Stop voting for fucking Tories

[JM2K6]

I agree its pretty poor but the photo I saw had a load of paper bags on the left hand side which appear to have been cropped out??

No, it's not a con.


read this thread for lots more.

I am not saying its a con, just that the same photo on the right I saw on twitter with about 5 white paper bags also...

Those aren't edible, Openside.

[Openside]

No, it's not a con.


read this thread for lots more.

I am not saying its a con, just that the same photo on the right I saw on twitter with about 5 white paper bags also...

Different pictures, both of them are on this page if you want to scroll up a bit and compare

Cheers - you are right it is a con. I mean Tuna in a coin bag not even a whole carrot...

The problem is the Govt is slightly caught between a rock and a hard place as they don't want to hand out cash as Unscrupulous parents will nick it. They can't use vouchers as unscrupulous shopkeepers will swap for booze /fags.

[JM2K6]

Imagine, if you will, just how vanishingly small the possibility is that a family that needs this help will swap vouchers for booze/fags with unscrupulous shopkeepers

[I like neeps]

Imagine, if you will, just how vanishingly small the possibility is that a family that needs this help will swap vouchers for booze/fags with unscrupulous shopkeepers

The problem with Britain is more people see themselves as the company ripping off the taxpayer than the person using state support.

[ASMO]

I am not saying its a con, just that the same photo on the right I saw on twitter with about 5 white paper bags also...

Different pictures, both of them are on this page if you want to scroll up a bit and compare

Cheers - you are right it is a con. I mean Tuna in a coin bag not even a whole carrot...

The problem is the Govt is slightly caught between a rock and a hard place as they don't want to hand out cash as Unscrupulous parents will nick it. They can't use vouchers as unscrupulous shopkeepers will swap for booze /fags.

so they are happy to allow unscrupulous Tory donors to rip both the taxpayer and families in need off in order to line their pockets because there are a tiny tiny minority who may abuse the system...seems legit.

[Insane_Homer]

Priti Patel has drawn the short straw to present the 5pm National waffle, bluster, lies and bullshit gig tonight.

In it she'll be introducing the new Ration Book.

[Hal Jordan]

Imagine, if you will, just how vanishingly small the possibility is that a family that needs this help will swap vouchers for booze/fags with unscrupulous shopkeepers

The problem with Britain is more people see themselves as the company ripping off the taxpayer than the person using state support.

"Taxpayer" is such a nasty phrase as it is, it implies that only those who "contribute" are of any importance in the discourse. Public purse or Treasury at least has the resonance of everyone.

[Openside]

Imagine, if you will, just how vanishingly small the possibility is that a family that needs this help will swap vouchers for booze/fags with unscrupulous shopkeepers

Imagine if you will why they have to do it this way? its no cheaper for them...

[JM2K6]

Imagine, if you will, just how vanishingly small the possibility is that a family that needs this help will swap vouchers for booze/fags with unscrupulous shopkeepers

Imagine if you will why they have to do it this way? its no cheaper for them...

Because this way major Tory donors and allies make bank while Tory MPs get to grandstand about how vouchers were traded for drugs or some such ill-informed bollocks

Trying to make out that there was no way to do this properly and they were fucked whichever way they went is just asinine, sorry. This is not difficult.

[Openside]

Imagine, if you will, just how vanishingly small the possibility is that a family that needs this help will swap vouchers for booze/fags with unscrupulous shopkeepers

Imagine if you will why they have to do it this way? its no cheaper for them...

Because this way major Tory donors and allies make bank while Tory MPs get to grandstand about how vouchers were traded for drugs or some such ill-informed bollocks

Trying to make out that there was no way to do this properly and they were fucked whichever way they went is just asinine, sorry. This is not difficult.

Do you seriously believe that?

[JM2K6]

Imagine if you will why they have to do it this way? its no cheaper for them...

Because this way major Tory donors and allies make bank while Tory MPs get to grandstand about how vouchers were traded for drugs or some such ill-informed bollocks

Trying to make out that there was no way to do this properly and they were fucked whichever way they went is just asinine, sorry. This is not difficult.

Do you seriously believe that?

Which bit?

The government had to be publicly fucking shamed into doing anything about this, and responded by not giving vouchers (because some utter dickhead MPs made some pretty awful comments about drugs and booze) but by offloading the whole thing to a firm in the Compass group, headed by a major Tory donor? Or that it's not difficult to feed people better than this? Or, you know, use a voucher system and tell the fuckhead MPs to wind their necks in?

At no point was doing right by vulnerable people ever a priority in this process.

[SaintK]

Priti Patel has drawn the short straw to present the 5pm National waffle, bluster, lies and bullshit gig tonight.

In it she'll be introducing the new Ration Book.

She is so fucking bad at these. No wonder she hasn't been sent out to dop one since last May
You'd have thought she may have rehearsed this obvious question. So out of her depth

Twice now @pritipatel has been asked why these latest lockdown rules are not as tough as those in the first lockdown. Twice she has spoken at length and not engaged with the question at all. Very odd from an occupant of one of the the great offices of state

[JM2K6]

On Patel blaming people for not following the rules, a good Twitte thread:

[Random1]

Maybe but there are what 800+ in the HoL? I’d be surprised if he brings any knowledge or experience that isn’t there already.

Sorry, just saw I didn’t respond.

Yeah, 800 is ridiculous for an upper chamber.

Should be limited to the same number as the commons and have a 20 cycle for me.

You get one term, so no re-election skull duggery

So, beefy is fine, but one of the old codgers needs to drop off the conveyor.

I’d have a second chamber that was mixed, part nominated, part elected, and the nominated members come from a wide range within society. For example you’d have the CBI and FSB nominating representatives, balanced by the Trades Unions. Faith based nominations, not just from the CoE, including humanists. Sports and Arts represented, environmental organisations etc. Generally major organisations within society. Then nominations from the major parties, plus have say 30% elected on ten year terms with a split in the terms so that half of the seats are up every five years. Ten year terms all round, no more than two terms allowed, and five year medical examinations to ensure fitness to serve. Then also potentially a voters ballot similar to jury service.

Yeah, sounds a nice balance

[Random1]

Statement from chartwells



Tldr; the food in the photo was for 5 lunches and cost £10.50.

Still a rip off, but typical shitty trial by social media; half the time frame ( 5 not 10 days), only for lunches (not days’ worth of food) and a third of the price (£10.50 not £30) in the tweets etc.

Come on people, stop knee jerking.

[sockwithaticket]

Claiming that costs 10 quid is still fucking scandalous when utilising public funds.

[JM2K6]

Statement from chartwells



Tldr; the food in the photo was for 5 lunches and cost £10.50.

Still a rip off, but typical shitty trial by social media; half the time frame ( 5 not 10 days), only for lunches (not days’ worth of food) and a third of the price (£10.50 not £30) in the tweets etc.

Come on people, stop knee jerking.

There's been loads of people posting photos of what they've gotten. It's disingenuous of them to pretend otherwise.

[Random1]

Claiming that costs 10 quid is still fucking scandalous when utilising public funds.

Agreed. But it’s not out of the realms of possibility that sourcing, quality checking, sterilising, packing and delivering the food comes to that ball park. Basically £2 a meal.

However, any form of voucher scheme would have had the double effect of distributing food, and also helping out SMEs.

That would have been my preferred option, and the daily mail and their legions (including some MPs) can just bugger off.

But facts matter, and the stuff posted on here was just anti tory silliness.

[Random1]

Actually, I’ll have to fact check myself.

Local voucher schemes are an option open to schools.

Guidance is here;

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... d-provider

Their preference was to use current caterers (especially school kitchens)

But local vouchers are an option available to schools.

[JM2K6]

For those who are super eager to defend the corporation on the back of a PR tweet

[JM2K6]

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/childrens-min ... d-parcels/

tuna in a fucking coin bag

a company that's been repeatedly in legal trouble for the awful way in which they conduct their business, which affects the most vulnerable people we have

but it's okay they released a PR statement saying some of it wasn't true

[TB63]

Why wasn't the contract awarded to a coalition of main supermarkets?
Delivery system in place..check
Access to foodstuffs.. check
Accountability as if one fucked up the others would pounce..check...

[Caley_Red]

Of course it has an editorial jurisdiction (i.e. an editor decides what goes in it) but the editorial slant is value-based rather than party political (a bit like the old Economist) and it's highly decentralised- which is why I like it. Most authors write what they want and it's just subedited rather than being prescribed. You do of course have to be invited to contribute in the first place, however!
Hence, there is not pro or anti-Trump editorial view, it is mostly the view of individual authors, some of whom are weekly contributors hence, are published weekly e.g. Douglas Murray.

The magazine actually contains a very wide variety of writers from all political backgrounds, Charles Moore does indeed have a column but I can't say I've ever read an Andrew Neil or a Boris Johnson article (the latter was interviewed before the election) in all the time I've read it. That's why it is doing so well in my view.

I have mixed feelings about the Spectator. I subscribed for quite a few years because the quality of the content is high and I generally agree with the liberal (non-American definition) viewpoints but stopped because I could no longer stomach paying the wages of James Delingpole and Toby Young.

Delingpole, Young, ROD FUCKING LIDDLE, Brendan O'Neill, Douglas Murray, Mrs Dominic Cummings... no-one can seriously suggest they're a genuinely broad church.

And what constitutes a broad church, in your view? What publication would reach that threshold, in your view? You've taken a biased sample selection of people that write for it: Delingpole only writes the TV review, Brendan O'Neill hasn't written anything other than in the coffee house blogs, Toby Young pretty much writes about the Free Speech Union (which I'd imagine you would hate) and Wakefield writes about once a month.
You conveniently left off the the myriad of diverse foreign policy experts, the many Labour and Lib Dem politicians who have written for it, the variety of journalists drawn from across the political sphere who have/ do contribute.

@Rob, Yes, I don't like all the writers either (not big on Massie, Parris or a few others) but there's more than enough in there to keep me entertained, I just skip articles I'm not interested in.

[Random1]

For those who are super eager to defend the corporation on the back of a PR tweet

I’m not the one being super eager. The super eager ones are people wanting to blame a Tory for everything.

Firstly - the charge was that the torries had given a fat cheque to a donor, who was chair of the company.

Which isn’t supported by the facts.

There isn’t a central contract. The scheme involves schools being given grants and then they pay who they see fit. Or even use a voucher system if they choose.

So not sure how that’s a Tory issue.

Secondly, i was pointing out that this was trial by social media, which is a fucking disease IMO

The counter point made by the company seems reasonable to me. Unless you’re saying they’re lying that it was £10.50 and for 5 days.

For me, the company has no driver to lie about it, as those particular facts are specific and measurable, and so easily confirmed (or not) with even a cursory amount of investigation, so why lie if they’d be found out so simply?

Wish a journalist would actually do some work rather than just report what they’ve read on Twitter - it whips you guys up and just reinforces your prejudices.

[Random1]

Why wasn't the contract awarded to a coalition of main supermarkets?
Delivery system in place..check
Access to foodstuffs.. check
Accountability as if one fucked up the others would pounce..check...

It looks like the government are trying to set up a central voucher system, so that may happen, but in the short term, they distributed the funds to schools, as I’d imagine they’d have the best data on who gets a school lunch or not.

I’m not seeing the government doing much wrong here tbf

[C69]

For those who are super eager to defend the corporation on the back of a PR tweet

I’m not the one being super eager. The super eager ones are people wanting to blame a Tory for everything.

Firstly - the charge was that the torries had given a fat cheque to a donor, who was chair of the company.

Which isn’t supported by the facts.

There isn’t a central contract. The scheme involves schools being given grants and then they pay who they see fit. Or even use a voucher system if they choose.

So not sure how that’s a Tory issue.

Secondly, i was pointing out that this was trial by social media, which is a fucking disease IMO

The counter point made by the company seems reasonable to me. Unless you’re saying they’re lying that it was £10.50 and for 5 days.

For me, the company has no driver to lie about it, as those particular facts are specific and measurable, and so easily confirmed (or not) with even a cursory amount of investigation, so why lie if they’d be found out so simply?

Wish a journalist would actually do some work rather than just report what they’ve read on Twitter - it whips you guys up and just reinforces your prejudices.

Strange response, the Tories are in government they take the plaudits and the fall accordingly.
Chartwell have agreed they fecked up and apologised.
The PM and Hancock have said the company agreed that they would up their game and agreed to improve.
The appallingly stuff they have sent out is not in dispute by anyone.
And tbh both the PM and Hancock thanked social media for sgining a light on what Hancock called a disgrace.

Only the staunchest Trump like right wing Tory apologist would disagree and post whataboutery given the facts.

[ASMO]

For those who are super eager to defend the corporation on the back of a PR tweet

I’m not the one being super eager. The super eager ones are people wanting to blame a Tory for everything.

Firstly - the charge was that the torries had given a fat cheque to a donor, who was chair of the company.

Which isn’t supported by the facts.

There isn’t a central contract. The scheme involves schools being given grants and then they pay who they see fit. Or even use a voucher system if they choose.

So not sure how that’s a Tory issue.

Secondly, i was pointing out that this was trial by social media, which is a fucking disease IMO

The counter point made by the company seems reasonable to me. Unless you’re saying they’re lying that it was £10.50 and for 5 days.

For me, the company has no driver to lie about it, as those particular facts are specific and measurable, and so easily confirmed (or not) with even a cursory amount of investigation, so why lie if they’d be found out so simply?

Wish a journalist would actually do some work rather than just report what they’ve read on Twitter - it whips you guys up and just reinforces your prejudices.

Strange response, the Tories are in government they take the plaudits and the fall accordingly.
Chartwell have agreed they fecked up and apologised.
The PM and Hancock have said the company agreed that they would up their game and agreed to improve.
The appallingly stuff they have sent out is not in dispute by anyone.
And tbh both the PM and Hancock thanked social media for sgining a light on what Hancock called a disgrace.

Only the staunchest Trump like right wing Tory apologist would disagree and post whataboutery given the facts.

you have to ask yourself however, would they have lifted a finger had they not have been named and shamed on social media? what checks and balances were in place to audit what was being sent out to ensure public money was being used effectively, and that families were in fact getting what was being promised?

[C69]

I’m not the one being super eager. The super eager ones are people wanting to blame a Tory for everything.

Firstly - the charge was that the torries had given a fat cheque to a donor, who was chair of the company.

Which isn’t supported by the facts.

There isn’t a central contract. The scheme involves schools being given grants and then they pay who they see fit. Or even use a voucher system if they choose.

So not sure how that’s a Tory issue.

Secondly, i was pointing out that this was trial by social media, which is a fucking disease IMO

The counter point made by the company seems reasonable to me. Unless you’re saying they’re lying that it was £10.50 and for 5 days.

For me, the company has no driver to lie about it, as those particular facts are specific and measurable, and so easily confirmed (or not) with even a cursory amount of investigation, so why lie if they’d be found out so simply?

Wish a journalist would actually do some work rather than just report what they’ve read on Twitter - it whips you guys up and just reinforces your prejudices.

Strange response, the Tories are in government they take the plaudits and the fall accordingly.
Chartwell have agreed they fecked up and apologised.
The PM and Hancock have said the company agreed that they would up their game and agreed to improve.
The appallingly stuff they have sent out is not in dispute by anyone.
And tbh both the PM and Hancock thanked social media for sgining a light on what Hancock called a disgrace.

Only the staunchest Trump like right wing Tory apologist would disagree and post whataboutery given the facts.

you have to ask yourself however, would they have lifted a finger had they not have been named and shamed on social media? what checks and balances were in place to audit what was being sent out to ensure public money was being used effectively, and that families were in fact getting what was being promised?

Surely the response should be that theu will be looking to recover money from the company for the substandard and potentially fraudulent substandard food deliveries.
They shoild have served them warning that their contract was under review.
They have no business sense whatsoever.

[fishfoodie]

Social media is the only court that many people have access to; especially when 90% of the Media is bought & paid for, by the very people who are currently screwing them over !

[Insane_Homer]

Immigrants should speak English proper liek!

[Openside]

Immigrants should speak English proper liek!

IH you really are whinger in chief, I bet you were a total snitch at school. You just want to rubbish everything, I am sure you have never made a slip of the tongue It’s hardly headline news.

[Insane_Homer]

IH you really are whinger in chief, I bet you were a total snitch at school. You just want to rubbish everything, I am sure you have never made a slip of the tongue It’s hardly headline news.

and you'll defend almost anything tory, so I bet you're a total cunt.

[dpedin]

Immigrants should speak English proper liek!

IH you really are whinger in chief, I bet you were a total snitch at school. You just want to rubbish everything, I am sure you have never made a slip of the tongue It’s hardly headline news.

She has form ... lots of it! In fact 3 thousand, 2 hundred and 64 thousand and 3 million times of form.

[SaintK]

Immigrants should speak English proper liek!

IH you really are whinger in chief, I bet you were a total snitch at school. You just want to rubbish everything, I am sure you have never made a slip of the tongue It’s hardly headline news.

...and you are just blind and deaf to the things you don't want to see or hear. Patel is a prime example of the absolute lack of talent that our arse of a PM has surrounded himself with and has no business being in one of the highest offices of state

[Slick]

Immigrants should speak English proper liek!

IH you really are whinger in chief, I bet you were a total snitch at school. You just want to rubbish everything, I am sure you have never made a slip of the tongue It’s hardly headline news.

She has form ... lots of it! In fact 3 thousand, 2 hundred and 64 thousand and 3 million times of form.

Is it because she is a woman of colour?

[SaintK]

IH you really are whinger in chief, I bet you were a total snitch at school. You just want to rubbish everything, I am sure you have never made a slip of the tongue It’s hardly headline news.

She has form ... lots of it! In fact 3 thousand, 2 hundred and 64 thousand and 3 million times of form.

Is it because she is a woman of colour?

No it's about competence and ability. She is there because of the support she gave Johnson both in his leadership campaign and the Brexit campaign not because she is any good at being a minister
You can say the same about the useless creep Williamson who happens to be white.

[dpedin]

IH you really are whinger in chief, I bet you were a total snitch at school. You just want to rubbish everything, I am sure you have never made a slip of the tongue It’s hardly headline news.

She has form ... lots of it! In fact 3 thousand, 2 hundred and 64 thousand and 3 million times of form.

Is it because she is a woman of colour?

Nah ... just thick and has already been sacked from ministerial role for lying and found guilty of bullying by the independent Gov watchdog who subsequently resigned when the Blonde Bumblecunt decided she did it unintentionally! Do you really want to take this any further?

[Sandstorm]

You can say the same about the useless creep Williamson who happens to be white.

It's always Open Season on white males. Females and people of colour....not so much.

[Insane_Homer]

or the fat TA therapist.

[Slick]

She has form ... lots of it! In fact 3 thousand, 2 hundred and 64 thousand and 3 million times of form.

Is it because she is a woman of colour?

No it's about competence and ability. She is there because of the support she gave Johnson both in his leadership campaign and the Brexit campaign not because she is any good at being a minister
You can say the same about the useless creep Williamson who happens to be white.

Well, quite.