By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Funny how you can never spot returning posters that you agree with but are very quick to jump on and voice suspicions about posters you don't agree with.
SB
Are you joining in the pile on of Balcombe and claiming he is a banned returnee under a new name? Isn’t this the sort of sniping and outing that Phil has asked people not to do? That’s Belstead and now Balcombe you’ve done this to on my thread. Pure diversion rather than engagement.
Thanks once again for highjacking this thread to settle scores. No doubt when I return from work this thread will have been deleted. Eat, sleep, rave, repeat.
Edit. Anyway, some humour to lighten the mood.
[Post edited 21 Oct 8:22]
Antisemites, Jew haters and crashing bores will be put on ignore.
They haven’t challenged my views. You’ve made that bit up.
They’ve arrived out of thin air, posted incessantly about politics and hardly ever about football.
You’d be all over it if they had different politics, as would all of the people voting be down further up the thread.
Hypocrites.
no idea who he is or isn't and don't really care. he posts reasonably, engages with criticism and i haven't seen him post anything at all offensive or enter into personal attacks. whereas ...
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
Are you joining in the pile on of Balcombe and claiming he is a banned returnee under a new name? Isn’t this the sort of sniping and outing that Phil has asked people not to do? That’s Belstead and now Balcombe you’ve done this to on my thread. Pure diversion rather than engagement.
Thanks once again for highjacking this thread to settle scores. No doubt when I return from work this thread will have been deleted. Eat, sleep, rave, repeat.
Edit. Anyway, some humour to lighten the mood.
[Post edited 21 Oct 8:22]
I've not posted to you and I've asked you numerous times to please not engage with me but here we are once again with you trying to start arguments. If this thread gets pulled it will because you've now waded into something you weren't involved in to try and start and argument.
I've not made any accusations towards Balcombe as you can well see, I've pointed out to Benters that he's quick to follow the charge if it's someone he disagrees with, usually after you've made the accusation, something you do very frequently so citing what Phil has requested is quite the flex.
All I will say is that there were barely any arguments on here whilst you weren't posting and as soon as you come back the poking and prodding starts and the frustrations and arguments start. You just can't help yourself.
You're the issue around here, not me.
I shall not be responding further and I once again ask that you don't involve yourself with me or my posts and I look forward to the usual flurry of downvotes from the gang.
Have a great day.
SB
Edit: And here we have a clear example of how you poke and prod. I was replying to a different post that you've now changed and included a totally disingenuous element about Belstead. I've done nothing to him in this thread past pointing out his quotes are wrongly attributed. Other posters have been on his case but you single out me in an attempt to start an argument. I've certainly not accused him of being some returning poster. It's honestly pathetic from a grown man. I'm not going to get in any arguments with you so please stop trying to drag me into them.
I've not posted to you and I've asked you numerous times to please not engage with me but here we are once again with you trying to start arguments. If this thread gets pulled it will because you've now waded into something you weren't involved in to try and start and argument.
I've not made any accusations towards Balcombe as you can well see, I've pointed out to Benters that he's quick to follow the charge if it's someone he disagrees with, usually after you've made the accusation, something you do very frequently so citing what Phil has requested is quite the flex.
All I will say is that there were barely any arguments on here whilst you weren't posting and as soon as you come back the poking and prodding starts and the frustrations and arguments start. You just can't help yourself.
You're the issue around here, not me.
I shall not be responding further and I once again ask that you don't involve yourself with me or my posts and I look forward to the usual flurry of downvotes from the gang.
Have a great day.
SB
Edit: And here we have a clear example of how you poke and prod. I was replying to a different post that you've now changed and included a totally disingenuous element about Belstead. I've done nothing to him in this thread past pointing out his quotes are wrongly attributed. Other posters have been on his case but you single out me in an attempt to start an argument. I've certainly not accused him of being some returning poster. It's honestly pathetic from a grown man. I'm not going to get in any arguments with you so please stop trying to drag me into them.
[Post edited 21 Oct 8:35]
You posted on a thread started by Glassers then ask him not to engage with you !
no idea who he is or isn't and don't really care. he posts reasonably, engages with criticism and i haven't seen him post anything at all offensive or enter into personal attacks. whereas ...
You posted on a thread started by Glassers then ask him not to engage with you !
Unbelievable!
I've not engaged with him, I've engaged with other points.
But you know this already and it's pretty clear to anyone reading that you're trying to start a pile on and derail the thread for which you will all blame me.
I've not posted to you and I've asked you numerous times to please not engage with me but here we are once again with you trying to start arguments. If this thread gets pulled it will because you've now waded into something you weren't involved in to try and start and argument.
I've not made any accusations towards Balcombe as you can well see, I've pointed out to Benters that he's quick to follow the charge if it's someone he disagrees with, usually after you've made the accusation, something you do very frequently so citing what Phil has requested is quite the flex.
All I will say is that there were barely any arguments on here whilst you weren't posting and as soon as you come back the poking and prodding starts and the frustrations and arguments start. You just can't help yourself.
You're the issue around here, not me.
I shall not be responding further and I once again ask that you don't involve yourself with me or my posts and I look forward to the usual flurry of downvotes from the gang.
Have a great day.
SB
Edit: And here we have a clear example of how you poke and prod. I was replying to a different post that you've now changed and included a totally disingenuous element about Belstead. I've done nothing to him in this thread past pointing out his quotes are wrongly attributed. Other posters have been on his case but you single out me in an attempt to start an argument. I've certainly not accused him of being some returning poster. It's honestly pathetic from a grown man. I'm not going to get in any arguments with you so please stop trying to drag me into them.
Edit as I’ve just seen your edit. This is what you posted on this thread about Belstead. “Quoting 1984 whilst continually promoting right wing tweets is quite the move”. He wasn’t posting right right wing tweets on my thread. And this “ Also an interesting quote to post given you've posted lies and misinformation on the forum ever since your return”. There was no need to highjack it to have a pop at him from another thread.
And to save replying to your latest “non engagement” with me. It’s was ten days of posting history with one other post from before your break which coincided with board harmony. It’s not a spreadsheet. It’s a function of the board and takes literally second to repost.
[Post edited 21 Oct 9:13]
Antisemites, Jew haters and crashing bores will be put on ignore.
Edit as I’ve just seen your edit. This is what you posted on this thread about Belstead. “Quoting 1984 whilst continually promoting right wing tweets is quite the move”. He wasn’t posting right right wing tweets on my thread. And this “ Also an interesting quote to post given you've posted lies and misinformation on the forum ever since your return”. There was no need to highjack it to have a pop at him from another thread.
And to save replying to your latest “non engagement” with me. It’s was ten days of posting history with one other post from before your break which coincided with board harmony. It’s not a spreadsheet. It’s a function of the board and takes literally second to repost.
[Post edited 21 Oct 9:13]
Those are all valid responses to other peoples posts which you've posted without context in order to make them look like arguments. They are simply responding to points others have made (others also made similar points).
You also said this thread but you've gone to your spreadsheet and gone back nearly 3 weeks..... not disingenuous at all.
Somebody could do that for your posts and incorrect Tweets and it would likely break the forum with the length of the post.
But it's clear for everyone to see you're trying to start an argument in this thread and I stand by my point that you're probably the biggest issue with this forum. Accusing others of lacking self-awareness is frankly incredible from you.
Now please stop replying to me and go away. I am not going to bite any further and you're not going to get me banned.
I've not engaged with him, I've engaged with other points.
But you know this already and it's pretty clear to anyone reading that you're trying to start a pile on and derail the thread for which you will all blame me.
I'm not playing I'm afraid.
SB
I’m really not trying to start a pile on,I’m not a fan of them myself and don’t join in with them.
disingenuous, not authentic, not here in good faith ... it's the same old same old.
you've challenged their views so they've got to deny your legitimacy. they know they're right, so you must be (a) wrong and (a) a bad person. they can't show (a) so now they going to bang on about (b). it's just how the site works.
[Post edited 21 Oct 7:35]
Who are this 'they' you refer to?
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
This is an extra from the letter sent to the Covid enquiry, which was not a reprimand
“ I want to emphasise that we are not questioning the inquiry’s conclusions, including those on the timing of advisory and mandated lockdowns, nor would it be appropriate for us to do so. Our focus is the presentation of statistical evidence, and the risk that the wording chosen for the Executive Summary is a misleading representation of the underlying analysis. We thought it would be helpful to share our findings with you because in future modules of the Inquiry report, you may wish to present modelling or other analytical evidence and it will be important that this is communicated clearly and accurately.”
And this was the part of the response
“ I accept that in trying to condense and simplify the 800-page Module 2ABC report into a short, accessible Executive Summary, framing of the statistic through use of the word “established” was too definitive and did not reflect the uncertainty inherent in all modelling. The main body of the report uses more appropriate language in saying it is “estimated” that locking down one week earlier “could have” led to a reduction of 23,000 deaths.
The Inquiry’s findings are grounded in the whole of the evidence received. Baroness Hallett concluded that the outputs of this model were useful in illustrating a broader finding about the timing of the first lockdown based on the totality of the evidence before her – both written and oral. She observed:
“Indeed, the Inquiry accepts the consensus of the evidence before it that a mandatory lockdown should have been imposed one week earlier”1 and that doing so would have saved many thousands of lives during the first wave. Omitting, in its Executive Summary, the inherent uncertainty within one model does not change that overall finding of the Module 2ABC report. ”
“Not sure Boris was that bad”
[Post edited 20 Oct 22:24]
I’ve just scanned the Module 6 Report on the Care Sector ( https://covid19.public-inquiry It’s pretty obvious there were significant failings and no amount of nit picking can detract from that. It’s heartbreaking stuff. Hancock really does not come out from it well (but then we knew that). Neither do any of the UK or devolved Governments from their failing to take on the lessons of various planning exercises from 2009 onwards.
If anything the absolute state of the care sector was the largest challenge, with it being fragmented, under-funded, under-staffed and there being no oversight and lines of command through to Govt like we have with the NHS. That doesn’t absolve any of the actors from mistakes they made, rather it shows how vulnerable the system was to any mismanagement. Some of the most vulnerable people in the most vulnerable system. You’d think that would have been recognised and some extra support put in place to help care homes isolated people discharged from hospital (maybe use those cottage hospitals that were set up everywhere - we had a large one here in Swansea that was never used).
I just hope we learn the lessons and that the inquiry’s recommendations are implemented, but I won’t hold my breath.
Edit as I’ve just seen your edit. This is what you posted on this thread about Belstead. “Quoting 1984 whilst continually promoting right wing tweets is quite the move”. He wasn’t posting right right wing tweets on my thread. And this “ Also an interesting quote to post given you've posted lies and misinformation on the forum ever since your return”. There was no need to highjack it to have a pop at him from another thread.
And to save replying to your latest “non engagement” with me. It’s was ten days of posting history with one other post from before your break which coincided with board harmony. It’s not a spreadsheet. It’s a function of the board and takes literally second to repost.
[Post edited 21 Oct 9:13]
Busy day ahead for the archivist. At least it isn't the dentist this time.
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Those are all valid responses to other peoples posts which you've posted without context in order to make them look like arguments. They are simply responding to points others have made (others also made similar points).
You also said this thread but you've gone to your spreadsheet and gone back nearly 3 weeks..... not disingenuous at all.
Somebody could do that for your posts and incorrect Tweets and it would likely break the forum with the length of the post.
But it's clear for everyone to see you're trying to start an argument in this thread and I stand by my point that you're probably the biggest issue with this forum. Accusing others of lacking self-awareness is frankly incredible from you.
Now please stop replying to me and go away. I am not going to bite any further and you're not going to get me banned.
SB
[Post edited 21 Oct 8:45]
Yeah but your forgetting that GB owns this thread. Lol
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Yeah but your forgetting that GB owns this thread. Lol
I don't post a lot but I never knew the person who started the thread gets claim to it and should be able to control what is posted on it. I thought it was a free-for-all.
I’ve just scanned the Module 6 Report on the Care Sector ( https://covid19.public-inquiry It’s pretty obvious there were significant failings and no amount of nit picking can detract from that. It’s heartbreaking stuff. Hancock really does not come out from it well (but then we knew that). Neither do any of the UK or devolved Governments from their failing to take on the lessons of various planning exercises from 2009 onwards.
If anything the absolute state of the care sector was the largest challenge, with it being fragmented, under-funded, under-staffed and there being no oversight and lines of command through to Govt like we have with the NHS. That doesn’t absolve any of the actors from mistakes they made, rather it shows how vulnerable the system was to any mismanagement. Some of the most vulnerable people in the most vulnerable system. You’d think that would have been recognised and some extra support put in place to help care homes isolated people discharged from hospital (maybe use those cottage hospitals that were set up everywhere - we had a large one here in Swansea that was never used).
I just hope we learn the lessons and that the inquiry’s recommendations are implemented, but I won’t hold my breath.
Plenty there to agree with, particularly how we care for the elderly in this country. It's both a governmental and societal issue. We are very different from many continental neighbours.
It's absolutely right to review the pandemic preparedness. However, with all inquiries there is the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
Interestingly, her book is only 100 pages long. So if Neil's foreword is, say, five pages, he's written 5% of the book.
I was joking about Neil writing the foreword, following on from his column in the Mail supporting her at the time, but what you correctly imply is that a book of only 100 pages can't really have much substance.
I was joking about Neil writing the foreword, following on from his column in the Mail supporting her at the time, but what you correctly imply is that a book of only 100 pages can't really have much substance.
Ermmmmmmmmmm
animal Farm springs to mind. And the Metamorphosis (that might be just over 100).
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
