Jump to content
Leicester_Loyal

The Politics Thread 2020

Recommended Posts

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

Everyone who isn’t in the self employed three million I guess.  Which country has done more?

 

Eh? You think everyone in the country has analysed the responses of every other government?

 

I dont know, but I'm not the one claiming ours is the best in the world - you tell me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

I mean it's still quite possible we could finish lower than 4th tbh yeah, but I'll be delighted if we don't. 

Sure it’s possible but you seemed to think it was inevitable.

I can’t be arsed to dig out the quote but to paraphrase, you couldn’t wait for the table to level out so that the argument of “but we are fourth in the table” would be nulled and you’re criticism therefore justified.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Strokes said:

So your pro vaccinating prisoners but annoyed that it’s been done because you think it’s hypocritical?

Im guessing you would have been upset by whatever they did then....

 

26 minutes ago, Strokes said:

6EE2B70C-0EB1-4F20-A9E1-212CE650A556.jpeg.944a98fc3a430df60fe4b653f9b6f24c.jpeg

 

22 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

They aren't just being vaccinated for their own protection though, are they, it's to avoid unnecessary extra resources taken up within the NHS. I'm really not sure how many times this needs to be iterated, or how it can be construed as ironic and contradictory?  I also still don't understand what this has to do with Priti Patel's stance on the death penalty either? I'd be grateful if you could clarify it because I feel like I must be missing something.

 

With regards to your second point, they aren't taking priority, they are getting it in line with our vaccination protocol according to age and/or vulnerability. Again, to help the NHS.

 

Lord I sound like a broken record. Is it wine o'clock yet?

Guys you’re either winding me up or missing the point. I’ll bite one more time.
 

Its always been about the rhetoric and statements made by Patel and members of the cabinet. Its quite simple - advocating the death penalty for the worst criminals but then inoculating those said criminals against a deadly virus is an example of an actions contradicting statements. Yet those statements whip up certain people into a frenzy and we end up with absolute crapfests like Brexit.

 

My main point has always been that they say one thing and do the opposite but in this case its a little more ironic and contradictory. Yet they’ll continue to push these agendas despite every action being the absolute opposite and people will still eat it up. That is why I said they can’t be taken seriously. 
 

I made a point about nonces getting a vaccine over normal people, that was my own moral view, if you guys really want to take up arms in defence of nonces thats your choice, personally I don’t agree with any situation with people like that getting preferential or even normal treatment. But I do understand that because of the continued mismanagement of the pandemic, vaccinating them is the most logical choice, i don’t like it but that was always side point to my main point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jon the Hat said:

image.thumb.png.c8851150f4ab45d8dd6cf628160541ad.png
 

interesting

Must be extreme Corbynites in that 7% at the top. I’m no fan of the Conservatives but they have done a very good job at ensuring we have a choice of vaccines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dames said:

 

 

Guys you’re either winding me up or missing the point. I’ll bite one more time.
 

Its always been about the rhetoric and statements made by Patel and members of the cabinet. Its quite simple - advocating the death penalty for the worst criminals but then inoculating those said criminals against a deadly virus is an example of an actions contradicting statements. Yet those statements whip up certain people into a frenzy and we end up with absolute crapfests like Brexit.

 

My main point has always been that they say one thing and do the opposite but in this case its a little more ironic and contradictory. Yet they’ll continue to push these agendas despite every action being the absolute opposite and people will still eat it up. That is why I said they can’t be taken seriously. 
 

I made a point about nonces getting a vaccine over normal people, that was my own moral view, if you guys really want to take up arms in defence of nonces thats your choice, personally I don’t agree with any situation with people like that getting preferential or even normal treatment. But I do understand that because of the continued mismanagement of the pandemic, vaccinating them is the most logical choice, i don’t like it but that was always side point to my main point. 

Right!

We don’t have the death penalty in this country, regardless of anyone’s personal beliefs, it would take a monumental movement for that to alter. Even if prisoners were on death row, I’d argue they should be vaccinated.
Given it’s not possible to execute prisoners and you accept that not vaccinating prisoners is not a punishment, would only weaken the vaccination program and that It does protect the NHS. I’d say the arguments you’ve put forward are completely invalid and borderline strange.

Edited by Strokes
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dames said:

 

 

Guys you’re either winding me up or missing the point. I’ll bite one more time.
 

Its always been about the rhetoric and statements made by Patel and members of the cabinet. Its quite simple - advocating the death penalty for the worst criminals but then inoculating those said criminals against a deadly virus is an example of an actions contradicting statements. Yet those statements whip up certain people into a frenzy and we end up with absolute crapfests like Brexit.

 

My main point has always been that they say one thing and do the opposite but in this case its a little more ironic and contradictory. Yet they’ll continue to push these agendas despite every action being the absolute opposite and people will still eat it up. That is why I said they can’t be taken seriously. 
 

I made a point about nonces getting a vaccine over normal people, that was my own moral view, if you guys really want to take up arms in defence of nonces thats your choice, personally I don’t agree with any situation with people like that getting preferential or even normal treatment. But I do understand that because of the continued mismanagement of the pandemic, vaccinating them is the most logical choice, i don’t like it but that was always side point to my main point. 

Patel might be an advocate of the death penalty, but that's not how policy works in this country. She won't have free reign over prison policies, so her saying she'd happily send the worst criminals to the electric chair and wider government policy deciding to vaccinate them in line with the vaccine rollout can't be tied together. 

 

Also we're not defending nonces, we supporting a policy that takes the pressure off our already over worked NHS. You do understand if they get ill with it then drs can't refuse treatment, so its not about and has never been about protecting nonces and always about making sure its less likely the most likely people will end up in hospital. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Right!

We don’t have the death penalty in this country, regardless of anyone’s personal beliefs, it would take a monumental movement for that to alter. Even if prisoners were on death row, I’d argue they should be vaccinated.
Given it’s not possible to execute prisoners and you accept that not vaccinating prisoners is not a punishment and would only weaken the vaccination program and that It does protect the NHS. I’d say the arguments you’ve put forward are completely invalid and borderline strange.

It's emotional and that's all it is. I can totally understand, it doesn't sit right seeing someone like Glitter getting anything good, and I wouldn't shead a tear if he died, but there no basis to the arguments against him getting the jab other than hating paedos and getting irate about them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Facecloth said:

It's emotional and that's all it is. I can totally understand, it doesn't sit right seeing someone like Glitter getting anything good, and I wouldn't shead a tear if he died, but there no basis to the arguments against him getting the jab other than hating paedos and getting irate about them.

The irony of it is, I bet glitter would love to get covid and get out of jail for a few weeks. Even if it’s in a hospital bed.

He is probably gutted he has been vaccinated.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Right!

We don’t have the death penalty in this country, regardless of anyone’s personal beliefs, it would take a monumental movement for that to alter. Even if prisoners were on death row, I’d argue they should be vaccinated.
Given it’s not possible to execute prisoners and you accept that not vaccinating prisoners is not a punishment, would only weaken the vaccination program and that It does protect the NHS. I’d say the arguments you’ve put forward are completely invalid and borderline strange.

 

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

Patel might be an advocate of the death penalty, but that's not how policy works in this country. She won't have free reign over prison policies, so her saying she'd happily send the worst criminals to the electric chair and wider government policy deciding to vaccinate them in line with the vaccine rollout can't be tied together. 

 

Also we're not defending nonces, we supporting a policy that takes the pressure off our already over worked NHS. You do understand if they get ill with it then drs can't refuse treatment, so its not about and has never been about protecting nonces and always about making sure its less likely the most likely people will end up in hospital. 

 

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

It's emotional and that's all it is. I can totally understand, it doesn't sit right seeing someone like Glitter getting anything good, and I wouldn't shead a tear if he died, but there no basis to the arguments against him getting the jab other than hating paedos and getting irate about them.

Again you guys are missing the point, i’ve made it clear on several occasions that some of my points were counter points, i’ve also admitted you’re right about things and i’ve stated which parts are my personal beliefs. 
 

You can call my strange as much as you want but at this point I find it odd that you can’t accept that I was initially calling out a politician for making a lot of statements with every single action in this pandemic contradicting those statements. Especially when those statements are designed to cause division and anger. 
 

It really is simple at this point, Patel has personal/political views shes stated on more than one occasion yet almost every action shes taken has home sec has contradicted those statements. All I did was call that out and state how I dont think she can be taken seriously. How this has turned into a discussion with you guys calling me

strange I really don’t know at this point but i find it strange that you can’t grasp the concept of me calling someone a hypocrite. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dames said:

 

 

Guys you’re either winding me up or missing the point. I’ll bite one more time.
 

Its always been about the rhetoric and statements made by Patel and members of the cabinet. Its quite simple - advocating the death penalty for the worst criminals but then inoculating those said criminals against a deadly virus is an example of an actions contradicting statements. Yet those statements whip up certain people into a frenzy and we end up with absolute crapfests like Brexit.

 

My main point has always been that they say one thing and do the opposite but in this case its a little more ironic and contradictory. Yet they’ll continue to push these agendas despite every action being the absolute opposite and people will still eat it up. That is why I said they can’t be taken seriously. 
 

I made a point about nonces getting a vaccine over normal people, that was my own moral view, if you guys really want to take up arms in defence of nonces thats your choice, personally I don’t agree with any situation with people like that getting preferential or even normal treatment. But I do understand that because of the continued mismanagement of the pandemic, vaccinating them is the most logical choice, i don’t like it but that was always side point to my main point. 

I've asked you a couple of times but you haven't answered, how are these two things highlighted in bold related? Given that the reason for their vaccination is simply to help protect the NHS?

 

I'll ignore your dig about defending 'nonces', it's not even worthy of a response.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dames said:

 

 

Again you guys are missing the point, i’ve made it clear on several occasions that some of my points were counter points, i’ve also admitted you’re right about things and i’ve stated which parts are my personal beliefs. 
 

You can call my strange as much as you want but at this point I find it odd that you can’t accept that I was initially calling out a politician for making a lot of statements with every single action in this pandemic contradicting those statements. Especially when those statements are designed to cause division and anger. 
 

It really is simple at this point, Patel has personal/political views shes stated on more than one occasion yet almost every action shes taken has home sec has contradicted those statements. All I did was call that out and state how I dont think she can be taken seriously. How this has turned into a discussion with you guys calling me

strange I really don’t know at this point but i find it strange that you can’t grasp the concept of me calling someone a hypocrite. 
 

 

It’s interesting you’ve claimed that we are missing the point several times and then reiterate the point that we all thought you’d made.

We don’t see it as hypocritical, as vaccinating prisoners is not to protect or reward them. It’s to protect us all and the NHS.

Edited by Strokes
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dames said:

 

 

Again you guys are missing the point, i’ve made it clear on several occasions that some of my points were counter points, i’ve also admitted you’re right about things and i’ve stated which parts are my personal beliefs. 
 

You can call my strange as much as you want but at this point I find it odd that you can’t accept that I was initially calling out a politician for making a lot of statements with every single action in this pandemic contradicting those statements. Especially when those statements are designed to cause division and anger. 
 

It really is simple at this point, Patel has personal/political views shes stated on more than one occasion yet almost every action shes taken has home sec has contradicted those statements. All I did was call that out and state how I dont think she can be taken seriously. How this has turned into a discussion with you guys calling me

strange I really don’t know at this point but i find it strange that you can’t grasp the concept of me calling someone a hypocrite. 
 

 

Somehow you've united both the left and the right on this forum. Maybe you should lead the country lol

 

Loathe as I am to defend the Tories, especially Patel, I don't think I'll be adding "unwilling to let all prisoners die of covid" to her charge sheet.

 

Edit: But to expand on the argument, I'd find the Government being arbiters of who deserves a vaccine and who doesn't, based on moral values (as opposed to scientific/medical ones) rather worrying. Maybe they should expand it  into more moral groups - if you  donate to charity, and remember to floss every night, you go to top of the vaccination list. If you watch Gogglebox, then you're not getting vaccinated 'til at least group 9.

 

 

Edit 2: The only thing that really surprises me is that "prisoners not getting vaccines" seems right up Patel's street. I bet she's already suggested it.

Edited by Charl91
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Sure it’s possible but you seemed to think it was inevitable.

I can’t be arsed to dig out the quote but to paraphrase, you couldn’t wait for the table to level out so that the argument of “but we are fourth in the table” would be nulled and you’re criticism therefore justified.

 

 

I'm not denying I said words to that effect, as I've said multiple times (in the appropriate part of the forum btw) it was incredibly tedious reading any and every unfavourable observation about performances and results being dismissed with 'but we're 4th', it still is, and we had that all 2nd half of last season and look how that ended up. Expressed myself in an overly emotive and reactionary way? Sure, so sue me. Doesnt mean I wouldn't have been and still won't be pleased to be proven wrong, and I've posted more than once about being impressed by the way they've gone about doing so.

 

Tell you what though, if we do slide down the table I won't start following you around the forum, tagging you in random posts or giving you abuse.

Edited by ealingfox
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

Tell you what though, if we do slide down the table I won't start following you around the forum, tagging you in random posts or giving you abuse.

What? Why do you even post on here then? :ph34r:

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I've asked you a couple of times but you haven't answered, how are these two things highlighted in bold related? Given that the reason for their vaccination is simply to help protect the NHS?

 

I'll ignore your dig about defending 'nonces', it's not even worthy of a response.

 

 

You missed the last sentence after what you highlighted which is the key sentence to add context to what i’m saying, which you have done a few times already. 
 

My main argument has never been about if they should or shouldn't get a vaccine, for the final time, logically I agree with the reasons you’ve made and they should be vaccinated, my personal opinion is that they shouldn't be and more could have been done to secure the prison system against Covid, which isn’t a strange view to take despite what others are saying.

 

My point has always been about statements and rhetoric and the nature at which politicians contradict themselves. Patel has used her platform in the past to appeal to voters, certain types of voters using the hard on crime, death to all criminals rhetoric (along with all the anti immigration and border control stuff she comes out with too). All i’ve done is point out that these actions completely contradict those statements and she shouldn't be taken seriously when repeating these statements and rhetoric in the future. And as i’ve pointed out, if this news story came out under a Labour govt, she’d be howling across all platforms. 

 

As for the nonce comment I apologise, that was too far.

 

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It’s interesting you’ve claimed that we are missing the point several times and then reiterate the point that we all thought you’d made.

We don’t see it as hypocritical, as vaccinating prisoners is not to protect or reward them. It’s to protect us all and the NHS.

Read the reply above this bit, if you still don’t get it at this point you’re doing it on purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

 

 

Edit 2: The only thing that really surprises me is that "prisoners not getting vaccines" seems right up Patel's street. I bet she's already suggested it.

It does seem right up her street but only when she’s stirring up the right wing. Personally I think she says any old thing to get that demographic on side and that she actually doesn’t believe any of it, all part of an act.

 

If she had any firm belief in her views or convictions she’d have fought to have the borders closed during the pandemic and would have had left and right united behind her. 
 

In the end shes just another Thatcherite thats just interested in making as much money out of the public purse as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Dames said:

You missed the last sentence after what you highlighted which is the key sentence to add context to what i’m saying, which you have done a few times already. 
 

My main argument has never been about if they should or shouldn't get a vaccine, for the final time, logically I agree with the reasons you’ve made and they should be vaccinated, my personal opinion is that they shouldn't be and more could have been done to secure the prison system against Covid, which isn’t a strange view to take despite what others are saying.

 

My point has always been about statements and rhetoric and the nature at which politicians contradict themselves. Patel has used her platform in the past to appeal to voters, certain types of voters using the hard on crime, death to all criminals rhetoric (along with all the anti immigration and border control stuff she comes out with too). All i’ve done is point out that these actions completely contradict those statements and she shouldn't be taken seriously when repeating these statements and rhetoric in the future. And as i’ve pointed out, if this news story came out under a Labour govt, she’d be howling across all platforms. 

 

As for the nonce comment I apologise, that was too far.

 

Read the reply above this bit, if you still don’t get it at this point you’re doing it on purpose.

I still don’t get it :dunno:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ealingfox said:

 

Tell you what though, if we do slide down the table I won't start following you around the forum, tagging you in random posts or giving you abuse.

You can do it if you want, it wouldn’t really make a valid point though. I never said we would finish top 4 or would be unhappy if we didn’t.

I just thought your comment smacked of arrogance and I’ve enjoyed teasing you on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Dames said:

You missed the last sentence after what you highlighted which is the key sentence to add context to what i’m saying, which you have done a few times already. 
 

My main argument has never been about if they should or shouldn't get a vaccine, for the final time, logically I agree with the reasons you’ve made and they should be vaccinated, my personal opinion is that they shouldn't be and more could have been done to secure the prison system against Covid, which isn’t a strange view to take despite what others are saying.

 

My point has always been about statements and rhetoric and the nature at which politicians contradict themselves. Patel has used her platform in the past to appeal to voters, certain types of voters using the hard on crime, death to all criminals rhetoric (along with all the anti immigration and border control stuff she comes out with too). All i’ve done is point out that these actions completely contradict those statements and she shouldn't be taken seriously when repeating these statements and rhetoric in the future. And as i’ve pointed out, if this news story came out under a Labour govt, she’d be howling across all platforms. 

 

As for the nonce comment I apologise, that was too far.

 

Read the reply above this bit, if you still don’t get it at this point you’re doing it on purpose.

 Its quite simple - advocating the death penalty for the worst criminals but then inoculating those said criminals against a deadly virus is an example of an actions contradicting statements. Yet those statements whip up certain people into a frenzy and we end up with absolute crapfests like Brexit.

 

I've now highlighted the whole sentence, I wasn't missing bits out for any kind of agenda, just the first sentence was the bit I was questioning. I still don't see how the two are related? You say they are contradictory points, but I just don't get it? In what way is vaccinating prisoners to protect the NHS contradictory to being for the death penalty?

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

 Its quite simple - advocating the death penalty for the worst criminals but then inoculating those said criminals against a deadly virus is an example of an actions contradicting statements. Yet those statements whip up certain people into a frenzy and we end up with absolute crapfests like Brexit.

 

I've now highlighted the whole sentence, I wasn't missing bits out for any kind of agenda, just the first sentence was the bit I was questioning. I still don't see how the two are related? You say they are contradictory points, but I just don't get it? In what way is vaccinating prisoners to protect the NHS contradictory to being for the death penalty?

On more than one occasion this minister has advocated for tougher sentences, has openly admitted support for the death penalty and has accused Labour many times of being soft on prisoners. She’s been very outspoken on the matter, as well as immigration which was part of my original point too. 
 

Yet when in power there are no tougher sentences, no border controls and criminals she has stated should be put to death are now receiving life saving vaccines ahead of the general public. Yes I understand the logic behind it and agree it should be done being that its the only choice to protect the NHS i’m just pointing out that in doing so this action goes against previous statements shes made and this tough on crime character shes tried to sell herself as. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of a politician, i didn’t expect it to get turned into this whole debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dames said:

On more than one occasion this minister has advocated for tougher sentences, has openly admitted support for the death penalty and has accused Labour many times of being soft on prisoners. She’s been very outspoken on the matter, as well as immigration which was part of my original point too. 
 

Yet when in power there are no tougher sentences, no border controls and criminals she has stated should be put to death are now receiving life saving vaccines ahead of the general public. Yes I understand the logic behind it and agree it should be done being that its the only choice to protect the NHS i’m just pointing out that in doing so this action goes against previous statements shes made and this tough on crime character shes tried to sell herself as. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of a politician, i didn’t expect it to get turned into this whole debate.

But Patel can't just pass the death penalty at the click of a finger and she can't change government vaccination policy either. I'm don't like her one bit, and I don't agree with much of what she says, but I don't doubt she'll bring in tougher measure in areas like immigration. She can suggest the death penalty, she could get a vote on it in Parliament I imagine, but very few MPs would vote for it. Plenty of MPs will have extreme views that don't align with the Party line that'll never be law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

But Patel can't just pass the death penalty at the click of a finger and she can't change government vaccination policy either. I'm don't like her one bit, and I don't agree with much of what she says, but I don't doubt she'll bring in tougher measure in areas like immigration. She can suggest the death penalty, she could get a vote on it in Parliament I imagine, but very few MPs would vote for it. Plenty of MPs will have extreme views that don't align with the Party line that'll never be law.

I understand what you’re saying. We all know politicians say a lot of things they don’t mean to win votes but i’m taking exception in this case because in this instance a lot of the rhetoric and what she says empowers right wing thugs and racists. 
 

She’ll never pass the death penalty in a million years but when campaign season rolls around she’ll start spouting off about it to win support from the hard core right wingers along with her usual tough on crime and anti immigration lines. I’m just doing my very small part in calling out that hypocrisy. 
 

I could go down the rabbit hole with this but it says a lot that the Government she is part of is more interested in ripping up workers rights rather than being tough on crime or immigration/border controls despite those being platforms they campaigned on. She is a very senior minister, she has the power to shape policy and guide the direction of government, especially domestically. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dames said:

I understand what you’re saying. We all know politicians say a lot of things they don’t mean to win votes but i’m taking exception in this case because in this instance a lot of the rhetoric and what she says empowers right wing thugs and racists. 
 

She’ll never pass the death penalty in a million years but when campaign season rolls around she’ll start spouting off about it to win support from the hard core right wingers along with her usual tough on crime and anti immigration lines. I’m just doing my very small part in calling out that hypocrisy. 
 

I could go down the rabbit hole with this but it says a lot that the Government she is part of is more interested in ripping up workers rights rather than being tough on crime or immigration/border controls despite those being platforms they campaigned on. She is a very senior minister, she has the power to shape policy and guide the direction of government, especially domestically. 

She does have the power to shape policy and she will, but only to some degree. And its harsh to call her hypocrite based on things out of her control. She won't have enough power to change vaccination policy or bring in the death penalty, so she's not a hypercrite in that sense.

 

I agree with what you say about the things she says to pull in voters, and she says that knowing full well some of the harder line things she champions will never be made into law. So she's selling herself to to far right based on promises she knows she can't keep. But all that is not relevant to the current governance vaccination policy. So I think your misplacing your hypocrisy accusation. You're spot about the campaigning, but I don't think it extends to to vaccination policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...