Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 4)
Discussion
El stovey said:
Careful they’ll all be banging on about your job and qualifications again. Whilst keeping their own relevant expertise quiet obviously.
The only person banging on about Ifor's qualifications is Ifor - and he used that to lend authority to some incorrect information. 
Personally, I don't see the need to play the "don't you know who I am" game - either the things I post hold up under their own logic, or they don't. You don't need to know what my job is or how powerfully built I am to discuss that. (Edited to add - not that I'm making any attempt to maintain privacy, there are plenty of details about me on here)
El stovey said:
Weird though isn’t it, them naming us to try and stop us posting. 
Unfortunately, the reflexive response I get from some posters on here to "give your evidence" means that if I want to post (for instance) that in the last few pages the majority of posters have been critical of Boris, I know I'll be asked to "prove it" - so I tend to give some proof for what I say. Forgive me for mentioning your name if that's a problem for you.And no, markyb - I'm not complaining about high post counts, that's another strawman. After 20 years on this site, I'm allowed to have a few digits after my name.
Edited by Tuna on Tuesday 14th July 13:26
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Tuna I'm just checking if I'm allowed to post yet?
If that's OK with you please.
Don't be a **** stewie.If that's OK with you please.
Go read my posts today and tell me where I've stopped people from posting, shamed anyone or any of this other nonsense.
Frankly, the need amongst some people to demonise their opponents is astonishing. Get over yourselves and try acting like grownups.
Unknown_User said:
Just trying to see a downside to removing them in all honesty.Or is that HMG have decided not to use them?
andymadmak said:
IforB said:
It is interesting how instead of discussing the subject at hand, all you wish to do is to slag off those that you disagree with. It is an interesting tactic and usually the last resort of those that know their argument is lost.
I don't think you're immune to that criticism yourself. Your rabid dislike of Johnson is clear in every post you make on the subject. I'd suggest that you too are far from balanced in your opinionsI don't know who these Boris Ultras are anyway, that's what's so hilarious about these threads, most posters including myself will agree that he is a disreputable character or worse, has a variety of incompetent staff, has made poor decisions, needs to go etc.
I prefer a balanced and rational unbiased approach personally - relying entirely on facts and approaching each & every issue with a completely untainted open mind. This is what I learned at university as they weren't cess-pitts of masochistic self-flagellating communism back then.
What I won't do is salivate over every news item and whip myself into a frenzy desperately seeking the angle for which to attack our Boris.
I will save that for the Labour party you see.
So said:
Unknown_User said:
Just trying to see a downside to removing them in all honesty.Or is that HMG have decided not to use them?
In our flippity flop Gov we trust?
zygalski said:
Well done Bojo. Top job.
£2bn minimum wasted along with a 2 year setback due to his f**knut decision back in January to let Huawei help build 5G.
What a shambles. If this were a Labour PM there'd be a 40 page thread devoted to it by now. Actually, it'd probably be on Vol 3 already.
Right decision (eventually) but IMO for the wrong reasons. This is nothing to do with security and everything to do with placating the US.£2bn minimum wasted along with a 2 year setback due to his f**knut decision back in January to let Huawei help build 5G.
What a shambles. If this were a Labour PM there'd be a 40 page thread devoted to it by now. Actually, it'd probably be on Vol 3 already.
Still, this is another U-turn that I welcome.
andymadmak said:
zygalski said:
Well done Bojo. Top job.
£2bn minimum wasted along with a 2 year setback
Up to £2billion, and a one year delay according to the BBC?£2bn minimum wasted along with a 2 year setback
The financial cost pales in comparison to the security cost of giving a rogue state a front-door into our comms networks.
Edited by markyb_lcy on Tuesday 14th July 13:59
andymadmak said:
Unknown_User said:
andymadmak said:
Up to £2billion, and a one year delay according to the BBC?
Surely you can't trust a thing that lefty hotbed aka the BBC spouts?https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-huawei/u...
the article said:
From the end of the year, it will be illegal for operators to buy any 5G equipment from Huawei, Britain’s Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Secretary Oliver Dowden told parliament.
He said the decision would mean a delay to the roll-out of 5G by two to three years, and add costs of up to 2 billion pounds ($2.5 billion).
He said the decision would mean a delay to the roll-out of 5G by two to three years, and add costs of up to 2 billion pounds ($2.5 billion).
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 14th July 14:02
Tuna said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Tuna I'm just checking if I'm allowed to post yet?
If that's OK with you please.
Don't be a **** stewie.If that's OK with you please.
Go read my posts today and tell me where I've stopped people from posting, shamed anyone or any of this other nonsense.
Frankly, the need amongst some people to demonise their opponents is astonishing. Get over yourselves and try acting like grownups.
Sorry
andymadmak said:
You're missing my point.
BBC article says, costs up to 2 billion plus a 12 month delay, Zygy immediately reports this as a minimum 2 billion cost and a two year delay...
These Anti-BoJo Ultras (ABUs) are falling over themselves to get whipped up into a frenzy! It's a shame.BBC article says, costs up to 2 billion plus a 12 month delay, Zygy immediately reports this as a minimum 2 billion cost and a two year delay...
El stovey said:
andymadmak said:
Unknown_User said:
andymadmak said:
Up to £2billion, and a one year delay according to the BBC?
Surely you can't trust a thing that lefty hotbed aka the BBC spouts?https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-huawei/u...
the article said:
From the end of the year, it will be illegal for operators to buy any 5G equipment from Huawei, Britain’s Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Secretary Oliver Dowden told parliament.
He said the decision would mean a delay to the roll-out of 5G by two to three years, and add costs of up to 2 billion pounds ($2.5 billion).
He said the decision would mean a delay to the roll-out of 5G by two to three years, and add costs of up to 2 billion pounds ($2.5 billion).
Edited by El stovey on Tuesday 14th July 14:02
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff