bovril Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 I'm just waiting for Russian bots to be blamed for Gary Mabbutt's own goal in 1987.
Guest Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 43 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: I actually don't think the CMA will block it and I'm.not sure why it'd corporatism to allow it. This deal makes the combined marginally bigger than Tesco and Tesco was allowed to acquire Booker by disposing of some local stores. I'd argue that deal was more of a competition threat. Asda's main strength is up north, Sainsbury's less so, but what will happen is they'll be forced to dispose of stores where local competition seems threatened. I actually don't see that it's a good deal for Sainsbury's tbh, I'm not sure shareholders will be overly keen. More importantly, I hope this doesn't turn Sainsbury's into Asda. Asda stores and produce are grim. I agree with the bold bit particularly.
Rogstanley Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 49 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: I actually don't think the CMA will block it and I'm.not sure why it'd corporatism to allow it. This deal makes the combined marginally bigger than Tesco and Tesco was allowed to acquire Booker by disposing of some local stores. I'd argue that deal was more of a competition threat. Asda's main strength is up north, Sainsbury's less so, but what will happen is they'll be forced to dispose of stores where local competition seems threatened. I actually don't see that it's a good deal for Sainsbury's tbh, I'm not sure shareholders will be overly keen. More importantly, I hope this doesn't turn Sainsbury's into Asda. Asda stores and produce are grim. You don't shop in Waitrose? How do you even live with yourself? 1
Guest Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 We can't keep having Brexiteers attacking civil servants. Davis under pressure to disown criticism of civil service chief on Brexit https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/29/davis-under-pressure-to-disown-criticism-of-civil-service-chief-on-brexit?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Guest Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 Now HAS to resign. She's lied to parliament. Plain and simple. Amber Rudd letter to PM reveals 'ambitious but deliverable' removals target https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/29/amber-rudd-letter-to-pm-reveals-ambitious-but-deliverable-removals-target?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 29 April 2018 Author Posted 29 April 2018 34 minutes ago, toddybad said: Now HAS to resign. She's lied to parliament. Plain and simple. Amber Rudd letter to PM reveals 'ambitious but deliverable' removals target https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/29/amber-rudd-letter-to-pm-reveals-ambitious-but-deliverable-removals-target?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard If I’m Theresa May, I’d be bricking it - there is a high level official from the Home Office (current or former) actively disclosing information to the press, this won’t stop at Rudd now. And it shows the foolishness of the denials and approach the party, not just Rudd, has taken to defend this issue. They’ve not considered what more could come out, they’ve just been reacting to each sensation as they come out, meaning they keep losing control of their narration and look ever more foolish. Wasn’t Brandon Lewis on Marr trying to defend Rudd this morning? Instantly looks a bare faced liar after this.
Rogstanley Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 47 minutes ago, toddybad said: Now HAS to resign. She's lied to parliament. Plain and simple. Amber Rudd letter to PM reveals 'ambitious but deliverable' removals target https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/29/amber-rudd-letter-to-pm-reveals-ambitious-but-deliverable-removals-target?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard They just get scummier and scummier these Tories. Horrible bastards, liars, cheats, frauds. Just utter scum. 1 1
Sharpe's Fox Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 50 minutes ago, toddybad said: Now HAS to resign. She's lied to parliament. Plain and simple. Amber Rudd letter to PM reveals 'ambitious but deliverable' removals target https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/29/amber-rudd-letter-to-pm-reveals-ambitious-but-deliverable-removals-target?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Nasty lying cow. Piss off once and for all you liar.
Guest Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 Michael Gove said this was being talked up by labour to hide from their anti-semitism problem. Yet the Tories have suspended 1 party member for anti-semitism, 1 for islamophobia and 2 for racism this WEEK. Yet somehow nobody has heard about this via the media.
breadandcheese Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 I think Amber Rudd is more incompetent than nasty or heartless. It's splitting hairs though. She is clearly not up to the job, especially if she is as incompetent as I believe her to be.
Rogstanley Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 5 minutes ago, breadandcheese said: I think Amber Rudd is more incompetent than nasty or heartless. It's splitting hairs though. She is clearly not up to the job, especially if she is as incompetent as I believe her to be. Lying isn’t incompetence, it’s lying. This is another Tory who holds the electorate and British values in utter contempt.
Buce Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 20 minutes ago, toddybad said: Michael Gove said this was being talked up by labour to hide from their anti-semitism problem. Yet the Tories have suspended 1 party member for anti-semitism, 1 for islamophobia and 2 for racism this WEEK. Yet somehow nobody has heard about this via the media. 1 Tory press in biased reporting shock! Hold the front page.
Salisbury Fox Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 20 minutes ago, toddybad said: Michael Gove said this was being talked up by labour to hide from their anti-semitism problem. Yet the Tories have suspended 1 party member for anti-semitism, 1 for islamophobia and 2 for racism this WEEK. Yet somehow nobody has heard about this via the media. Probably because they have taken immediate action. I am not going to defend the Wind Rush issue as I think it is disgraceful, but there is nothing wrong with pursuing a policy to remove illegal immigrants from the country given the nature of the exploitation involved. As always it is the problem is with the implementation of such a policy. 3
Salisbury Fox Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 42 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: They just get scummier and scummier these Tories. Horrible bastards, liars, cheats, frauds. Just utter scum. Excellent frothing
Guest Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 8 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said: Probably because they have taken immediate action. I am not going to defend the Wind Rush issue as I think it is disgraceful, but there is nothing wrong with pursuing a policy to remove illegal immigrants from the country given the nature of the exploitation involved. As always it is the problem is with the implementation of such a policy. My understanding is that in a 2014 legislative change Teresa May removed specific protections previously offered to Commonwealth citizens by a 1999 act. It's not just the implementation - the law was actively changed in a way that specifically put the windrush generation at risk.
Salisbury Fox Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 1 minute ago, toddybad said: My understanding is that in a 2014 legislative change Teresa May removed specific protections previously offered to Commonwealth citizens by a 1999 act. It's not just the implementation - the law was actively changed in a way that specifically put the windrush generation at risk. If that was the case and if it was done with full knowledge that it would affect these people directly then it is disgraceful, but I resent that this issue is being conflated with real illegal immigration which is not beneficial for the individuals or the country that they arrive in.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 29 April 2018 Author Posted 29 April 2018 8 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said: Probably because they have taken immediate action. I am not going to defend the Wind Rush issue as I think it is disgraceful, but there is nothing wrong with pursuing a policy to remove illegal immigrants from the country given the nature of the exploitation involved. As always it is the problem is with the implementation of such a policy. You’ve taken the Conservative line here. The base issue hasn’t nothing to do with illegal immigration / immigrants, because the people being effected were all here legally. The problem people were having was proving that when it came to getting official paperwork or clearance where they had not required to before - due to a change in stance by the government on how they treated cases of this nature and where the front end of the process lay. The so called ‘hostile environment’ established within the home office, alongside making land lords, employers and similar the ‘front end gate keepers’ led to situations where people who had lived here for 20+ years were suddenly having trouble with obtaining housing, employment and even hospital treatment. This was then compounded when these people encountered the Home Office, who treated them with contempt - as if they were illegal and posed unreasonable demands for various documentation. These cases are a damning indictment on how this government both creates policy and then reacts to it when it’s pointed out to them how unjust and disgusting it is.
Salisbury Fox Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 16 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: You’ve taken the Conservative line here. The base issue hasn’t nothing to do with illegal immigration / immigrants, because the people being effected were all here legally. The problem people were having was proving that when it came to getting official paperwork or clearance where they had not required to before - due to a change in stance by the government on how they treated cases of this nature and where the front end of the process lay. The so called ‘hostile environment’ established within the home office, alongside making land lords, employers and similar the ‘front end gate keepers’ led to situations where people who had lived here for 20+ years were suddenly having trouble with obtaining housing, employment and even hospital treatment. This was then compounded when these people encountered the Home Office, who treated them with contempt - as if they were illegal and posed unreasonable demands for various documentation. These cases are a damning indictment on how this government both creates policy and then reacts to it when it’s pointed out to them how unjust and disgusting it is. As I have already said, I am not suggesting that these people have not been treated disgracefully, but let's not ignore that immigration was such a hot topic with the public that in many people's eyes on here it was the reason for Brexit. I have yet to see evidence to definatively confirm that the intention was to do this deliberately, rather I think it was unintentional (at least that is what I hope). That said whilst I believe that Rudd should go, as a remainer but I am keen on keeping a balance in the cabinet.
Guest Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 24 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said: If that was the case and if it was done with full knowledge that it would affect these people directly then it is disgraceful, but I resent that this issue is being conflated with real illegal immigration which is not beneficial for the individuals or the country that they arrive in. It isn't being conflated. Illegal immigration is, well, illegal. Nobody is arguing against taking action over that. They're arguing about the removal of the protections which has led to British citizens wrongly being lined up for deportation, denied hospital treatment, losing jobs and having their lives ripped apart. When questioned about it, the home secretary has lied. She was then kept in post to protect the prime minister. The home secretary has continued to lie. Enough is enough. The policy change was wrong and the lies require the removal of the home secretary.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 29 April 2018 Author Posted 29 April 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said: As I have already said, I am not suggesting that these people have not been treated disgracefully, but let's not ignore that immigration was such a hot topic with the public that in many people's eyes on here it was the reason for Brexit. I have yet to see evidence to definatively confirm that the intention was to do this deliberately, rather I think it was unintentional (at least that is what I hope). That said whilst I believe that Rudd should go, as a remainer but I am keen on keeping a balance in the cabinet. I need to check sources, because your question goes back quite a way in this story - but here’s one damning report I have from the Guardians last week which suggests concerns on this front were know and a long time before. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/22/government-aware-for-years-that-hostile-environment-hurt-windrush-generation Home Office 'was told about Windrush problems in 2016' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43900697 https://www.politico.eu/article/windrush-caribbean-theresa-may-immigration-scandal-takes-shine-off-commonwealth-summit/ Edited 29 April 2018 by DJ Barry Hammond 1
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 29 April 2018 Author Posted 29 April 2018 21 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said: As I have already said, I am not suggesting that these people have not been treated disgracefully, but let's not ignore that immigration was such a hot topic with the public that in many people's eyes on here it was the reason for Brexit. I have yet to see evidence to definatively confirm that the intention was to do this deliberately, rather I think it was unintentional (at least that is what I hope). That said whilst I believe that Rudd should go, as a remainer but I am keen on keeping a balance in the cabinet. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretary-statement-on-the-windrush-generation Now that is Rudd’s own initial statement on dealing with the actual issue, which is being forgotten a little, but that’s because we now have an MP that appears to be not disclosing information as an MP should when questioned by a House of Commons committee.* The response included a full apology, major concessions and even compensation, which you have to say, for a government to offer this upfront is quite astonishing and allows one to draw ones own conclusions as to the gravity of missteps the government feels it may have committed here. For me - the first issue was enough to resign on. The subsequent actions and implications are also a resigning matter. So maybe Rudd should be resigning twice, once from her position in cabinet and then again as an MP altogether? *wording chosen very carefully.
Salisbury Fox Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 20 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretary-statement-on-the-windrush-generation Now that is Rudd’s own initial statement on dealing with the actual issue, which is being forgotten a little, but that’s because we now have an MP that appears to be not disclosing information as an MP should when questioned by a House of Commons committee.* The response included a full apology, major concessions and even compensation, which you have to say, for a government to offer this upfront is quite astonishing and allows one to draw ones own conclusions as to the gravity of missteps the government feels it may have committed here. For me - the first issue was enough to resign on. The subsequent actions and implications are also a resigning matter. So maybe Rudd should be resigning twice, once from her position in cabinet and then again as an MP altogether? *wording chosen very carefully. I am not defending Rudd, she at the very least proven to be incompetent.
Strokes Posted 29 April 2018 Posted 29 April 2018 Get Rudd gone, go for TM. Bring down the government and hopefully elect a pro brexit house and stay out the customs union. Good times.
Recommended Posts