Strokes Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 4 minutes ago, Beechey said: Our mate Jezza has once again done himself no favours That’s jezza (to coin a phrase) being politely torn to shreds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 7 minutes ago, Beechey said: Our mate Jezza has once again done himself no favours This too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 37 minutes ago, Webbo said: Haven't you been telling us for over a year how bad Brexit will be for business? If you're not interested in how business will do what are you complaining about? No I think certain businesses will probably thrive post-brexit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 6 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: No I think certain businesses will probably thrive post-brexit. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 25 minutes ago, Beechey said: Our mate Jezza has once again done himself no favours It's a funny one. We were talking the other day, me and you, about the purpose of the strikes. Turns out two of the targets were cleared of holding chemical weapons by inspectors only 5 weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beechey Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 Just now, toddybad said: It's a funny one. We were talking the other day, me and you, about the purpose of the strikes. Turns out two of the targets were cleared of holding chemical weapons by inspectors only 5 weeks ago. Yeah I heard that in Parliament as well, I'd be interested to see the report if they've been made available - there's got to be a reason why these targets were chosen, and the US, UK and France wouldn't hit targets they knew were empty if other targets were available, and there was another site that Syria apparently uses for chemical weapons production or storage. It's an odd one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 18 minutes ago, Beechey said: Yeah I heard that in Parliament as well, I'd be interested to see the report if they've been made available - there's got to be a reason why these targets were chosen, and the US, UK and France wouldn't hit targets they knew were empty if other targets were available, and there was another site that Syria apparently uses for chemical weapons production or storage. It's an odd one. Unless it's all for show, as I suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 1 hour ago, Webbo said: Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Neither from my perspective because I'm not a business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 9 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Neither from my perspective because I'm not a business. Slipped into Tory mode.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 13 minutes ago, Strokes said: Slipped into Tory mode.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 8 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: I think he called you a cu..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 Labour MP after Labour MP standing up to criticise the viewpoint of the front bench. May would have easily won a commons vote on military action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpe's Fox Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 (edited) A good article in the guardian for once https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/16/landlords-social-parasites-last-people-should-be-honouring-buy-to-let Quote Some of my friends are landlords, and I’m sorry to say it, but they are going straight to hell too. Imagine how satisfyingly overcrowded the underworld must be with landlords; partitioning the seventh circle into seven more circles, charging each other extra for underfloor heating. The best thing you can say about them is that they are better than letting agents. But that’s like giving Stalin a humanitarian award for massacring fewer people than Genghis Khan. SCUM Edited 16 April 2018 by Sharpe's Fox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beechey Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 25 minutes ago, Beechey said: Interesting. I wonder why? There absolutely should have been a vote, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beechey Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 4 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Interesting. I wonder why? There absolutely should have been a vote, IMO. Possibly because he knew it would be overwhelmingly for action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 4 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Interesting. I wonder why? There absolutely should have been a vote, IMO. Seeing the reaction of his backbenchers it'll be because he knows the govt would have won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: Seeing the reaction of his backbenchers it'll be because he knows the govt would have won. I still can't escape the question: to achieve what. If we had a goal and forward plan in place there's an argument for action. And at least it was limited action. But I still don't really think we achieved anything. So I'm not sure why MPs are so clear on the need to attack three sheds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 1 minute ago, Beechey said: Possibly because he knew it would be overwhelmingly for action. 1 minute ago, Webbo said: Seeing the reaction of his backbenchers it'll be because he knows the govt would have won. Then so be it. He could vote against it, have a chance to stand up in parliament and say exactly why and push for greater discussion, and if and when it all went tits up he could say that it was another decision he thought wasn't a good idea. Can't help but think he's missed a trick here, unless he's looking to push the angle that the government acted without consent of the parliament instead - and that looks shaky for the reasons mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 16 April 2018 Author Share Posted 16 April 2018 4 hours ago, Beechey said: Yeah I heard that in Parliament as well, I'd be interested to see the report if they've been made available - there's got to be a reason why these targets were chosen, and the US, UK and France wouldn't hit targets they knew were empty if other targets were available, and there was another site that Syria apparently uses for chemical weapons production or storage. It's an odd one. They might - on the British side this was as much about being a statement to Russia, yet they had to avoid hitting Russian military as that would have been an almighty provocation. It’s also worth remembering that the allied side claimed around about 100 missiles were launched - Syrian/Russian sources suggest a fair proportion of these were interecepted - so we may not know of everything that was targeted. Finally - if Assad has something to do with the attacks - he would have know the likely western response, so he may well have calculated this and move any stock pile as part of an overall strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 16 April 2018 Author Share Posted 16 April 2018 49 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Then so be it. He could vote against it, have a chance to stand up in parliament and say exactly why and push for greater discussion, and if and when it all went tits up he could say that it was another decision he thought wasn't a good idea. Can't help but think he's missed a trick here, unless he's looking to push the angle that the government acted without consent of the parliament instead - and that looks shaky for the reasons mentioned. Doesn’t need the friction within his own party again - it would damage him, with the locals coming up. There’s clearly still plenty in the party that would like to move him out. But those that been vocally supportive... they best hope these inspectors come up with the right answer for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 5 hours ago, Rogstanley said: Toddy has already politely torn your arguments to shreds again so I won't say much, but I have to comment on this bit because I think it shows where many fundamental disagreements in this thread lie. Essentially when talking about the impact of policies you take the point of view of a business first. You do that even though you're not a business. You do it even though what is in the interests of the business is often by necessity diametrically opposed to your own interests and those of people like you. You'll also take the point of view of the government ahead of your own. You're not the only one who constantly refers to the government as "we" as if you are the government, when clearly you're not. Why do you do that, do you think? It's a bit strange when you think about it, I'm sure you'll agree. He hasnt torn anything to shreds he has disagreed with my views which he is perfectly entitled to do. I have the utmost respect for Toddy and he is entitled to his beliefs. Obviously the proof will be in the coming years. If we have a Labour government and we all become loaded and everything is free and fantastic I will happily admit I was wrong. I am talking about 'we' as in the nation. We are a nation and I am very proud of my country. The Interest of business is very much my interest if it keeps me in a job and able to pay for a home and a car etc etc. If government interferes with that they will need to provide for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beechey Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: They might - on the British side this was as much about being a statement to Russia, yet they had to avoid hitting Russian military as that would have been an almighty provocation. It’s also worth remembering that the allied side claimed around about 100 missiles were launched - Syrian/Russian sources suggest a fair proportion of these were interecepted - so we may not know of everything that was targeted. Finally - if Assad has something to do with the attacks - he would have know the likely western response, so he may well have calculated this and move any stock pile as part of an overall strategy. I don't think it's likely that many, if any were intercepted. The US has apparently confirmed that their missiles hit, and the ones launched by France and the UK were mostly air-launched, meaning they probably had a short (like 300km) range to target, making them very hard to intercept as well. Russia claims 71 out of 103 missiles were shot down, and that's just not credible. The US launched something like 80% of the missiles, and we've confirmed all of ours hit the target, as has France, so they must be stating that they intercepted almost every single US missile, with their limited air defences with ranges of ~350km. Just not credible. I think it's significantly more likely that they didn't attempt to intercept any missiles (or tried and failed) and subsequently shot none of them down. Looking at the devastation on all of the targets, it doesn't look like any failed in flight. Edited 16 April 2018 by Beechey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beechey Posted 16 April 2018 Share Posted 16 April 2018 Oh, Corbs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 17 April 2018 Share Posted 17 April 2018 2 hours ago, Beechey said: Oh, Corbs... Questioning the motives of those who can exercise power over others either via the barrel of a gun or some other form of coercion is always a good thing - regardless of who they are. That being said, yeah - let's keep away from tinfoil hat territory here please, Jeremy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts