Coronavirus

[Not in Crawley]

I think I’d be a bit miffed if someone did a fart on a packed train.

[mickbrown]

3 minutes ago, Mr Grey said:

Believe me, they get upset if someone farts! And they don't pick on me, i just ignore the cunts!

Nah. You brought this up.
 

What do you want to say out loud on a train that you can’t for fear of being singled out by liberals ?
 

 

[Not in Crawley]

3 minutes ago, RoadRunnerFan said:

Aren't you characterising all 'liberals' as a homogenous mass in the same way you are calling them out for? 

And what do you mean by 'liberals?' Liberal Democrats? Remain voters? Or the US usage that's creeping into our discourse - anyone that doesn't support the Republican Party (Conservatives over here). 

I think it’s anyone who doesn’t agree with a certain worldview in general. 
 

As you say Paul, politics has grey areas. However, racism doesn’t.

Like our friend Bolty, he believes the term racist is bandied about too easily to shut down discussions, but in the next breath calls second and third generation immigrants interlopers and blocks anyone who says that’s probably racist terminology and perhaps you shouldn’t use it in 2020.

Cant have it both ways, I’m afraid. 

[Zico]

10 minutes ago, kent_white said:

If one of them passes COVID onto a vulnerable person who then dies - then they're just as culpable in my opinion. 

I'd just class them all as selfish ignorant cunts as opposed to murderers

When the next spike comes they'll all be blaming each other anyway

[paulhanley]

15 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

What was the saying? Not everybody who voted Brexit was racist, but all racists voted for Brexit. 

Folk can say what they want, but equally can be called out on it if it’s bullshit  

Racists are racist. There aren’t degrees of racism. You do know that don’t you?

And what gives you the moral authority to do the calling out? And why should we trust your grounds for doing so? 

You're on your self made moral high ground again. 

It's liberals who want to portray every single issue that crops up in this world of ours on the basis of identity (gender, race etc). It gets called "inclusive". And the people who like being "inclusive" spend most of their lives looking for people to exclude from their chosen band of followers and fellow travellers.Hardly very inclusive when you get right down to it.

[Escobarp]

1 minute ago, Mr Grey said:

Its just natural gas that needs releasing, although i am no Biologist or scientist. I always think it depends what mood you are in, if your in a nowty bad mood, your more likely to ask politely which dirty cunt has farted.

You see I find it amusing to do such a thing but depending on what mood I’m in. But am outraged when someone else does it. Hypocrit I hear you say?

well who are you to tell me how to live my life 😁

Edited June 7, 2020 by Escobarp

[radcliffe white]

25 minutes ago, Mr Grey said:

Go to agree, it's everywhere, especially when you are travelling. You have to keep your opinions and mouth zipped in case some Liberal is in the vicinity. 

Go by train on an away day, very rarely passes without some incident.

Many years ago we was on the train and an Asian man said to one of ours you’re Invading my personal space ( bearing in mind them virgin seats can be tight)

ours got up and moved (good move) if this had escalated it would of only gone one way 

[paulhanley]

28 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

I think it’s anyone who doesn’t agree with a certain worldview in general. 
 

As you say Paul, politics has grey areas. However, racism doesn’t.

Like our friend Bolty, he believes the term racist is bandied about too easily to shut down discussions, but in the next breath calls second and third generation immigrants interlopers and blocks anyone who says that’s probably racist terminology and perhaps you shouldn’t use it in 2020.

Cant have it both ways, I’m afraid. 

If you live in any country in the world and want that country to have an immigration policy that can be adjusted and readjusted according to the view of the elected government of the day and the prevailing economic picture you are not a racist, you are a pragmatist.

If you go around using the N word or making out the sections of society other than your own are beneath contempt then you're a racist. And would you agree .... you don't have to be white to be a racist and it is possible for white people or people who follow Christianity to be victims? 

The problem is people who insist on discussing every issue in terms of identity. Identity politics and hierarchies of victimhood.

Edited June 7, 2020 by paulhanley

[mickbrown]

7 minutes ago, Mr Grey said:

Anyway, are you fucking bored in your shed today, you seem to be spoiling for a few.

Nothing new then 😉

No answer. Again. 
 

Sounds very much to me that you’d like to be able to act the cunt on a train without the other passengers being able to tell  you to stop acting the cunt. Fair précis?

And haven’t you got enough shed based imagery for your wankbank yet?

[mickbrown]

9 minutes ago, paulhanley said:

And what gives you the moral authority to do the calling out? And why should we trust your grounds for doing so? 

You're on your self made moral high ground again. 

It's liberals who want to portray every single issue that crops up in this world of ours on the basis of identity (gender, race etc). It gets called "inclusive". And the people who like being "inclusive" spend most of their lives looking for people to exclude from their chosen band of followers and fellow travellers.Hardly very inclusive when you get right down to it.

I wouldn’t be calling them out. Where the fuck did I give you that idea?

[paulhanley]

22 minutes ago, RoadRunnerFan said:

Aren't you characterising all 'liberals' as a homogenous mass in the same way you are calling them out for? 

And what do you mean by 'liberals?' Liberal Democrats? Remain voters? Or the US usage that's creeping into our discourse - anyone that doesn't support the Republican Party (Conservatives over here). 

Its possible to economically liberal without being socially liberal and vice-versa. It's just possible to be thoughtful and have individual views that you've dwelt upon for some time before opening your gob and letting others hear them.

There are plenty with liberal elements to their views in both the Conservative and Republican parties either economically or socially.

The hectoring/lecturing pretty far to the left characters who condemn other people for disagreeing with them rather than debating with them and attempting to prove the veracity of what they are saying are the liberals I'm talking about. In essence they do not believe in free speech. This brand of liberalism probably didn't exist 30 years ago and even 20 years ago it was thin on the ground.

[paulhanley]

1 minute ago, mickbrown said:

I wouldn’t be calling them out. Where the fuck did I give you that idea?

Good.

[Farrelli]

Hancock knows better than the scientists.  This is from his latest interview, directly contradicting Professor John Edmunds (SAGE). 

Matt Hancock has clashed with a leading scientist who warned the late lockdown “cost lives” and that lifting restrictions now risks a second peak.  John Edmunds, a member of the advisory SAGE committee, said the number of infections was still too high, saying: “If we relax, this epidemic will come back really fast.”  And he added: “I wish we had gone into lockdown earlier – I think that has cost a lot of lives unfortunately.”  But the health secretary denied both charges, insisting: “We took the right decisions at the right time.”

The government is expected to press ahead with a full reopening of retail in eight days’ time, pointing to daily infections falling to around 5,500, from 8,000 a week earlier.  But Professor Edmunds, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said the figure excluded hospitals and care homes – and was England only.  “It’s up to them, it’s their choice,” he said, on further lockdown-easing, but added: “I would still prefer to see cases come down lower than they are at the moment.”  Asked about people who may believe “it’s all over”, he warned: “It’s definitely not all over, unfortunately - there is an awful long way to go.”

 

[peelyfeet]

Not everyone who voted for Brexit is racist, but it appears that most racists active on social media did, which gives Brexiteers a bad name. 

By the same token mot every remainer is a vegan, transgender rights supporting, feminist hippy. 

The reality is most of us are in the middle. Most of us are reasonable.

Dont let social media trick you.

[mickbrown]

Just now, Mr Grey said:

Aye sorry forgot your a Lefty liberal, will ignore you 😁

So ‘liberals’ won’t debate an idea and when I try (and I wouldn’t class myself as a liberal in any way, shape of form), you shy away.

You’ve seen the foolishness of your argument perhaps? 😀

Anyroad, Ill go back to work on some shed based scenarios for you. 
 

Toodle pip👍

 

[Tombwfc]

5 minutes ago, Farrelli said:

Hancock knows better than the scientists.  This is from his latest interview, directly contradicting Professor John Edmunds (SAGE). 

Matt Hancock has clashed with a leading scientist who warned the late lockdown “cost lives” and that lifting restrictions now risks a second peak.  John Edmunds, a member of the advisory SAGE committee, said the number of infections was still too high, saying: “If we relax, this epidemic will come back really fast.”  And he added: “I wish we had gone into lockdown earlier – I think that has cost a lot of lives unfortunately.”  But the health secretary denied both charges, insisting: “We took the right decisions at the right time.”

The government is expected to press ahead with a full reopening of retail in eight days’ time, pointing to daily infections falling to around 5,500, from 8,000 a week earlier.  But Professor Edmunds, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said the figure excluded hospitals and care homes – and was England only.  “It’s up to them, it’s their choice,” he said, on further lockdown-easing, but added: “I would still prefer to see cases come down lower than they are at the moment.”  Asked about people who may believe “it’s all over”, he warned: “It’s definitely not all over, unfortunately - there is an awful long way to go.”

 

 

Never admit anything, never apologise.

[mickbrown]

1 minute ago, Mr Grey said:

Okay

Do you travel to away games by train ?

What sort of peasant do you take me for?😃

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Farrelli said:

Hancock knows better than the scientists.  This is from his latest interview, directly contradicting Professor John Edmunds (SAGE). 

Matt Hancock has clashed with a leading scientist who warned the late lockdown “cost lives” and that lifting restrictions now risks a second peak.  John Edmunds, a member of the advisory SAGE committee, said the number of infections was still too high, saying: “If we relax, this epidemic will come back really fast.”  And he added: “I wish we had gone into lockdown earlier – I think that has cost a lot of lives unfortunately.”  But the health secretary denied both charges, insisting: “We took the right decisions at the right time.”

The government is expected to press ahead with a full reopening of retail in eight days’ time, pointing to daily infections falling to around 5,500, from 8,000 a week earlier.  But Professor Edmunds, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said the figure excluded hospitals and care homes – and was England only.  “It’s up to them, it’s their choice,” he said, on further lockdown-easing, but added: “I would still prefer to see cases come down lower than they are at the moment.”  Asked about people who may believe “it’s all over”, he warned: “It’s definitely not all over, unfortunately - there is an awful long way to go.”

 

I heard him on R5L this morning and he is clear that R is less than 1 and much less than that in the community.

What do the SAGE documents say/ support about lockdown?

[Ani]

1 hour ago, Farrelli said:

Hancock knows better than the scientists.  This is from his latest interview, directly contradicting Professor John Edmunds (SAGE). 

Matt Hancock has clashed with a leading scientist who warned the late lockdown “cost lives” and that lifting restrictions now risks a second peak.  John Edmunds, a member of the advisory SAGE committee, said the number of infections was still too high, saying: “If we relax, this epidemic will come back really fast.”  And he added: “I wish we had gone into lockdown earlier – I think that has cost a lot of lives unfortunately.”  But the health secretary denied both charges, insisting: “We took the right decisions at the right time.”

The government is expected to press ahead with a full reopening of retail in eight days’ time, pointing to daily infections falling to around 5,500, from 8,000 a week earlier.  But Professor Edmunds, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said the figure excluded hospitals and care homes – and was England only.  “It’s up to them, it’s their choice,” he said, on further lockdown-easing, but added: “I would still prefer to see cases come down lower than they are at the moment.”  Asked about people who may believe “it’s all over”, he warned: “It’s definitely not all over, unfortunately - there is an awful long way to go.”

 

To be fair the science guy in his interview did say he wished we had locked down sooner but we did not have sufficient data to make that case at the time. Also that given number of cases he was not sure the public would have gone along with it. 

Edited June 7, 2020 by Ani

[peelyfeet]

4 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

I heard him on R5L this morning and he is clear that R is less than 1 and much less than that in the community.

What do the SAGE documents say/ support about lockdown?

It he's clear that R is less than 1, and much less in the community, he needs to show his workings out.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

It he's clear that R is less than 1, and much less in the community, he needs to show his workings out.

You should ask him for them

😊

[kent_white]

56 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

I'd just class them all as selfish ignorant cunts as opposed to murderers

When the next spike comes they'll all be blaming each other anyway

I hear what you're saying. But I think they've gone to that march fully aware of the possible consequences - and should be accountable for them.

I'm sure that copper didn't really mean to kill George Floyd. Just like these protesters won't mean to kill people in their own community. But the principle is the same for me. Neither of them are respecting or valuing human life. 

[Farrelli]

3 minutes ago, Ani said:

To be fair the science guy in his interview did say he wished we had locked down sooner but we did have sufficient data to make that case at the time. Also that given number of cases he was not sure the public would have gone along with it. 

That is fair enough but it would be nice if Hancock had been able to say something similar.  Instead we get this continual Homer Simpson style 'I didn't touch it, it was like that when I got here'  crap from government ministers.  No one is saying this was easy but it really is galling how they will not admit to any errors. 

[Farrelli]

39 minutes ago, Tombwfc said:

 

Never admit anything, never apologise.

Yes that seems to be the game plan and they will not deviate from it.

[Ani]

44 minutes ago, Farrelli said:

That is fair enough but it would be nice if Hancock had been able to say something similar.  Instead we get this continual Homer Simpson style 'I didn't touch it, it was like that when I got here'  crap from government ministers.  No one is saying this was easy but it really is galling how they will not admit to any errors. 

I had missed a ‘not’ out of my post. So we did not have the data ! I agree fully with what you say above. The situation was evolving so a decision made then might seem wrong now but was made for all the right reasons. 
Sadly more recent calls seem based on political motives. 

Edited June 7, 2020 by Ani