Stop voting for fucking Tories

[dpedin]

I'd love to see him, (and possible some others), sue the Department for Defamation.

After all; being accused of contributing to such horseshit, must surely constitute being defamed ?

He was talked to by the Commission, so it is technically correct that he was ‘consulted’; his issue is that he wasn’t told at the time who they were, and was misled about the purpose of the meeting.

Nah, that not how these consultation processes work. They have terms of reference to make sure it’s clear. If either this didn’t have clear terms of reference, or it ignored them, then it’s not a consultation.

Agreed - consultation in this type of process is a very clear and controlled process - its more than just talking to someone!

[Lobby]

I'd love to see him, (and possible some others), sue the Department for Defamation.

After all; being accused of contributing to such horseshit, must surely constitute being defamed ?

He was talked to by the Commission, so it is technically correct that he was ‘consulted’; his issue is that he wasn’t told at the time who they were, and was misled about the purpose of the meeting.

Nah, that not how these consultation processes work. They have terms of reference to make sure it’s clear. If either this didn’t have clear terms of reference, or it ignored them, then it’s not a consultation.

I agree its not a proper consultation in the accepted use. From the linked article:

Mr Bourne, who described the report as “flawed” and insisted institutional racism does exist, claimed to have been contacted by No 10 adviser Samuel Kasumu. After having a conversation with him in June, he was later invited to a Downing Street roundtable of historians of black Britain in October 2020, he said.

“Nothing was explained to me,” he went on. “I wrote down some of their names of the people there [at the roundtable], and when I googled them and the penny dropped that they were this commission.”

Mr Bourne added he later contacted Downing Street and read the “riot act” to Mr Kasumu.

“How dare you do that, I said that is so unprofessional so rude to invite me to what I thought was going to be what we discussed, a round table discussion of historians of black Britain. And it turns out to be this commission which I’ve never heard of.”

I was simply trying to clarify that they had spoken to him, although not on a proper and transparent basis.

[Biffer]

He was talked to by the Commission, so it is technically correct that he was ‘consulted’; his issue is that he wasn’t told at the time who they were, and was misled about the purpose of the meeting.

Nah, that not how these consultation processes work. They have terms of reference to make sure it’s clear. If either this didn’t have clear terms of reference, or it ignored them, then it’s not a consultation.

I agree its not a proper consultation in the accepted use. From the linked article:

Mr Bourne, who described the report as “flawed” and insisted institutional racism does exist, claimed to have been contacted by No 10 adviser Samuel Kasumu. After having a conversation with him in June, he was later invited to a Downing Street roundtable of historians of black Britain in October 2020, he said.

“Nothing was explained to me,” he went on. “I wrote down some of their names of the people there [at the roundtable], and when I googled them and the penny dropped that they were this commission.”

Mr Bourne added he later contacted Downing Street and read the “riot act” to Mr Kasumu.

“How dare you do that, I said that is so unprofessional so rude to invite me to what I thought was going to be what we discussed, a round table discussion of historians of black Britain. And it turns out to be this commission which I’ve never heard of.”

I was simply trying to clarify that they had spoken to him, although not on a proper and transparent basis.

You said it was technically correct that he was consulted. It’s not technically correct in the context of producing a government report.

[Rinkals]

He was talked to by the Commission, so it is technically correct that he was ‘consulted’; his issue is that he wasn’t told at the time who they were, and was misled about the purpose of the meeting.

Nah, that not how these consultation processes work. They have terms of reference to make sure it’s clear. If either this didn’t have clear terms of reference, or it ignored them, then it’s not a consultation.

I agree its not a proper consultation in the accepted use. From the linked article:

Mr Bourne, who described the report as “flawed” and insisted institutional racism does exist, claimed to have been contacted by No 10 adviser Samuel Kasumu. After having a conversation with him in June, he was later invited to a Downing Street roundtable of historians of black Britain in October 2020, he said.

“Nothing was explained to me,” he went on. “I wrote down some of their names of the people there [at the roundtable], and when I googled them and the penny dropped that they were this commission.”

Mr Bourne added he later contacted Downing Street and read the “riot act” to Mr Kasumu.

“How dare you do that, I said that is so unprofessional so rude to invite me to what I thought was going to be what we discussed, a round table discussion of historians of black Britain. And it turns out to be this commission which I’ve never heard of.”

I was simply trying to clarify that they had spoken to him, although not on a proper and transparent basis.

Right.

I think what you are saying is that this was not an attempt at deception, but rather an honest mistake?

If that is not what you are trying to convey, then I would suggest that it's important for you to clarify further.

Because it does seem that appending an academic's name to a report is designed to give the false impression that the report is endorsed by the academic.

[fishfoodie]

It all stinks of Demonic Scummings style of, "cutting thru the red tape".

[Lobby]

Nah, that not how these consultation processes work. They have terms of reference to make sure it’s clear. If either this didn’t have clear terms of reference, or it ignored them, then it’s not a consultation.

I agree its not a proper consultation in the accepted use. From the linked article:

Mr Bourne, who described the report as “flawed” and insisted institutional racism does exist, claimed to have been contacted by No 10 adviser Samuel Kasumu. After having a conversation with him in June, he was later invited to a Downing Street roundtable of historians of black Britain in October 2020, he said.

“Nothing was explained to me,” he went on. “I wrote down some of their names of the people there [at the roundtable], and when I googled them and the penny dropped that they were this commission.”

Mr Bourne added he later contacted Downing Street and read the “riot act” to Mr Kasumu.

“How dare you do that, I said that is so unprofessional so rude to invite me to what I thought was going to be what we discussed, a round table discussion of historians of black Britain. And it turns out to be this commission which I’ve never heard of.”

I was simply trying to clarify that they had spoken to him, although not on a proper and transparent basis.

You said it was technically correct that he was consulted. It’s not technically correct in the context of producing a government report.

I thought my placing of inverted commas around the word ‘consulted’ would suggest that I thought the use of the word in this context was questionable, but perhaps not.

For Rinkals, including the names of people who were ‘consulted’ (or at least spoken to) in the preparation of the report in no way implies that they endorse the report, as they would not have known what the report’s conclusions were when they were spoken to. The only people who can be said to explicitly endorse the report and it’s conclusions are its authors.

[Rinkals]

I agree its not a proper consultation in the accepted use. From the linked article:



I was simply trying to clarify that they had spoken to him, although not on a proper and transparent basis.

You said it was technically correct that he was consulted. It’s not technically correct in the context of producing a government report.

I thought my placing of inverted commas around the word ‘consulted’ would suggest that I thought the use of the word in this context was questionable, but perhaps not.

For Rinkals, including the names of people who were ‘consulted’ (or at least spoken to) in the preparation of the report in no way implies that they endorse the report, as they would not have known what the report’s conclusions were when they were spoken to. The only people who can be said to explicitly endorse the report and it’s conclusions are its authors.

Are you sure?

What is the point of adding their names to the report if it's not to establish the providence of the report and give it credibility?

Would you seriously consider it perfectly acceptable to append somebody's name to a report which they disagreed with?

Again, my point was whether you considered this to be an honest mistake rather than out-and-out fraud and I think you have answered my question.

[SaintK]

Exceellent article from Fraser Nelson on "Covid Passports" in The Spectator
Clearly points out the obfuscations, deflections and downright falsehoods in the Blonde slug's answers on the subject at yesterdays press conference!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/jo ... s-showing

[fishfoodie]

Exceellent article from Fraser Nelson on "Covid Passports" in The Spectator
Clearly points out the obfuscations, deflections and downright falsehoods in the Blonde slug's answers on the subject at yesterdays press conference!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/jo ... s-showing

Shirley the Spectator, of all magazines, understands what they could expect from the bumblecunt's, "Leadership" ?

[I like neeps]

Exceellent article from Fraser Nelson on "Covid Passports" in The Spectator
Clearly points out the obfuscations, deflections and downright falsehoods in the Blonde slug's answers on the subject at yesterdays press conference!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/jo ... s-showing

How very convenient Fraser Nelson remembers how to be a journalist when it suits him.

I don't see the fuss about vaccine passports. If I have to scan an app before entering a full pub with my friends, a restaurant with my family or whatever I'm fine with it.

[robmatic]

Exceellent article from Fraser Nelson on "Covid Passports" in The Spectator
Clearly points out the obfuscations, deflections and downright falsehoods in the Blonde slug's answers on the subject at yesterdays press conference!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/jo ... s-showing

How very convenient Fraser Nelson remembers how to be a journalist when it suits him.

I don't see the fuss about vaccine passports. If I have to scan an app before entering a full pub with my friends, a restaurant with my family or whatever I'm fine with it.

Same way that having to wear a mask is literally worse than Hitler.

[Lobby]

Exceellent article from Fraser Nelson on "Covid Passports" in The Spectator
Clearly points out the obfuscations, deflections and downright falsehoods in the Blonde slug's answers on the subject at yesterdays press conference!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/jo ... s-showing

How very convenient Fraser Nelson remembers how to be a journalist when it suits him.

I don't see the fuss about vaccine passports. If I have to scan an app before entering a full pub with my friends, a restaurant with my family or whatever I'm fine with it.

As they are going to be required internationally, we are going to have some form of vaccine passport whatever people think at the moment. Indeed, I suspect that once they are in place, we will all wish that more time was spent discussing how the management of vaccine status data was going to work, and less on general vaccine passport outrage.

We all know that instead of a sensible and well-thought out system we'll end up with a rushed technological solution that doesn't work properly, but which has cost billions, with most of the money going to various Tory donors and consultants.

[Insane_Homer]

I wouldn't mind seeing the venn diagram showing the overlap of those whining about losing their freedom of movement because of vaccine passports and those that happily voted away freedom of movement in Europe for blue passports?

[ScarfaceClaw]

At least we know what Dido Harding’s next gig is going to be. All for the low low price of £59bn.

[Paddington Bear]

Vaccine passports are fine providing they are introduced once everyone has been offered a vaccine. I won't lockdown unable to do anything whilst others can do as they please.

[SaintK]

Alan Duncan confirming the bleedin' obvious in his new book!

Sir Alan Duncan, the MP for Rutland and Melton from 1992 until the last election, said the prime minister was “a clown, a self-centred ego, an embarrassing buffoon, with an untidy mind and sub-zero diplomatic judgment”.
“He is an international stain on our reputation,” Duncan added, in diaries that have been serialised in the Daily Mail.
May is also criticised in the diaries, with Duncan noting she has an apparent lack of personality on the campaign trail, and describing her as “a frightened rabbit, a cardboard cut-out, her social skills are sub-zero”.
He calls the home secretary, Priti Patel, “a nothing person, a complete and utter nightmare, the Wicked Witch of Witham”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2 ... n-diaries

“In quite the most extraordinary cabinet appointment I can think of, Gavin Williamson has been appointed defence secretary. It is absolutely absurd. He seems to have pushed himself forward for this undeserved promotion. It is a brazenly self-serving manoeuvre that will further embed the view of him as a sly schemer, which he undoubtedly is,” Duncan wrote in November 2017.
“He is also ludicrously unqualified for the heavyweight job of defence secretary, having never run anything.
Duncan calls Williamson “over-ambitious, claiming he was pushing for the position of home secretary when Amber Rudd resigned over the Windrush scandal, and denounces him as a “venomous, self-seeking little shit” as he accuses him of working against the then prime minister, Theresa May.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2 ... duncan

[robmatic]

Surely vaccine passports (for domestic purposes) will be unnecessary after a reasonably short period of time anyway due to the vaccination programme? If all the vulnerable people are vaccinated and generally speaking the number of unvaccinated or non-immune adults is decreasing every week, the likelihood of a public health emergency is also much reduced. Make it hard to justify on a cost basis.

[Biffer]

Surely vaccine passports (for domestic purposes) will be unnecessary after a reasonably short period of time anyway due to the vaccination programme? If all the vulnerable people are vaccinated and generally speaking the number of unvaccinated or non-immune adults is decreasing every week, the likelihood of a public health emergency is also much reduced. Make it hard to justify on a cost basis.

As time rolls on they're more likely to be relevant for international travel.

[fishfoodie]

Surely vaccine passports (for domestic purposes) will be unnecessary after a reasonably short period of time anyway due to the vaccination programme? If all the vulnerable people are vaccinated and generally speaking the number of unvaccinated or non-immune adults is decreasing every week, the likelihood of a public health emergency is also much reduced. Make it hard to justify on a cost basis.

As time rolls on they're more likely to be relevant for international travel.

Covid isn't a pandemic with a start & an end. We could well be in a situation where we have to have annual booster shots too, & knowing when you were last jabbed, & with what vaccine, could be just as important as whether or not you had a jab

[sturginho]

At least we know what Dido Harding’s next gig is going to be. All for the low low price of £59bn.

This is it, leaving aside this government's worrying totalitarian tendencies, if nothing else this will be a colossal waste of money and probably won't even work properly

[fishfoodie]

At least we know what Dido Harding’s next gig is going to be. All for the low low price of £59bn.

This is it, leaving aside this government's worrying totalitarian tendencies, if nothing else this will be a colossal waste of money and probably won't even work properly

After 4 years of continually proposing blockchain as a solution for all manner of Brexit problems, (while obviously knowing less than nothing about blockchain); all of a sudden they have a problem for which it is, genuinely, the perfect solution; & not one Tory has mentioned it.

[SaintK]

At least we know what Dido Harding’s next gig is going to be. All for the low low price of £59bn.

This is it, leaving aside this government's worrying totalitarian tendencies, if nothing else this will be a colossal waste of money and probably won't even work properly

After 4 years of continually proposing blockchain as a solution for all manner of Brexit problems, (while obviously knowing less than nothing about blockchain); all of a sudden they have a problem for which it is, genuinely, the perfect solution; & not one Tory has mentioned it.

Isn't that what NHS Digital are there for? Though they managed to bugger up Hancock's trace app!!!

[sturginho]

At least we know what Dido Harding’s next gig is going to be. All for the low low price of £59bn.

This is it, leaving aside this government's worrying totalitarian tendencies, if nothing else this will be a colossal waste of money and probably won't even work properly

After 4 years of continually proposing blockchain as a solution for all manner of Brexit problems, (while obviously knowing less than nothing about blockchain); all of a sudden they have a problem for which it is, genuinely, the perfect solution; & not one Tory has mentioned it.

[robmatic]

Surely vaccine passports (for domestic purposes) will be unnecessary after a reasonably short period of time anyway due to the vaccination programme? If all the vulnerable people are vaccinated and generally speaking the number of unvaccinated or non-immune adults is decreasing every week, the likelihood of a public health emergency is also much reduced. Make it hard to justify on a cost basis.

As time rolls on they're more likely to be relevant for international travel.

I think they will be inevitable for international travel.

[dpedin]

As a result of a blood clot in my lungs last year, probably covid19 related but not sure, I am on daily low dose anti-coagulant probably for rest of my life. The medicine comes with a small card they suggest you carry with you at all times just in case you have an accident or incident and this will let medics know that I am on a blood thinner. No problem carrying this and don't see it as any different to carrying a covid19 vaccine passport either. I know they will be used for different purposes but essentially both are about protecting my and others health.

[Torquemada 1420]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... s-lobbying

[Torquemada 1420]

As a result of a blood clot in my lungs last year, probably covid19 related but not sure, I am on daily low dose anti-coagulant probably for rest of my life. The medicine comes with a small card they suggest you carry with you at all times just in case you have an accident or incident and this will let medics know that I am on a blood thinner. No problem carrying this and don't see it as any different to carrying a covid19 vaccine passport either. I know they will be used for different purposes but essentially both are about protecting my and others health.

There is a difference from carrying something to try and prevent medical professionals from accidentally administering treatment which would be harmful (which is also a choice) to the State trying to force its citizens to carry details on only one treatment to be interpreted and acted upon by demands from laymen.

This old argument keeps coming up in the contexts of ID cards. Churchill was anti ID cards for very many good reasons although he never explicitly voiced that the State could not be trusted not to abuse the situation as one of them, it clearly is.

[Biffer]

I'm not in favour of vaccine passports, mainly because they'll end up discriminating against the young, who are the ones who were at least risk, but had the most disruption, both immediate and long term, to their lives. They might be needed internationally for travel, but vaccine certificates already are.

I'm always reassured in these things though, by the knowledge that the government is completely fucking incapable of building an IT system which would take advantage of the information.

[Sandstorm]

I'm not in favour of vaccine passports, mainly because they'll end up discriminating against the young, who are the ones who were at least risk, but had the most disruption, both immediate and long term, to their lives. They might be needed internationally for travel, but vaccine certificates already are.

I'm always reassured in these things though, by the knowledge that the government is completely fucking incapable of building an IT system which would take advantage of the information.

If young people are banned from pubs pre-vaccine, they’ll just meet up with their friends somewhere else. Then come home and lie about where they were.

I support a Vaccine Certificate but really can’t see it being effective.

[Biffer]

I'm not in favour of vaccine passports, mainly because they'll end up discriminating against the young, who are the ones who were at least risk, but had the most disruption, both immediate and long term, to their lives. They might be needed internationally for travel, but vaccine certificates already are.

I'm always reassured in these things though, by the knowledge that the government is completely fucking incapable of building an IT system which would take advantage of the information.

If young people are banned from pubs pre-vaccine, they’ll just meet up with their friends somewhere else. Then come home and lie about where they were.

I support a Vaccine Certificate but really can’t see it being effective.

Think we're talking about different things - not talking about kids, I mean people in their 20s and 30s. If their concerns are dismissed as irrelevant then we can only expect more civil disobedience as general feelings of resentment are captured and channelled by other causes.

[Paddington Bear]

I'm not in favour of vaccine passports, mainly because they'll end up discriminating against the young, who are the ones who were at least risk, but had the most disruption, both immediate and long term, to their lives. They might be needed internationally for travel, but vaccine certificates already are.

I'm always reassured in these things though, by the knowledge that the government is completely fucking incapable of building an IT system which would take advantage of the information.

If young people are banned from pubs pre-vaccine, they’ll just meet up with their friends somewhere else. Then come home and lie about where they were.

I support a Vaccine Certificate but really can’t see it being effective.

Think we're talking about different things - not talking about kids, I mean people in their 20s and 30s. If their concerns are dismissed as irrelevant then we can only expect more civil disobedience as general feelings of resentment are captured and channelled by other causes.

Fwiw if pubs etc reopen only to the vaccinated I will start having mates round my flat and going to theirs. I haven't broken the rules in meaningful ways thus far but absolutely would in that scenario.

[Happyhooker]

if you introduce pub vaccine passports before everyone has been offered a jab, who's going to be serving the drinks?

[ScarfaceClaw]

if you introduce pub vaccine passports before everyone has been offered a jab, who's going to be serving the drinks?

COVID free Kiwis and Aussies.

[Calculon]

Vaccine passports are fine providing they are introduced once everyone has been offered a vaccine. I won't lockdown unable to do anything whilst others can do as they please.

100% this. The young have sacrificed more than enough to keep old people safe. If old people are allowed to have a normal life while young people are still in some kind of lockdown, I'm sure it will create enormous resentment.

[SaintK]

if you introduce pub vaccine passports before everyone has been offered a jab, who's going to be serving the drinks?

COVID free Kiwis and Aussies.

[GogLais]

Vaccine passports are fine providing they are introduced once everyone has been offered a vaccine. I won't lockdown unable to do anything whilst others can do as they please.

100% this. The young have sacrificed more than enough to keep old people safe. If old people are allowed to have a normal life while young people are still in some kind of lockdown, I'm sure it will create enormous resentment.

Speaking as an olderist it would be totally unacceptable to have a passport system in force before everyone had been offered vaccination.

[Happyhooker]

if you introduce pub vaccine passports before everyone has been offered a jab, who's going to be serving the drinks?

COVID free Kiwis and Aussies.

it'll be like the 90s all over again

[Torquemada 1420]

I'm always reassured in these things though, by the knowledge that the government is completely fucking incapable of building an IT system which would take advantage of the information.

100%. But it would not stop them trying, wasting £bns and ensuring some of their cronies trousered a significant proportion of those £bns en route to the inevitable cancellation.

[Sandstorm]

Vaccine passports are fine providing they are introduced once everyone has been offered a vaccine. I won't lockdown unable to do anything whilst others can do as they please.

100% this. The young have sacrificed more than enough to keep old people safe. If old people are allowed to have a normal life while young people are still in some kind of lockdown, I'm sure it will create enormous resentment.

Speaking as an olderist it would be totally unacceptable to have a passport system in force before everyone had been offered vaccination.

I agree. So do the Govt, hence why there no such thing as a passport yet.

However vaccine suspicion is higher amongst the under 40s. If they refuse a vaccine, what then? Still no pub entry?

Will angry men like Paddington go gather at marches?

[Paddington Bear]

100% this. The young have sacrificed more than enough to keep old people safe. If old people are allowed to have a normal life while young people are still in some kind of lockdown, I'm sure it will create enormous resentment.

Speaking as an olderist it would be totally unacceptable to have a passport system in force before everyone had been offered vaccination.

I agree. So do the Govt, hence why there no such thing as a passport yet.

However vaccine suspicion is higher amongst the under 40s. If they refuse a vaccine, what then? Still no pub entry?

Will angry men like Paddington go gather at marches?

No because marches are for saddos and Corbynistas.

As I think was clear, my problem is passports being introduced before most people have been offered one. If someone is offered one and refuses it I have much less of an issue with the idea.