HanoiVillan Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 What's abundantly clear from both the article and the interviews, is that they will continue their current strategy of having very little to say about anything except repeating the word 'competence', and very occasionally being wise after the event about government mis-steps. The idea that they should be proactive - state what they actually think *should* happen, including about massive-ticket issues like 'the end of furlough' and 'the ban on evictions' - will remain off the table. People are welcome to like it if they want; I think it's contemptible. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 (edited) 21 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: state what they actually think *should* happen, including about massive-ticket issues like 'the end of furlough' and 'the ban on evictions' - will remain off the table. The eviction ban didn't come up, but he spoke about the need to continue furlough, particularly in tourism and hospitality industries. In fact, it's even mentioned in the article that the tweet is linked to. What he doesn't want to do is turn compliance with lockdown measures in to a partisan issue, which I think is reasonable considering the anti-mask movement. Edit: Here you go, he's spoken about the need to extend the eviction ban too, a couple of days ago. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54194336 Quote Sir Keir Starmer says the evictions ban in England and Wales "must be extended" before the measure runs out on Sunday. The Labour leader wants the government to offer "a credible plan to keep their promise that no renter will lose their home because of coronavirus". The temporary ban, initially introduced in March to help those financially hit by the virus lockdown, has been extended twice. The government says it has taken "unprecedented action" to help renters. But Labour says they must act now to avoid "a homelessness crisis this winter". Edited September 20, 2020 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 20, 2020 Moderator Share Posted September 20, 2020 Quotes from the Labour List article @HanoiVillan posted via a tweet. Quote “I’ve reiterated the government message because I think that is the right thing to do in the national interest. It doesn’t prevent us challenging the government where they’ve got it wrong.” That sentence in itself contradicts the tweets headline, which is factually incorrect. He didn't say he would support ""Whatever measures the government takes" on Covid". What he actually said was... Quote On restrictions and lockdown measures: “Whatever measure the government takes, we will support it.” specifically on those. What it doesn't say but is implied is that if they don't think they go far enough, they will criticise (as they already have done) but unwritten there is they doubt the government will go too far so will have no need to criticise in the other direction 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 20, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted September 20, 2020 9 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: Hmmm, I wonder, what possible incentives might this create? Take a test, risk testing positive, and then get fined £10k if I don't self-isolate? Or, don't take a test, forget my sniffles or anosmia or whatever else, and keep going about my life? Should I leave my real details at the pub, or should I leave some fake ones? See my post above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 On 19/09/2020 at 22:45, NurembergVillan said: The virus is being spread by mouth-breathers... I'm usually against all forms of police violence but in this case I think a few truncheons might knock some sense into this lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chindie Posted September 21, 2020 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted September 21, 2020 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 2 hours ago, desensitized43 said: I'm usually against all forms of police violence but in this case I think a few truncheons might knock some sense into this lot. The attitude to people's right to protest shouldn't be dependent upon whether you agree with what they say/believe. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, snowychap said: The attitude to people's right to protest shouldn't be dependent upon whether you agree with what they say/believe. I’d be more concerned that in the middle of a pandemic these selfish rocket polishers are breathing in the face of the poor sods who have to try and keep the peace. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted September 21, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted September 21, 2020 26 minutes ago, Chindie said: Also note Hancock in the background, wondering whether he's pissed himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 Hancock at least had the sense to be keeping some distance which is more than can be said for the rest of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Genie said: I’d be more concerned that in the middle of a pandemic these selfish rocket polishers are breathing in the face of the poor sods who have to try and keep the peace. I think there were many such pictures during the BLM protests (though obviously the vast majority were masked up) and I failed to hear similar condemnations or recommendations other than from those who just don't think any sort of protest should occur at this time, which is a fair enough opinion to hold if consistently applied to any kind of political protest but not one with which I think we should have much truck. The point being that you missed the meaning of my post. Edited September 21, 2020 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, snowychap said: The point being that you missed the meaning of my post. I got the meaning. The picture shows a bunch of anti-maskers yelling in the face of a police officer. They are protesting about being forced to where a mask by getting in the face of a police officer hence why the other posted commented (not 100% seriously I’m sure) that violence is sometimes warranted. It’s not to do with the generic free right to protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 Just now, Genie said: I got the meaning. The picture shows a bunch of anti-maskers yelling in the face of a police officer. They are protesting about being forced to where a mask by getting in the face of a police officer hence why the other posted commented (not 100% seriously I’m sure) that violence is sometimes warranted. It’s not to do with the generic free right to protest. Given your response here, I think that definitely underscores my original point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 1 minute ago, snowychap said: Given your response here, I think that definitely underscores my original point. Maybe you should be clearer in your posts if that’s the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Genie said: Maybe you should be clearer in your posts if that’s the case. I'm not sure what needs to be clearer than saying: 43 minutes ago, snowychap said: The attitude to people's right to protest shouldn't be dependent upon whether you agree with what they say/believe. You even claimed to have understood this point and yet, in response to my last post, you didn't address the point about other protests which have taken place in the same health situation instead concentrating upon the things about this one protest with which you have a problem thus underscoring the point I originally made about the attitude to a protest being informed by the attitude to what the protesters believe and are saying. Edit: You may have been saying the same thing about the BLM protests or ER protests (and so may the other poster and so may the other people who I've heard saying similar things) and if so and I've missed that then I apologise for getting it wrong. The exchange above, on the face of it, doesn't suggest that this is the case but, as I repeat, I am happy to apologise for being wrong on that if I am. Edited September 21, 2020 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 10 minutes ago, snowychap said: I'm not sure what needs to be clearer than saying: You even claimed to have understood this point and yet, in response to my last post, you didn't address the point about other protests which have taken place in the same health situation instead concentrating upon the things about this one protest with which you have a problem thus underscoring the point I originally made about the attitude to a protest being informed by the attitude to what the protesters believe and are saying. I did address it and understood it. Its not about revoking someone’s right to protest during a pandemic that struck a chord, or saying they should not be allowed to protest because one does not agree with the cause. It’s protesting about not wanting to wear a mask by yelling in the face of the police officers without any kind of face covering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 (edited) I have a colleague who is back in his homeland of Brazil. His wife works in a hospital there. He said that all of the staff at the hospital have been vaccinated with a Chinese vaccine as part of the testing process and everybody remains well. He said they’re finalising a new factory to produce the vaccine as soon as it is finally approved, potentially next month. Edited September 21, 2020 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 1 hour ago, snowychap said: The attitude to people's right to peaceful protest shouldn't be dependent upon whether you agree with what they say/believe. Fixed. They have the right to protest in a peaceful way. A large proportion of these idiots are of the ultra-right wing skinheaded variety. They don't do peaceful protest. If you don't want to wear a mask, it's not a legal requirement (hopefully the government will grow a pair and change this), but it is irresponsible and selfish given what we know. It's not to protect you, it's to protect others from what's coming out of you. The fact it's not a legal requirement shows how utterly ridiculous these people are, protesting something that's currently advisory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 So is the general gist of this press conference "we're all ****"? That's the impression I get. It's too late to do anything and we're on a road to 50,000 infections a day regardless now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts