateral damage it is an inexcusable act of terror.

I'm not supporting Israel, I'm condemning a terrorist organisation that you refuse to condemn and even imply have just cause.

I'd agree with this, more or less, however your suggestion that I refuse to condemn Hamas is no more than I expect. In your mind, because I condemn Israeli behaviour now and in the past therefore means I must agree with the approach and acts of Hamas. Only in some parallel Universe are things so black and white, I'm afraid. It's a mess, but I'd tend to argue that the violence etc used by Hamas (and others) is, if not justifiable on paper, then at least fully understandable given the ~80 years of murder, dispossession etc conducted by the Israeli state against the Palestinians (many of whom are legally their own citizens) with the apparent full support of the U.S.A., UK and others. Politics has demonstrably let the Palestinians down for too long, so no surprise we get the whirlwind.

Have you watched Aljazeera documentary, yet? Don't know why I ask, because I suspect I know the answer.

[McLaren]

Super

Are you happy that your license fee was used to pay Gregg Wallace?

[Sponsored content]