• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Coronavirus

Parklaner81 said:
Yes, he is.

But that doesn't automatically make everything he says or does wrong. Those that cannot or will not recognise that are part of the problem in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yep. Or as i would say even a broken clock is right twice a day. He is right on the WHO. It is Chinese centric a bit like how the IMF seems to be very EU centric.

If the WHO whose primary job is the worlds health had not been so quick to defend china and actually done their research countries would have been in a better place to react.
 
glasgowspur said:
The evils of the British empire (and there were many) are oft quoted.
Yet they are any worse to what the Spanish , French, German or Portuguese. done.
Or what horrors carried out in the name of both the Christian churches.
Many of these countries still display statues or name roads, buildings etc of some their "heroes".
Ultimately the "civilised" European has a lot of blood on their hands.
That shouldn't be forgotten and lessons should be learned from it, but why it is used to beat the British (an mainly the English) with a stick baffles me. But using it against a present day briton is totally nonsensical.

In the interest of total parity it should be pointed out that India, China and Asia aren't exactly hot beds of equality and overflowing with the milk of human kindness.
Click to expand...
Because we did it the bestest.
 
glasgowspur said:
The evils of the British empire (and there were many) are oft quoted.
Yet they are any worse to what the Spanish , French, German or Portuguese. done.
Or what horrors carried out in the name of both the Christian churches.
Many of these countries still display statues or name roads, buildings etc of some their "heroes".
Ultimately the "civilised" European has a lot of blood on their hands.
That shouldn't be forgotten and lessons should be learned from it, but why it is used to beat the British (an mainly the English) with a stick baffles me. But using it against a present day briton is totally nonsensical.

In the interest of total parity it should be pointed out that India, China and Asia aren't exactly hot beds of equality and overflowing with the milk of human kindness.
Click to expand...

Think that is what gets me the whole anti English vibe that is so prevalent and im hardly a nationalist, i dont even celebrate st Georges day.
 
P
ricky2tricky4city said:
Sounds like we've all been c.unts at some point:D
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Twas the age of c.unts.

Let's try not to repeat those days though, in a modern way.

The suggestion that the vaccine should be tested on Africa shows that the mentally that led to the age of empires (not just the British) is unfortunately alive and well.
 
Grays_1890 said:
half of his post is made up against me
Click to expand...

Looks like everyone is feeling victimised at the moment!! I'm a fan. I appreciate you sharing your beliefs. Anything more important than honesty? Many hold your views but keep them to themselves, so its 'liberating' to get them out in the open.

Being challenged, so long as its respectful, is what you want is it not? I'm personally open to any viewpoint. For example, I agree with those that think Trump is not half as bad as people make out. All tweet and no bite. I appreciate right-wing beliefs like small government, lower government spending, as well as leftist beliefs like provisions for society, investing in education etc. I've seen both sides of it first hand, and there is value (and mistakes) in both.
 
Last edited:
markysimmo said:
This has shown that like the EU the WHO is not worth a cup of cold tinkle
Click to expand...

so true, the more you discover about the EU, and the WHO, the more questionable these organisations become. The added value created from both of these organisations appears to be minimal at best imo, and all they are actually doing is shifting resources from one side to another (and then taking a cut). Theyre both just an added layer of bureaucracy, and thus carry all the negatives of such an organisation such as inefficiency and being susceptible to bribes and political favours. Has there been any direction given by the WHO, that countries wouldnt have taken themselves? They dont appear to be any more in the know than the majority of countries. furthermore countries like korea and taiwan appear to be far more knowledgeable than the WHO.

Re the EU, they should really just scale back to just being a trade union and leave the non-trade policy making to the countries themselves. this is where all the angst appears to come from. Brexit was largely an issue of immigration - something that each member state could have dealt with individually. And the coronabonds can also be dealt with independently too. if northern countries have a budget/resource pool they can assign to help southern countries, let them allocate these to the southern countries. there is simply no need for the EU to get involved in this too!
 
Wilheldiva said:
so true, the more you discover about the EU, and the WHO, the more questionable these organisations become. The added value created from both of these organisations appears to be minimal at best imo, and all they are actually doing is shifting resources from one side to another (and then taking a cut). Theyre both just an added layer of bureaucracy, and thus carry all the negatives of such an organisation such as inefficiency and being susceptible to bribes and political favours. Has there been any direction given by the WHO, that countries wouldnt have taken themselves? They dont appear to be any more in the know than the majority of countries. furthermore countries like korea and taiwan appear to be far more knowledgeable than the WHO.

Re the EU, they should really just scale back to just being a trade union and leave the non-trade policy making to the countries themselves. this is where all the angst appears to come from. Brexit was largely an issue of immigration - something that each member state could have dealt with individually. And the coronabonds can also be dealt with independently too. if northern countries have a budget/resource pool they can assign to help southern countries, let them allocate these to the southern countries. there is simply no need for the EU to get involved in this too!
Click to expand...

Can’t comment on the WHO.

Are you a fan of reduced air and sea pollution? Or the freedom to jump in your car and drive directly into France or anywhere on the continent? Without worrying about insurance or charges on your phone?

How exactly would individual nations put this kind f thing in place without a body to coordinate? One that uses the best and brightest from all over Europe and uses our language for its business.

EU government is the size of Birmingham council.

I get you probably don’t like free movement, but are there actually any other real negatives with the EU? Particular laws you don’t like? There are clear and obvious trade and other benefits, not so sure the draw backs outweigh these benefits.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
SpurMeUp said:
Can’t comment on the WHO.

Are you a fan of reduced air and sea pollution? Or the freedom to jump in your car and drive directly into France or anywhere on the continent? Without worrying about insurance or charges on your phone?
Click to expand...

yes a fan of all these things. reduced pollution can be administered locally, and even at the individual level. we're all consumers - its up to us to reduce our own carbon footprint and not use services/products made by companies who do not share this view (providing this is what we want). lets not pass the buck to others, we as individuals can make lifestyle choices to reduce our (and others') carbon footprint via the free market.

freedom to travel can also be admistered locally. since leaving the EU, i've seen in airports that countries such as korea have been added to the epassport gates. although i accept that this is a very small aspect of "free-travel", i dont see why these policies cannot be set by the countries themselves. this would mean that countries sharing similar laws, economies and cultures can open up there borders to each other globally and exclude those that they dont have shared values with (even if they are based on europe, or closer geographically).

SpurMeUp said:
How exactly would individual nations put this kind f thing in place without a body to coordinate? One that uses the best and brightest from all over Europe and uses our language for its business.
Click to expand...
i guess this is the crux of the debate. my argument for the EU is that it should be a much smaller organisation (based on trade policy making only) if it is to exist, and should also be electable.

SpurMeUp said:
EU government is the size of Birmingham council.

I get you probably don’t like free movement, but are there actually any other real negatives with the EU? Particular laws you don’t like? There are clear and obvious trade and other benefits, not so sure the draw backs outweigh these benefits.
Click to expand...

freedom of movement, as the EU want it isnt desirable from what i can tell looking at the political landscape. and its the cause of a lot of the angst that has developed over the past 5-10 years. whether its the EU attempting to open borders from countries outside of europe with vastly differenly moral values and cultures, or the EU advocating mass migration from within the EU causing huge distruptions to local enconomies, jobs, cultures, resources. The same is the case in the US, and this is the reason why politics has become so messy lately.

in terms of whether an eu law has had any real negatives affects on me personally, im not sure tbh, probably not. i guess we'll never know for sure. however theres plently of people who have negatively been affected by EU policy making, whether its farmers who have had arbitrary quotas placed on them or, businesses who have been denied access to non-european markets. these parties deserve a say in terms of european union electability. and tbh, you may very well be right, leaving the EU could lead to a drastic negative outcome for me and the UK - but the more i read about the eu, the more i think it was morally the right decision to leave - and i'm saying this despite not voting to leave.
 
So how much longer you reckon people will take the lock down - I think 3/4 words before the unease begins properly.

Trump will open up the states (as much as he can) within 3 weeks I imagine.
 
Wilheldiva said:
yes a fan of all these things. reduced pollution can be administered locally, and even at the individual level. we're all consumers - its up to us to reduce our own carbon footprint and not use services/products made by companies who do not share this view (providing this is what we want). lets not pass the buck to others, we as individuals can make lifestyle choices to reduce our (and others') carbon footprint via the free market.

freedom to travel can also be admistered locally. since leaving the EU, i've seen in airports that countries such as korea have been added to the epassport gates. although i accept that this is a very small aspect of "free-travel", i dont see why these policies cannot be set by the countries themselves. this would mean that countries sharing similar laws, economies and cultures can open up there borders to each other globally and exclude those that they dont have shared values with (even if they are based on europe, or closer geographically).
Click to expand...

I just can't see you buying say plastic plates for your picnic, appraising the emissions of the factory that made them. Can you? I personally think it is great the EU does that all for me. And without that regulation, how can you have fair trade across a continent!? If one factory is undercutting UK factories by producing things while polluting? Same is true with sea pollution. We all like a clean beach, pollution is not national, it moves across borders faster than a Syrian refugee. So you are yet to convince that nation-states could work this out independently without some kind of body to coordinate.

The e-passports point is quite funny because what you are describing is what you get in the EU! Countries with similar laws cooperate via the EU have exactly what you asked for...but you outline the body that helps them do this as "questionable". The reason we won't get these facilities outside the EU is that we will have a different set of regulations and laws. Anyone could take in or out goods that are not approved, or no checks could allow in illegal immigrants. In short, outside the club, don't expect the benefits of membership.

Wilheldiva said:
i guess this is the crux of the debate. my argument for the EU is that it should be a much smaller organisation (based on trade policy making only) if it is to exist, and should also be electable.
Click to expand...

Smaller than Birgingham council? What is it the EU does now that you don't like? It is not the reducing polluting, or facilitating free movement that you don't like, what is it? Which EU laws for example?


Wilheldiva said:
freedom of movement, as the EU want it isnt desirable from what i can tell looking at the political landscape. and its the cause of a lot of the angst that has developed over the past 5-10 years. whether its the EU attempting to open borders from countries outside of europe with vastly differenly moral values and cultures, or the EU advocating mass migration from within the EU causing huge distruptions to local enconomies, jobs, cultures, resources. The same is the case in the US, and this is the reason why politics has become so messy lately.

in terms of whether an eu law has had any real negatives affects on me personally, im not sure tbh, probably not. i guess we'll never know for sure. however theres plently of people who have negatively been affected by EU policy making, whether its farmers who have had arbitrary quotas placed on them or, businesses who have been denied access to non-european markets. these parties deserve a say in terms of european union electability. and tbh, you may very well be right, leaving the EU could lead to a drastic negative outcome for me and the UK - but the more i read about the eu, the more i think it was morally the right decision to leave - and i'm saying this despite not voting to leave.
Click to expand...

No doubt freedom of movement is a big one. Some questions for you:

  • Where did the EU 'advocate' mass migration? The UK choose, with its own sovereign government, to allow free movement from the new eastern nations while Germany, France and others kept their doors locked for the transition period. That led to far more EU migration for 5-10 years of whatever it was.
  • which borders to outside Europe has the EU tried to open, none that I know of?
  • Is the majority of migration into the UK from non-EU nations or the EU? Who controls non-EU migration into the UK?

  • Wilheldiva said:
    im not sure tbh, probably not. i guess we'll never know for sure.
    Click to expand...
    No, we know for sure. Laws are black and white. If you can't tell me one, respectfully, it is probably because there isn't an EU law that really affects you negatively. The anti-EU print media would have flagged it, and you'd know it. There are quite a few laws that probably benefit you though.

  • Farmers do very well out of the EU. They are protected in general. Which makes sense as post-WWII nations realised they couldn't feed themselves unless they subsidised their farmers. Would you prefer we lost our UK famers?
  • Which businesses have been denied access to the EU free market? Businesses losing free access is the reality of Brexit. An upside-down argument me thinks.

What more have you read about the EU, what did it say? Really what your summation says to me is, I've made an emotional decision I don't like external bodies interfering (understand that emotion) and I won't change my mind whatever evidence I see.

Apologies wrong thread. Will refrain. Can post a reply if you wish in the politics thread. But are you interested in logic or rationale? Its pure emotion.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
Looks like everyone is feeling victimised at the moment!! I'm a fan. I appreciate you sharing your beliefs. Anything more important than honesty? Many hold your views but keep them to themselves, so its 'liberating' to get them out in the open.

Being challenged, so long as its respectful, is what you want is it not? I'm personally open to any viewpoint. For example, I agree with those that think Trump is not half as bad as people make out. All tweet and no bite. I appreciate right-wing beliefs like small government, lower government spending, as well as leftist beliefs like provisions for society, investing in education etc. I've seen both sides of it first hand, and there is value (and mistakes) in both.
Click to expand...

I didn’t feel victimised, I just said half your post was made up with things I didn’t say, that’s not feeling victimised that’s just me stating fact.

Im more than happy to be challenged, no issue what so ever, I don’t care if others have differing views, that’s the way of the world.

It is just in the post I used the word liberals and you decided to add that I called them scum or something, I actually didn’t, that’s what I was alluding to.

But as I have just noticed my name plucked from the blue as being racist I might have reason to feel victimised
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back