Corona Virus main thread

[Van wink 2,994]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

no, I think I have split my sides laughing at the sh yte you have just posted

now why not put Monty back on

nice

[Monty13 2,229]

7 minutes ago, Bill said:

thanks for proving my point, as this is from

Published 16 January 2020

 

now why not explain to us all what the latest amendments were, rather than post up an outdated link

 

 

Here’s an idea, as you are claiming the bill has been amended and those amendments result in reduced payments next year for farmers you should be able easily provide the evidence of your claims?

[Mr Angry 1,545]

2 hours ago, Bill said:

I would think that was obvious - even to you

What is judged as reasonable....... is by those called upon to decide

ie in thus case voters

giess what their ruling is on this ?

Have a look at the regulations that Barbe Bleu posted up a few hours ago. They don't say anything about "voters" deciding what is reasonable. In fact the only people who are allowed to take any action in relation to these regulations are:

(i)a constable,

(ii)a police community support officer,

(iii)subject to paragraph (13), a person designated by a local authority for the purposes of this regulation, or

(iv)a person designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this regulation;

 

[ricardo 7,345]

3 minutes ago, Van wink said:

nice

Refreshing to see no matter the crisis that some things never change.😀

[Bill 1,788]

1 minute ago, Monty13 said:

Here’s an idea, as you are claiming the bill has been amended and those amendments result in reduced payments next year for farmers you should be able easily provide the evidence of your claims?

No, that's just you lying again - as I made no such claim, though I am sure others would be happy to see the evidence of that

my point is that if you knew what you were talking about you would know what the implications of the recent amendments and were

which would have meant you would not have posted up a link that is now out of date ie things have changed

what I suspect is that you have just regurgitated some old right nonsense and now are trying to blame me

.... for pointing out your les

[lake district canary 4,531]

19 minutes ago, sonyc said:

58 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

This ^^^.  We can all haver our opinions, but at the heart of this are some very thick skinned politicians and their thick skinned advisers - they have to be thick skinned to have got where they are. Some would say they have to be hard as nails to have the responsibilities they have, especially when making decisions that might cost peoples' lives, like war, or reducing benefits or such like, so this Cummings incident is nothing more than a minor inconvenience to them - they will weather storm and move on and its about time people realised it and stopped wasting their time and energy trying to get somewhere with it. 

 

There is that old expression "Is this a hill you'd wish to die on?" (not paraphrased but you get my meaning). And I suppose you're right, nothing changes does it?

What I worry about though LDC is that when you give up on every sh*t thing this administration does, accepting it without challenge, then where does it end ... what else do you start accepting unthinkingly?

Yeah, you can't give up on it altogether - you have to try, but when the glaringly obvious was staring people in the face at the last election, they simply ignored it and voted them in anyway!  Yeah, I know, brexit...... but there is a solution if only people would see it - vote for someone other than tory or labour and people will then get change and the possibility of a better way of politics.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

22 hours ago, Aggy said:

He’s going to look at it and review it before giving a full answer. I’d have thought he could quite clearly have come out and said that if you were travelling for childcare purposes you shouldn’t have been fined. That’s what we were told yesterday. Why does he need to think about it?

I should imagine that's because he wasn't comfortable making that judgement. I didn't see him give us an answer today. Did he?

Trouble with this is the bigger picture is hidden by agendas going after an individual. However if there haven't been fines issued to people travelling for childcare purposes then I'm sure we'll hear before too long. However if I'd been fined for travelling over something I thought was an exceptional circumstance I would appeal it now. Wouldn't you?

[Bill 1,788]

4 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

Have a look at the regulations that Barbe Bleu posted up a few hours ago. They don't say anything about "voters" deciding what is reasonable. In fact the only people who are allowed to take any action in relation to these regulations are:

(i)a constable,

(ii)a police community support officer,

(iii)subject to paragraph (13), a person designated by a local authority for the purposes of this regulation, or

(iv)a person designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this regulation;

 

oh dear.........

we were discussing who decides what is 'reasonable' not who is allowed to take action

do keep up

[Van wink 2,994]

4 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Refreshing to see no matter the crisis that some things never change.😀

I'm sure he's been out on his bike today encouraging people to cough on each other.

From tonights posting I suspect he been....well you know.....cheers.😉

Edited May 27, 2020 by Van wink

[TIL 1010 4,722]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

it has to do with you getting caught out lying, and trying to distract away from that lying

 

Talking of lies and using distraction tactics when i asked for a response to two lies you posted i appear to have missed the answer.

Now will it be plod or a youtube clip involving pigs this time to swerve around it yet again ?

Edited May 27, 2020 by TIL 1010

[Bill 1,788]

8 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Refreshing to see no matter the crisis that some things never change.😀

you are right

the media's interest in Cummings is still there

odd how you told us it was merely

........minutia and foot stamping

[Bill 1,788]

4 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Talking of lies and using distraction tactics when i asked for a response to two lies you posted i appear to have missed the answer.

Now will it be plod or a youtube clip involving pigs this time to swerve around it yet again ?

here's an idea my old pappa pig

why not post up what I am supposed to have pointed out

then we can move from there - as that is usually the norm on forums and elsewhere

Edited May 27, 2020 by Bill

[Mr Angry 1,545]

8 minutes ago, Bill said:

oh dear.........

we were discussing who decides what is 'reasonable' not who is allowed to take action

do keep up

They are the only “relevant persons” listed in the regulations who decide what is reasonable.

[ricardo 7,345]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

you are right

the media's interest in Cummings is still there

odd how you told us it was merely

........minutia and foot stamping

All things fade away.

including my stake money.

could barely afford a Cod n Chips lunchtime.

 

[Bill 1,788]

1 minute ago, Mr Angry said:

They are the only “relevant persons” listed in the regulations who decide what is reasonable.

perhaps they are

but that was not what was being discussed/disputed

[Bill 1,788]

4 minutes ago, ricardo said:

All things fade away.*

including my stake money.

could barely afford a Cod n Chips lunchtime.

the interest in this does not seem to be fading as the number of Tory wanting Cummings out has risen to 40, with

"the senior government minister Penny Mordaunt also said there were “inconsistencies” in Cummings’ account of his actions"

 

* spiked, do keep up with the cool jive, Daddio

[Monty13 2,229]

18 minutes ago, Bill said:

No, that's just you lying again - as I made no such claim, though I am sure others would be happy to see the evidence of that

my point is that if you knew what you were talking about you would know what the implications of the recent amendments and were

which would have meant you would not have posted up a link that is now out of date ie things have changed

what I suspect is that you have just regurgitated some old right nonsense and now are trying to blame me

.... for pointing out your les

You are hilarious, I'm glad I don't block you, I'd miss out on your amazing nonsense.

You mean the recent amendments to the bill that passed its third reading....unamended?

The link is from when the bill was introduced, if somethings changed don't be coy, just provide the evidence. Should be easy.

Oh and just to remind you of what you literally said earlier as your mind seems to be playing tricks on you:

1 hour ago, Bill said:

There are already planned subsidy cut backs of between 5-25% for next year,

[TIL 1010 4,722]

3 minutes ago, Bill said:

here's an idea my old pappa pig

why not post up what I am supposed to have pointed out

then we can move from there - as that is usually the norm on forums and elsewhere

You really have lost the plot. You said i post photos of  and i quote ' half naked teenage girls ' which is offensive in the extreme and a lie.

On this thread you stated that i was bleating ( maybe not the exact word ) about not seeing my granddaughter during lockdown . That is a lie as i do not have one !

For somebody who pounces on every word in your usual aggressive objectionable pedantic manner and classifies them as lies you are a hypocrite.

 

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

You are hilarious, I'm glad I don't block you, I'd miss out on your amazing nonsense.

You mean the recent amendments to the bill that passed its third reading....unamended?

The link is from when the bill was introduced, if somethings changed don't be coy, just provide the evidence. Should be easy.

Oh and just to remind you of what you literally said earlier as your mind seems to be playing tricks on you:

oh dear

the amendments were intended to include in what you were rabbiting on about - so that they fell means your guff is out of date

and agreed subsidy cuts have nothing to do with the bill

and the quote merely demonstrates you were lying in your claim about my linking those to a proposed trade deal

so why not now produce that evidence ?

[Mr Angry 1,545]

14 minutes ago, Bill said:

perhaps they are

but that was not what was being discussed/disputed

oh dear (sic)

The discussion between Barbe Bleu and BigFish was about the regulations, which is why they were talking about who decides what is reasonable.

[Monty13 2,229]

5 minutes ago, Bill said:

oh dear

the amendments were intended to include in what you were rabbiting on about - so that they fell means your guff is out of date

and agreed subsidy cuts have nothing to do with the bill

and the quote merely demonstrates you were lying in your claim about my linking those to a proposed trade deal

so why not now produce that evidence ?

hahaha, I'm done its too funny. 

Just provide evidence of your claimed agreed subsidy cuts its that simple. 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Monty13

[Bill 1,788]

5 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

You really have lost the plot. You said i post photos of  and i quote ' half naked teenage girls ' which is offensive in the extreme and a lie.

On this thread you stated that i was bleating ( maybe not the exact word ) about not seeing my granddaughter during lockdown . That is a lie as i do not have one !

For somebody who pounces on every word in your usual aggressive objectionable pedantic manner and classifies them as lies you are a hypocrite.

so how would you describe the photos you post ?

as to the other 'lie' that is unsurprisingly one by you, as the actual words I used were

"our old friend, the neighbourhood plod, who wailed about him not being able to visit his grandchildren because of the lockdown "

which can be found below on - Posted Saturday at 14:23

https://forum.pinkun.com/index.php?/topic/136943-corona-virus-main-thread/page/245/&tab=comments#comment-2342395

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

As my wise old Lithuanian granny used to say: 'Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give him access to the internet and you'll wish you hadn't.'

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

5 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

hahaha, I'm done its too funny. 

Just provide evidence of your claimed agreed subsidy cuts its that simple. 

so you lie, and produce no evidence

I tell the truth and am required to, still here goes

''Basic Payments will be reduced by 5-25% next year for farmers in England, the government has confirmed.''

https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/farm-policy/defra-confirms-reductions-in-support-for-farmers

[Bill 1,788]

1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

As my wise old Lithuanian granny used to say: 'Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give him access to the internet and you'll wish you hadn't.'

yes, must be rather upsetting to see Bill exposing the liars

however I am sure plod will be along to apologise at some point 😅

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

A summary offence would normally be dealt with by a Magistrates Court, you are correct, there would be no jury involved. Bill suffers from the affliction of " a little knowledge is worse than none"  He's the sort of guy that tells everyone his opinion in the pub in a rather loud voice, thinking volume is an adequate alternative to knowledge.

Volume + repetition = infallible fact

In planet  Billious.

Have you  no idea Bill, that constant berration  of all and sundry  renders you ineffective as a valid opinionist.

And that's coming from someone that hold a similar political stand point. 

You are a lefty Dominic  Cummins and I claim my 6.35 euros. 

[Bill 1,788]

3 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Volume + repetition = infallible fact

In planet  Billious.

Have you  no idea Bill, that constant berration  of all and sundry  renders you ineffective as a valid opinionist.

And that's coming from someone that hold a similar political stand point. 

You are a lefty Dominic  Cummins and I claim my 6.35 euros. 

so invalid that that I am correct

however feel free to break a long habit on here and prove me wrong

maybe plod could help with his redefining of grandchildren, or montys misunderstanding of what a bill is

why you could even get Barbe Blue to change what he wrote so as to fit your narrative

prove me wrong then start squeaking.............................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Van wink 2,994]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

so invalid that that I am correct

however feel free to break a long habit on here and prove me wrong

maybe plod could help with his redefining of grandchildren, or montys misunderstanding of what a bill is

why you could even get Barbe Blue to change what he wrote so as to fit your narrative

prove me wrong then start squeaking.............................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You are wrong on virtually every stance you take you idiot

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,181]

Inevitable

some of the public are using Dominic Cummings as their role model 

[Monty13 2,229]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

so you lie, and produce no evidence

I tell the truth and am required to, still here goes

''Basic Payments will be reduced by 5-25% next year for farmers in England, the government has confirmed.''

https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/farm-policy/defra-confirms-reductions-in-support-for-farmers

I didn't lie I put forward my understanding. Jesus, if you just link things that people are unaware of you might find people are probably interested. You might even...have a discussion god forbid. Instead you have to be not so passive aggressive to everyone which gets there back up. Thanks for the link. 

So we have spent an hour arguing over something I wasn't aware of has nothing but semantics to do with my point, my point was that subsidies aren't going, the budget is remaining the same. However I'll admit I was unaware individual farmers are having their basic payments dropped. But as that money is being pushed to provide the financial incentives for Environmental Land Management scheme I can't say I see a massive issue.