Planet Rugby Forum

Sir Alex Allan, the prime minister’s independent advisor on ministerial standards, has quit following Johnson’s refusal to sack Priti Patel according to reports.
It comes after a Cabinet Office inquiry into allegations of bullying and harassment by the home secretary found that she had broken the ministerial code.
In the report, Sir Alex advised that Patel had not consistently met “the high standards required by the Ministerial Code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect.”
It added that her approach on occasions had amounted to behaviour “that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals”.
“To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the Ministerial Code, even if unintentionally.”

bimboman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:43 amAlso if you want crazy have a look at the gas boilers goooooone by 2023, to be replaced with a technology that isn’t even available and regulated right now.

bimboman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:13 am

Actually they do. Via borrowing and taxes. It's the situation where the government tries to provide services, protection and the ability for greater employment and opportunity for it's citizens. It's like saying a shop doesn't have any money, it's profits are it's customers.

Taxes and borrowing are all our money. Not theirs.

Interesting though that you see us as owned by the “shop” and we serve them rather than they’re our choice of government and should carry out the people’s wishes.

If you’ve not noticed the government and state serve themselves first and only provides employment and opportunity for potential voters and fudge the rest.

Your big issues start here with a failure of civics.

Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:29 pm Boris rejects apparent findings of independent review and refuses to publish said findings resulting in the report author's resignation.

Bully for him.

SaintK wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:52 pm

Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:29 pm Boris rejects apparent findings of independent review and refuses to publish said findings resulting in the report author's resignation.

Bully for him.

.............and Patel's fulsome apology. "I'm sorry IF I upset anyone"

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:48 pm

bimboman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:13 am

Actually they do. Via borrowing and taxes. It's the situation where the government tries to provide services, protection and the ability for greater employment and opportunity for it's citizens. It's like saying a shop doesn't have any money, it's profits are it's customers.

Taxes and borrowing are all our money. Not theirs.

Interesting though that you see us as owned by the “shop” and we serve them rather than they’re our choice of government and should carry out the people’s wishes.

If you’ve not noticed the government and state serve themselves first and only provides employment and opportunity for potential voters and fudge the rest.

Your big issues start here with a failure of civics.

The government do serve us, they in fact are chosen by us. If we don't like them we can vote another in. As it happens, thanks to the government is why you have been able to earn your money. Schooling, health, police etc. You don't pay a police officers salary or your teachers wage privately, the government allows a collective contribution so you can benefit and earn. So you do owe the government for your safety, healthy lifestyle of your choice.

bimboman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:20 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:52 pm

Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:29 pm Boris rejects apparent findings of independent review and refuses to publish said findings resulting in the report author's resignation.

Bully for him.

.............and Patel's fulsome apology. "I'm sorry IF I upset anyone"

Good girl, got all the right people frothing ...

DragsterDriver wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:33 pm She’s proper fit.

(From the waist up)

message #2527204 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:16 pm Isn't Annaliese Dodds whiny?

Private sector been on furlough and paycuts acroos the board.
Public sector working fine all the way through, with plenty of handsomely paid overtime - desperately needs a pay rise in order to fund small businesses.

message #2527204 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:16 pm Isn't Annaliese Dodds whiny?

Private sector been on furlough and paycuts acroos the board.
Public sector working fine all the way through, with plenty of handsomely paid overtime - desperately needs a pay rise in order to fund small businesses.

Hellraiser wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:58 pm

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 3:20 pm A far more serious problem with the government.


[quote 1. Boris promised me twice he’d “never” abandon 0.7%.
But who cares what he told me?
2. He has broken a manifesto promise.
3. He has broken a promise to world’s poorest people when they need it most.
4. Under this PM, Britain is becoming a nation that doesn’t keep its word.

Anonymous 1 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:37 am No deal
No food
No job

Tory election strategy

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:05 pm

Rinkals wrote:

bimboman wrote:

dargotronV.1 wrote:

bimboman wrote:
“We demand a strict lockdown”

“We don’t want a recession “

Do you think he's doing a good job?

I know that a lockdown on our economy (not as strict as many demanded) will cause a huge drop in GDP. Once the lockdown has occured the drop is inevitable, no “good job” could change that.

Demanding a stricter lockdown was a demand for more not less economic damage.


I think he’s personally a poor person for this type of emergency, but also it’s exposed that PHE and the NHS and many of our scientists are shit.

That is an extraordinary rewriting of the reality.

Surely the sheer volume of flawed contracts awarded to connected friends and individuals gives you some kind of insight the sort of financial mismanagement that characterises complete incompetence.

Your claim that the scientists are shit would also carry more weight if Boris, Cummings and Co took the slightest bit of notice of their advice.

“The sheer volume of flawed contracts ——- 1 or 2.


Neither the deaths nor the economic issues are due to a couple of PPE contracts.

The government has acted n the scientific advice at all stages.

Another doozy of a post misunderstanding the points, the subject and everything around it.

Rinky for the win.

bimboman wrote:I know that a lockdown on our economy (not as strict as many demanded) will cause a huge drop in GDP. Once the lockdown has occured the drop is inevitable, no “good job” could change that.

Demanding a stricter lockdown was a demand for more not less economic damage.


I think he’s personally a poor person for this type of emergency, but also it’s exposed that PHE and the NHS and many of our scientists are shit.

Muttonbirds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:08 am

bimboman wrote:I know that a lockdown on our economy (not as strict as many demanded) will cause a huge drop in GDP. Once the lockdown has occured the drop is inevitable, no “good job” could change that.

Demanding a stricter lockdown was a demand for more not less economic damage.


I think he’s personally a poor person for this type of emergency, but also it’s exposed that PHE and the NHS and many of our scientists are shit.

Demonstrably untrue. Strict lockdowns are great for the economy. Get rid if the virus and people get back to work quicker and domestic activity thrives. I'm surprised Britain hasn't learned this after 10 months.

Muttonbirds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:08 am

bimboman wrote:I know that a lockdown on our economy (not as strict as many demanded) will cause a huge drop in GDP. Once the lockdown has occured the drop is inevitable, no “good job” could change that.

Demanding a stricter lockdown was a demand for more not less economic damage.


I think he’s personally a poor person for this type of emergency, but also it’s exposed that PHE and the NHS and many of our scientists are shit.

Demonstrably untrue. Strict lockdowns are great for the economy. Get rid if the virus and people get back to work quicker and domestic activity thrives. I'm surprised Britain hasn't learned this after 10 months.

not_english wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:21 pm I would say that going into a lockdown works if you get the cases down to zero. This isn't really practical anywhere in Europe at the moment.

The model here is to get the cases down low enough that hospitals aren't being overwhelmed.

I still wonder however why they never tried to quarantine at the border (it was immediately dismissed as too hard). This is something that all of the countries that have done well with covid have done.

Ali's Choice wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:39 pm

not_english wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:21 pm I would say that going into a lockdown works if you get the cases down to zero. This isn't really practical anywhere in Europe at the moment.

The model here is to get the cases down low enough that hospitals aren't being overwhelmed.

I still wonder however why they never tried to quarantine at the border (it was immediately dismissed as too hard). This is something that all of the countries that have done well with covid have done.

I remember being mocked by bimboman when we discussed quarantining the border back in April. I was explaining how such a strategy was having positive results in Australia and NZ. He told me that such a strategy would never by adopted in the UK because they would never, ever close their borders and they have more international visitors per week than Australia has total population.

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:41 pm Yes I explained the difference in scale. I assume you’re still struggling with these facts.

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:41 pm

Ali's Choice wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:39 pm
I remember being mocked by bimboman when we discussed quarantining the border back in April. I was explaining how such a strategy was having positive results in Australia and NZ. He told me that such a strategy would never by adopted in the UK because they would never, ever close their borders and they have more international visitors per week than Australia has total population.

Yes I explained the difference in scale. I assume you’re still struggling with these facts.

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:27 pm

Muttonbirds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:08 am

bimboman wrote:I know that a lockdown on our economy (not as strict as many demanded) will cause a huge drop in GDP. Once the lockdown has occured the drop is inevitable, no “good job” could change that.

Demanding a stricter lockdown was a demand for more not less economic damage.


I think he’s personally a poor person for this type of emergency, but also it’s exposed that PHE and the NHS and many of our scientists are shit.

Demonstrably untrue. Strict lockdowns are great for the economy. Get rid if the virus and people get back to work quicker and domestic activity thrives. I'm surprised Britain hasn't learned this after 10 months.

Closing down the economy isn’t good for the economy. Stone cold fact.

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:50 pm

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:27 pm

Muttonbirds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:08 am

bimboman wrote:I know that a lockdown on our economy (not as strict as many demanded) will cause a huge drop in GDP. Once the lockdown has occured the drop is inevitable, no “good job” could change that.

Demanding a stricter lockdown was a demand for more not less economic damage.


I think he’s personally a poor person for this type of emergency, but also it’s exposed that PHE and the NHS and many of our scientists are shit.

Demonstrably untrue. Strict lockdowns are great for the economy. Get rid if the virus and people get back to work quicker and domestic activity thrives. I'm surprised Britain hasn't learned this after 10 months.

Closing down the economy isn’t good for the economy. Stone cold fact.

That's not that simple, or entirely true int hese circumstances. Ina pandemic economic damage is going to happen anyway. The question is will the factors of a short term lockdown, a strict or soft lcokdown and other measure allvthinsg to return to normal and not repeat itself enough that the short term lockdown actions mean less economic damage overall then the damage done without a lockdown.

There are several factors that also affect if a lockdown and the type of lockdown is worth while. Different economies will be affected by differing amounts due to the nature of the economy, the other measures being taken, the geography and it's proximity to other nations, how interconnected and interdependent it is on other nations, the compliance of the population, population health, age and density etc.

To say lockdowns don't ever work in mitigating economic damage is rubbish. Sweden alone shows that.

Ali's Choice wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:43 pm

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:41 pm Yes I explained the difference in scale. I assume you’re still struggling with these facts.

I was talking about you, not to you. You're an absolute fuckwit. Don't ever address me directly again on this forum.

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:51 pm

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:50 pm

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:27 pm

Muttonbirds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:08 am

bimboman wrote:I know that a lockdown on our economy (not as strict as many demanded) will cause a huge drop in GDP. Once the lockdown has occured the drop is inevitable, no “good job” could change that.

Demanding a stricter lockdown was a demand for more not less economic damage.


I think he’s personally a poor person for this type of emergency, but also it’s exposed that PHE and the NHS and many of our scientists are shit.

Demonstrably untrue. Strict lockdowns are great for the economy. Get rid if the virus and people get back to work quicker and domestic activity thrives. I'm surprised Britain hasn't learned this after 10 months.

Closing down the economy isn’t good for the economy. Stone cold fact.

That's not that simple, or entirely true int hese circumstances. Ina pandemic economic damage is going to happen anyway. The question is will the factors of a short term lockdown, a strict or soft lcokdown and other measure allvthinsg to return to normal and not repeat itself enough that the short term lockdown actions mean less economic damage overall then the damage done without a lockdown.

There are several factors that also affect if a lockdown and the type of lockdown is worth while. Different economies will be affected by differing amounts due to the nature of the economy, the other measures being taken, the geography and it's proximity to other nations, how interconnected and interdependent it is on other nations, the compliance of the population, population health, age and density etc.

To say lockdowns don't ever work in mitigating economic damage is rubbish. Sweden alone shows that.

Sweden shows what exactly?

Ali's Choice wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:43 pm

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:41 pm Yes I explained the difference in scale. I assume you’re still struggling with these facts.

I was talking about you, not to you. You're an absolute fuckwit. Don't ever address me directly again on this forum.

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:13 pm

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:51 pm

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:50 pm

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:27 pm

Muttonbirds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:08 am Demonstrably untrue. Strict lockdowns are great for the economy. Get rid if the virus and people get back to work quicker and domestic activity thrives. I'm surprised Britain hasn't learned this after 10 months.

Closing down the economy isn’t good for the economy. Stone cold fact.

That's not that simple, or entirely true int hese circumstances. Ina pandemic economic damage is going to happen anyway. The question is will the factors of a short term lockdown, a strict or soft lcokdown and other measure allvthinsg to return to normal and not repeat itself enough that the short term lockdown actions mean less economic damage overall then the damage done without a lockdown.

There are several factors that also affect if a lockdown and the type of lockdown is worth while. Different economies will be affected by differing amounts due to the nature of the economy, the other measures being taken, the geography and it's proximity to other nations, how interconnected and interdependent it is on other nations, the compliance of the population, population health, age and density etc.

To say lockdowns don't ever work in mitigating economic damage is rubbish. Sweden alone shows that.

Sweden shows what exactly?

AH the classic Bimbo "I'll pretend to be ultra obtuse when a good point is made" technique to bad faith debate. You know full well Sweden's economy, which didn't lockdown and had less economic retraction than Ireland.