Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (4 Viewers)

[Brylowes]

Our scientists and medical practitioners really need to provide clarity on this subject as many have previously claimed that masks will do little to help protect someone from contracting the virus. The most prominent of these being Chris Whitty, who actually went one step further and urged people not to wear them.

I’ve said this before but ‘surely someone that is carrying the virus without knowing will be less likely
to pass it on if wearing a mask.
The protection gained by wearing a mask to prevent contracting the virus is a bone of contention
Between experts everywhere, you would really think that with all the research going on ‘they would
Have a definitive answer by now.

 

---

[skybluetony176]

I think that they likely reduce the chances of infection but not eradicate it completely, even if it was just a 5% reduction, I would prefer to wear one, personally.
They are now mandatory here when going to the supermarket, so expect that we'll have to wear them for a while when we are eventually allowed back into the workplace.

Looking at the 3D modelling by Finnish scientists I think it’s more a case of stopping you spreading it should you have it rather than stopping you catching it if you don’t. Given that the virus can have at least a 2 week incubation period before you show any symptoms masks seem a sensible approach in tackling the spread.

 

[Astute]

Starmer can fuck off after this:

Labour antisemitism investigation will not be sent to equality commission

How much of a say has Starmer had in this?


An extensive internal investigation into the way Labour handled antisemitism complaints will not be submitted to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, after an intervention by party lawyers.

Then we have alleged conversations between we don't know who making comments when we don't know what was said.

Then you have the end of the article.


Following what the report describes as a "systematic review" of all complaints received between November 2016 to February 2018, it claims investigations were initiated into only 34 of the more than 300 complaints received in relation to antisemitism.

"At least half of these warranted action, many of them in relation to very extreme forms of antisemitism, but were ignored. Almost all of these complaints were forwarded from one inbox to another, and many of them were identified as Labour members and sent to the Head of Disputes, Sam Matthews, for action", the report claims.

In a statement to Sky News responding to the leaked report, Sam Matthews said: "This latest episode comes as no surprise to me, as an effort by a disgruntled faction who are floundering in their attempts to blame others in order to distract from matters that will be investigated by the EHRC and the Courts.

"I hope Keir Starmer will stand by his commitment to undo the damage that they and their supporters have caused.


Mr Matthew continued: "The proper examination of the full evidence will show that as Head of Disputes and Acting Director, I did my level best to tackle the poison of anti-Jewish racism which was growing under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

"A highly selective, retrospective review of the Party's poor record, not deemed good enough for submission by the Party's own lawyers and conducted in the dying days of a Corbyn's leadership in order to justify their inaction, simply cannot be relied upon."

So how is Starmer to blame?

 

[Ian1779]

I assume? You are the one assuming not me.

You asked the questions. I answered them for you. You don't like the answers.

So come on then. Why did Labour have such a catastrophic GE when they were up against the Tories who didn't have policies and had Boris as leader? Why ask questions when you know you won't like honest opinions back?

You know why:
1.we failed to give any clarity on Brexit and should not have attempted to go against what people voted for. Boris had ‘Get Brexit done’ - it resonated, he played it perfectly and Labour gave him all the ammunition he needed.
2. Maybe we tried to flood too many policies in one go rather than trying to focus on 2/3 key ones. Trouble was a lot of them were already well received in 2017 and maybe though my we needed more new ones... a point for discussion definitely but not a direct reason for failure.
3. The leadership did have baggage which hindered them, and they allowed a certain image of them to become the ‘truth’ without directly calling it out or challenging it.
4. The anti-semitism crisis was again allowed to explode beyond what it actually was (a 0.05% issue within members) and again not challenged and called out for what it was.
5. The social media campaign of 2017 that was successful was trumped by a co-ordinated media campaign by the Tories that had been 2 years on the making.... especially on Facebook.They learnt from their mistakes and subconsciously fed a narrative into people’s mindsets... the exact people they needed to target to win.
6. Labour had the entire print, radio and TV media against them. And we didn’t challenge it well enough.

 

[Brylowes]

Why do some like yourself still try to deny this?

This is the problem with Labour mentality. You were not allowed to say anything about what you could see. But anyone who doesn't vote Labour because it is what they do could see it

This is what I meant by presume.
The way I read that ‘you are presuming that I believe Labour were utterly useless but I’m in denial.
I’m not in denial as I don’t believe they were utterly useless.

I then read the next bit as presuming that ‘I could see something I didn’t like but wasn’t allowed to
Say something about it.
A, the only thing I could see was a media witch hunt against the party leadership being instigated
From all sides including the right wing factions of the Labour Party.
B, I say what I want.
And I certainly wouldn’t say Diane Abbott was thick ‘far from it in fact.
Starmer I very much doubt will be getting my vote, already rolling out the red carpet to the zionists

Sorry if I’ve misunderstood.

 

[Ian1779]

How much of a say has Starmer had in this?


An extensive internal investigation into the way Labour handled antisemitism complaints will not be submitted to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, after an intervention by party lawyers.

Then we have alleged conversations between we don't know who making comments when we don't know what was said.

Then you have the end of the article.


Following what the report describes as a "systematic review" of all complaints received between November 2016 to February 2018, it claims investigations were initiated into only 34 of the more than 300 complaints received in relation to antisemitism.

"At least half of these warranted action, many of them in relation to very extreme forms of antisemitism, but were ignored. Almost all of these complaints were forwarded from one inbox to another, and many of them were identified as Labour members and sent to the Head of Disputes, Sam Matthews, for action", the report claims.

In a statement to Sky News responding to the leaked report, Sam Matthews said: "This latest episode comes as no surprise to me, as an effort by a disgruntled faction who are floundering in their attempts to blame others in order to distract from matters that will be investigated by the EHRC and the Courts.

"I hope Keir Starmer will stand by his commitment to undo the damage that they and their supporters have caused.


Mr Matthew continued: "The proper examination of the full evidence will show that as Head of Disputes and Acting Director, I did my level best to tackle the poison of anti-Jewish racism which was growing under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

"A highly selective, retrospective review of the Party's poor record, not deemed good enough for submission by the Party's own lawyers and conducted in the dying days of a Corbyn's leadership in order to justify their inaction, simply cannot be relied upon."

So how is Starmer to blame?

It’s not he’s to blame as such... it’s the fact he ‘appears’ to be blocking it going to the EHRC... why would he do that?

 

[clint van damme]

How much of a say has Starmer had in this?


An extensive internal investigation into the way Labour handled antisemitism complaints will not be submitted to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, after an intervention by party lawyers.

Then we have alleged conversations between we don't know who making comments when we don't know what was said.

Then you have the end of the article.


Following what the report describes as a "systematic review" of all complaints received between November 2016 to February 2018, it claims investigations were initiated into only 34 of the more than 300 complaints received in relation to antisemitism.

"At least half of these warranted action, many of them in relation to very extreme forms of antisemitism, but were ignored. Almost all of these complaints were forwarded from one inbox to another, and many of them were identified as Labour members and sent to the Head of Disputes, Sam Matthews, for action", the report claims.

In a statement to Sky News responding to the leaked report, Sam Matthews said: "This latest episode comes as no surprise to me, as an effort by a disgruntled faction who are floundering in their attempts to blame others in order to distract from matters that will be investigated by the EHRC and the Courts.

"I hope Keir Starmer will stand by his commitment to undo the damage that they and their supporters have caused.


Mr Matthew continued: "The proper examination of the full evidence will show that as Head of Disputes and Acting Director, I did my level best to tackle the poison of anti-Jewish racism which was growing under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

"A highly selective, retrospective review of the Party's poor record, not deemed good enough for submission by the Party's own lawyers and conducted in the dying days of a Corbyn's leadership in order to justify their inaction, simply cannot be relied upon."

So how is Starmer to blame?

hes in charge of the party. You can guarantee if the report had fitted the agenda it would have been submitted.
There were also charges of bullying in the report and some of the detail is being leaked on social media, it's bad, including the bullying of one young man with mental health issues. Lets see if he des anything about it.

I had doubts about Starmer but was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. When he wouldn't reveal his backers when the other leadership candidates did alarm bells were ringing, this is another red flag for me.

 

[Skybluefaz]

So it took my sister over a week to get tested from the day she first notified the hospital that she works at that she thought she had coronavirus. Yet if you are a celebrity you can get tested with no symptoms.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

So it took my sister over a week to get tested from the day she first notified the hospital that she works at that she thought she had coronavirus. Yet if you are a celebrity you can get tested with no symptoms.

And is she ok?

 

[Astute]

You know why:
1.we failed to give any clarity on Brexit and should not have attempted to go against what people voted for. Boris had ‘Get Brexit done’ - it resonated, he played it perfectly and Labour gave him all the ammunition he needed.
2. Maybe we tried to flood too many policies in one go rather than trying to focus on 2/3 key ones. Trouble was a lot of them were already well received in 2017 and maybe though my we needed more new ones... a point for discussion definitely but not a direct reason for failure.
3. The leadership did have baggage which hindered them, and they allowed a certain image of them to become the ‘truth’ without directly calling it out or challenging it.
4. The anti-semitism crisis was again allowed to explode beyond what it actually was (a 0.05% issue within members) and again not challenged and called out for what it was.
5. The social media campaign of 2017 that was successful was trumped by a co-ordinated media campaign by the Tories that had been 2 years on the making.... especially on Facebook.They learnt from their mistakes and subconsciously fed a narrative into people’s mindsets... the exact people they needed to target to win.
6. Labour had the entire print, radio and TV media against them. And we didn’t challenge it well enough.

Hit the nail on the head. So you actually agree with me.

1, Exactly what I said.

2, Pushed free internet and taking back control of the railways. Just like I said.

3, Too many skeletons in the closet. Exactly what I said.

4, 0.05%? So this Sky News thing wasn't worth doing?

5, So the Tories had a better social network campaign. Wouldn't know as I don't do it. So not going to debate something I don't know much about.

6, Back to No.1 and No.3.... lots of ammunition given.

 

[Brylowes]

Starmer can fuck off after this:

Labour antisemitism investigation will not be sent to equality commission

Absolute arseholes ‘they have absolutely no interest in Governing for the people, the poor bloke
Never had a chance ‘the hardest enemy to defeat is the smiling one behind you.
Shocking. I hope he has grounds to sue.

 

[Brylowes]

How much of a say has Starmer had in this?


An extensive internal investigation into the way Labour handled antisemitism complaints will not be submitted to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, after an intervention by party lawyers.

Then we have alleged conversations between we don't know who making comments when we don't know what was said.

Then you have the end of the article.


Following what the report describes as a "systematic review" of all complaints received between November 2016 to February 2018, it claims investigations were initiated into only 34 of the more than 300 complaints received in relation to antisemitism.

"At least half of these warranted action, many of them in relation to very extreme forms of antisemitism, but were ignored. Almost all of these complaints were forwarded from one inbox to another, and many of them were identified as Labour members and sent to the Head of Disputes, Sam Matthews, for action", the report claims.

In a statement to Sky News responding to the leaked report, Sam Matthews said: "This latest episode comes as no surprise to me, as an effort by a disgruntled faction who are floundering in their attempts to blame others in order to distract from matters that will be investigated by the EHRC and the Courts.

"I hope Keir Starmer will stand by his commitment to undo the damage that they and their supporters have caused.


Mr Matthew continued: "The proper examination of the full evidence will show that as Head of Disputes and Acting Director, I did my level best to tackle the poison of anti-Jewish racism which was growing under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

"A highly selective, retrospective review of the Party's poor record, not deemed good enough for submission by the Party's own lawyers and conducted in the dying days of a Corbyn's leadership in order to justify their inaction, simply cannot be relied upon."

So how is Starmer to blame?

That is a very selective summary if you don’t mind me saying.
Almost like you have an agenda or prejudged opinion.

 

[clint van damme]

Hit the nail on the head. So you actually agree with me.

1, Exactly what I said.

2, Pushed free internet and taking back control of the railways. Just like I said.
rpoblem
3, Too many skeletons in the closet. Exactly what I said.

4, 0.05%? So this Sky News thing wasn't worth doing?

5, So the Tories had a better social network campaign. Wouldn't know as I don't do it. So not going to debate something I don't know much about.

6, Back to No.1 and No.3.... lots of ammunition given.

I don't think a policy to renationalise the railways was the probelm , it was that that policy extended to renationalising everything. I think renationalising railways was popular. Not that that made a great deal of difference over all.
It was a poor campaign and the concessions made to centrists over Europe was a killer.
McDonnell held his hands up to getting it wrong, I don't think Corbyn ever did.

 

[skybluetony176]

Imagine referring back to the Empire as evidence we know how to deal with a pandemic in the 21st century. Incredible.

So stupid. The creation of the empire spread horrific diseases in both directions. The common cold all but killed of the indigenous people of the Caribbean and British officials regularly only lived for months in parts of Africa after arriving due to a lack of immunity to tropical diseases. The Empire was born on death from disease.

 

[Ian1779]

Hit the nail on the head. So you actually agree with me.

1, Exactly what I said.

2, Pushed free internet and taking back control of the railways. Just like I said.

3, Too many skeletons in the closet. Exactly what I said.

4, 0.05%? So this Sky News thing wasn't worth doing?

5, So the Tories had a better social network campaign. Wouldn't know as I don't do it. So not going to debate something I don't know much about.

6, Back to No.1 and No.3.... lots of ammunition given.

The only thing we ever disagreed on was Corbyn. I believed (and still do) that he was a decent man with decent principles and the right moral compass. I concede that is clearly not enough - as much as that frustrates me.

The whole Sky News thing is showing what lots of people always believed in the party.... it was an inside job to undermine the leadership by obstructing the process of a small amount of complaints to create a narrative of incompetence and ignoring the problem. And that’s not even getting into the biggest issue which is all about support of Palestine... it’s the crux of it all. Just look at how they tried the same stuff on Sanders (like they did to Miliband as well) - Sanders shut it down by calling it out as shit from Day 1.

 

[clint van damme]

That is a very selective summary if you don’t mind me saying.
Almost like you have an agenda or prejudged opinion.

Indeed, he quoted only the sources who want the report suppressed, the first half of the report tells a different story.
Astute is quite within his rights to agree with the former but personally I don't.

 

[Astute]

This is what I meant by presume.
The way I read that ‘you are presuming that I believe Labour were utterly useless but I’m in denial.
I’m not in denial as I don’t believe they were utterly useless.

I then read the next bit as presuming that ‘I could see something I didn’t like but wasn’t allowed to
Say something about it.
A, the only thing I could see was a media witch hunt against the party leadership being instigated
From all sides including the right wing factions of the Labour Party.
B, I say what I want.
And I certainly wouldn’t say Diane Abbott was thick ‘far from it in fact.
Starmer I very much doubt will be getting my vote, already rolling out the red carpet to the zionists

Sorry if I’ve misunderstood.

You have misunderstood but not a problem.

I didn't state what my problems were. I stated why Labour didn't have a hope.

I didn't say Labour were useless. I stated the way I thought Labour would be viewed. But some people can't get their head around seeing the perceived view and it nit being a personal view.

Was me saying skeletons in the closet saying everyone was guilty of anything? No. It was seeing the ammunition given. But after years of trying to get this point across hardly any Labour voter has ever listened.

And no. I wouldn't have voted for free internet for all. I wouldn't have voted for nationalisation of the railway network that would have cost untold billions when it could have been done for free just taking time to do it. I also wanted to know what the idea of Brexit was. This was a major point for me. I ended up not voting as nobody was worth my vote.

All of that money could have gone into the NHS as I said at the time. But no. I am an easy target to say I am anti Labour. Yet nobody has ever come out with me backing anyone else.

 

[Skybluefaz]

And is she ok?

At the moment she is at home recovering so hopefully all will be fine cheers.

 

[Ian1779]

I don't think a policy to renationalise the railways was the probelm , it was that that policy extended to renationalising everything. I think renationalising railways was popular. Not that that made a great deal of difference over all.
It was a poor campaign and the concessions made to centrists over Europe was a killer.
McDonnell held his hands up to getting it wrong, I don't think Corbyn ever did.

It was a campaign on Boris’ terms - he set the agenda, he already had the tag lines ready to go. We pushed for an election we didn’t want. Political suicide at its finest. Just look at Swinson... hers was even worse!

 

[clint van damme]

You have misunderstood but not a problem.

I didn't state what my problems were. I stated why Labour didn't have a hope.

I didn't say Labour were useless. I stated the way I thought Labour would be viewed. But some people can't get their head around seeing the perceived view and it nit being a personal view.

Was me saying skeletons in the closet saying everyone was guilty of anything? No. It was seeing the ammunition given. But after years of trying to get this point across hardly any Labour voter has ever listened.

And no. I wouldn't have voted for free internet for all. I wouldn't have voted for nationalisation of the railway network that would have cost untold billions when it could have been done for free just taking time to do it.

All of that money could have gone into the NHS as I said at the time. But no. I am an easy target to say I am anti Labour. Yet nobody has ever come out with me backing anyone else.

renationalisng railways does not cost billions, it doesn't cost anything if you do it as franchises expire. The government do it all the time.
It was the renationisation of utilities that would cost billions.

 

[Astute]

That is a very selective summary if you don’t mind me saying.
Almost like you have an agenda or prejudged opinion.

Very selective?

I missed out the alleged bits. I missed out the parts which were said by those that we don't know who they are.

OK. What has Starmer had to do with it? And this includes CVD. He wasn't in charge when it all went on. He wasn't in charge when the party legal decided to drop it.

 

[Astute]

I don't think a policy to renationalise the railways was the probelm , it was that that policy extended to renationalising everything. I think renationalising railways was popular. Not that that made a great deal of difference over all.
It was a poor campaign and the concessions made to centrists over Europe was a killer.
McDonnell held his hands up to getting it wrong, I don't think Corbyn ever did.

To which I fully agree with.

 

[clint van damme]

Very selective?

I missed out the alleged bits. I missed out the parts which were said by those that we don't know who they are.

OK. What has Starmer had to do with it? And this includes CVD. He wasn't in charge when it all went on. He wasn't in charge when the party legal decided to drop it.

I'd imagine the party lawyers can only recommend not submitting it. I doubt they could instruct the party leader or those concerned not to.
As far as I'm concerned we have a man at the helm who has refused to reveal his financial backers and who has suppressed an important report, red flags going up everywhere.

 

[Brylowes]

It was a campaign on Boris’ terms - he set the agenda, he already had the tag lines ready to go. We pushed for an election we didn’t want. Political suicide at its finest. Just look at Swinson... hers was even worse!

In fairness it was they that pushed for the election, Labour were stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The whole Brexit fiasco was a Tory fuck up ‘it really should have finished that party for a generation at
Least, the fact it’s ended up doing that very thing to Labour is a measure of the politicaly baron landscape
We live in.

 

[Astute]

The only thing we ever disagreed on was Corbyn. I believed (and still do) that he was a decent man with decent principles and the right moral compass. I concede that is clearly not enough - as much as that frustrates me.

The whole Sky News thing is showing what lots of people always believed in the party.... it was an inside job to undermine the leadership by obstructing the process of a small amount of complaints to create a narrative of incompetence and ignoring the problem. And that’s not even getting into the biggest issue which is all about support of Palestine... it’s the crux of it all. Just look at how they tried the same stuff on Sanders (like they did to Miliband as well) - Sanders shut it down by calling it out as shit from Day 1.

How about all the skeletons in the closet which gave too much ammunition out to those who didn't like him? And yet again it isn't me saying he was guilty of anything. But he was there to be shot down. He also elected people he had been with for many years instead of those who could have done a better job. And personally don't think he held an audience well.

 

[Ian1779]

Very selective?

I missed out the alleged bits. I missed out the parts which were said by those that we don't know who they are.

OK. What has Starmer had to do with it? And this includes CVD. He wasn't in charge when it all went on. He wasn't in charge when the party legal decided to drop it.

If you are right about the decision being pre-Starmer - which isn’t clear from the article either way, he needs to come out as the leader and insist that this is submitted.

If not then it ‘appears’ that the unity line he said last week is actually not the case. Seeing as the ‘grown ups’ are back in charge, let’s see if they do the ‘grown up’ thing.

 

[Astute]

Indeed, he quoted only the sources who want the report suppressed, the first half of the report tells a different story.
Astute is quite within his rights to agree with the former but personally I don't.

I quoted the start of the article and the end of the article. Most of the rest was hearsay. And none of it blamed Starmer for anything. But you seem to have it in for him.

 

[clint van damme]

How about all the skeletons in the closet which gave too much ammunition out to those who didn't like him? And yet again it isn't me saying he was guilty of anything. But he was there to be shot down. He also elected people he had been with for many years instead of those who could have done a better job. And personally don't think he held an audience well.

he made many,many mistakes.
George Galloway did a critique of his leadership on his radio show last week and he was spot on with many of his observations. I liked a lot of what he was trying to do but with hindsight, and it was obvious at the time to many but I didn't see it clearly myself, he was a poor leader. Still a decent man with decent ideas though in my opinion.

 

[Ring Of Steel]

And for community spirit......WTF

'Crazy' town relieves lockdown with mass mooing

they need to get the boyband Blue involved in getting people to stay indoors. They had the whole city on lockdown just by driving by in their low ride.

 

[Astute]

renationalisng railways does not cost billions, it doesn't cost anything if you do it as franchises expire. The government do it all the time.
It was the renationisation of utilities that would cost billions.

Don't you remember that renationalisation was on offer of the railways at cost. When I said it would be better to wait until the franchise's expire many agreed with me. And that includes those who somehow see me as anti Labour.

 

[Ian1779]

In fairness it was they that pushed for the election, Labour were stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The whole Brexit fiasco was a Tory fuck up ‘it really should have finished that party for a generation at
Least, the fact it’s ended up doing that very thing to Labour is a measure of the politicaly baron landscape
We live in.

Ideology trumps all in the age of identity politics. We were fed a narrative that everything wrong in society was down to immigration (immigrants) and there will be people that think every problem will be solved by leaving the EU now. Those who wished to leave the EU for other reasons that didn’t fall into this were subsumed by the overreaching ideology (this is where a lot of left minded leavers sit)

 

[Ian1779]

Don't you remember that renationalisation was on offer of the railways at cost. When I said it would be better to wait until the franchise's expire many agreed with me. And that includes those who somehow see me as anti Labour.

But the plan was always to re-nationalise on expiry of franchises. The cost element was calculated but was never going to happen. It was the media strangling the truth with a lie. Easy then to roll out the ‘how we will pay for it all’ line.

 

[Astute]

I'd imagine the party lawyers can only recommend not submitting it. I doubt they could instruct the party leader or those concerned not to.
As far as I'm concerned we have a man at the helm who has refused to reveal his financial backers and who has suppressed an important report, red flags going up everywhere.

Starmer has only just got the job. It would have already been sorted before he could have a say. And like the part that I quoted 'I hope Starmer follows through with what he promised' on the subject of fighting against what has gone on. Give him a chance. If he dies nothing I will agree with you.

 

[clint van damme]

I quoted the start of the article and the end of the article. Most of the rest was hearsay. And none of it blamed Starmer for anything. But you seem to have it in for him.

I'm not saying Starmer was behind it but if people actually care about the antisemitism issue in the Labour party then why would they suppress the report considering it looks like it contains a wealth on new evidence, (if this isn't the case that will soon become evident when it's submitted).

I haven't got it in for Starmer, I said I'd give him a chance, but he's not off to a good start. As I said in another post, when all the other party candidates revealed their backers and he wouldn't reveal all of his I was immediately suspicious.

 

[clint van damme]

Starmer has only just got the job. It would have already been sorted before he could have a say. And like the part that I quoted 'I hope Starmer follows through with what he promised' on the subject of fighting against what has gone on. Give him a chance. If he dies nothing I will agree with you.

fair enough comment.