OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[Andy_Faber]

Indeed it is but when you state an example of what you consider to be my "entrenched world view" which was not actually what I posted (in fact I'd posted the opposite) then your wrong and can acknowledge that, but you won't.

That sentence has more twists and turns than John Lennon's effort in I Am The Walrus, you really need to be clearer about what's eating you if you want a response

[Andy_Faber]

Swale, here's a timeline of our discussion since I posted, in all good faith, my comment about bar staff what seems like months ago

7908 I responded to a request to give an example of a Brexit benefit with a small but genuine ‘win’ I’ve come across
7909 GP casts doubt on it with a fair point
7910 you also cast doubt on it with a fair point
7911 I accept GP point and give a response, I didn’t respond to yours as I hadn’t seen it. Idid read it later, and although I considered your anecdote irrelevant to mine and just a piece of tit for tat, I decided not to respond
7913 is where you start to unravel. You respond (to GP) with an assumption that shows you haven’t thought things through in your desperation to hold sway. You said ‘Not sure how he could ahve used "cheaper" EU staff? If he was complying with the law, he would be paying at least minimum wage, therefore whoever he employed would all be earning the same.’ But that Ignores the possibility (and this is indeed the case) that the employer was paying his former staff at (in fact above) minimum wage, but he’s now paying his current staff just that bit more. So your anti-Brexit obsession has led you to confuse ‘cheaper’ with ‘illegally’
7915 you go further off-piste in response to a piece of GP tomfoolery at 7914.
7916 I try, I really do, to put you right. I even qualify my earlier anecdote by explaining that increased wages have resulted in increased menu prices
7917 You still don’t get it. No-one but you ever mentioned minimum wage or the abuse of it apart from you, you seem to be arguing with yourself at this stage
7918 you revert to type and try to drag rA into the argument
7925 you’re at it again, you still haven’t let go of the minimum wage thing
It all then goes quiet for 40 or so posts as you turn your attention to Tricky
7962 and you are back on it with what I’ve described as your ‘I am the walrus’ post, the content/logic/background to which just makes NO sense to me
I am GENUINELY confused and ask you to back to my original post, as I have, and decide for yourself if you’ve misunderstood

[ramAnag]

Storm in a teacup...but it would help, AF, if you could ever accept that you’re wrong.
As you’re citing posts...I said initially, in #7902, that you were wrong and I’ve seen nothing to change my mind.
You made out that Swale was wasting his time because everyone on here voted Remain.
That wasn’t and isn’t true and that should be all there is to it.
You tried the same tactic with me about refuse collections earlier in the year. You were mistaken, weren’t even talking about the same correspondence, but again you wouldn’t accept it.
This time you’re even more demonstrably wrong...that’s okay and like I said it’s become a (very dull and frustrating) storm in a teacup...but it could have been avoided if you’d just accept that, like us all, you are not above making mistakes.

[swaledale]

Swale, here's a timeline of our discussion since I posted, in all good faith, my comment about bar staff what seems like months ago

7908 I responded to a request to give an example of a Brexit benefit with a small but genuine ‘win’ I’ve come across
7909 GP casts doubt on it with a fair point
7910 you also cast doubt on it with a fair point
7911 I accept GP point and give a response, I didn’t respond to yours as I hadn’t seen it. Idid read it later, and although I considered your anecdote irrelevant to mine and just a piece of tit for tat, I decided not to respond
7913 is where you start to unravel. You respond (to GP) with an assumption that shows you haven’t thought things through in your desperation to hold sway. You said ‘Not sure how he could ahve used "cheaper" EU staff? If he was complying with the law, he would be paying at least minimum wage, therefore whoever he employed would all be earning the same.’ But that Ignores the possibility (and this is indeed the case) that the employer was paying his former staff at (in fact above) minimum wage, but he’s now paying his current staff just that bit more. So your anti-Brexit obsession has led you to confuse ‘cheaper’ with ‘illegally’
7915 you go further off-piste in response to a piece of GP tomfoolery at 7914.
7916 I try, I really do, to put you right. I even qualify my earlier anecdote by explaining that increased wages have resulted in increased menu prices
7917 You still don’t get it. No-one but you ever mentioned minimum wage or the abuse of it apart from you, you seem to be arguing with yourself at this stage
7918 you revert to type and try to drag rA into the argument
7925 you’re at it again, you still haven’t let go of the minimum wage thing
It all then goes quiet for 40 or so posts as you turn your attention to Tricky
7962 and you are back on it with what I’ve described as your ‘I am the walrus’ post, the content/logic/background to which just makes NO sense to me
I am GENUINELY confused and ask you to back to my original post, as I have, and decide for yourself if you’ve misunderstood

If your genuinely think that my statement ‘Not sure how he could ahve used "cheaper" EU staff? If he was complying with the law, he would be paying at least minimum wage, therefore whoever he employed would all be earning the same.’ ignores the fact that the landlord could be paying more than the minimum wage, then I can only assume you don't know what the phrase "at least" means!

It was GP who suggested that it wasn't unheard of for staff to being paid cash in hand and below the minimum wage, not me! So I haven't confused cheaper with illegally and therefore your assertion that my anti Brexit obsession (as you put it) didn't lead me to be confused at all.

Though it does seem to me that you have difficulty in comprehension, but hey ho!

By the way I haven't an "anti Brexit obsession - just a healthy aim to remind those fools who voted for Brexit, with out a clue what they were voting for, about how Brexit has not nor will it ever have the benefits that were claimed. No amount of "moving on" or making the best of it will change that fact I I do enjoy a bit of schadenfreude!

I can see that in future I shall keep my posts simple and use fewer syllables and explain each point clearly, I over estimate the ability of those reading them to comprehend.

[Andy_Faber]

Storm in a teacup...but it would help, AF, if you could ever accept that you’re wrong.
As you’re citing posts...I said initially, in #7902, that you were wrong and I’ve seen nothing to change my mind.
You made out that Swale was wasting his time because everyone on here voted Remain.
That wasn’t and isn’t true and that should be all there is to it.
You tried the same tactic with me about refuse collections earlier in the year. You were mistaken, weren’t even talking about the same correspondence, but again you wouldn’t accept it.
This time you’re even more demonstrably wrong...that’s okay and like I said it’s become a (very dull and frustrating) storm in a teacup...but it could have been avoided if you’d just accept that, like us all, you are not above making mistakes.

I recall that spat, it began when you relied on a subsequently discredited report which quoted an unsubstantiated amount for the shortage of lorry drivers and which you embellished by describing erroneously that already incorrect number as being ‘entirely’ due to Brexit. My ‘mistake’ on that occasion was giving into pressure from you to apologise for a perceived sleight, and it taught me that I find it easier to say sorry than you do to accept that apology in good faith. All water under the bridge after so long though

[ramAnag]

I recall that spat, it began when you relied on a subsequently discredited report which quoted an unsubstantiated amount for the shortage of lorry drivers and which you embellished by describing erroneously that already incorrect number as being ‘entirely’ due to Brexit. My ‘mistake’ on that occasion was giving into pressure from you to apologise for a perceived sleight, and it taught me that I find it easier to say sorry than you do to accept that apology in good faith. All water under the bridge after so long though

Nice try...complete and utter tripe though, but as I say...a ‘storm in a teacup’ that gets us nowhere.
You were mistaken then...and you are wholly wrong in your Swale spat...so, as David Davis recently nearly said...for God’s sake admit it man!

[swaledale]

To be honest rA I have no interest in what weasel words faber has to say, he plays a not so clever version of the Johnson playbook, make a statement that is clearly wrong, then try and bamboozle and confuse people in the hope they will forget what the issue was.

The fact is on these two occasions as on others he is wrong and he knows it. However lets move on, plenty more Brexit news to keep this thread going for another 4 years or so I suspect. None of it will be positive.

[Andy_Faber]

To be honest rA I have no interest in what weasel words faber has to say

yes we few here have noticed that you have no interest, demonstrated by the many occasions you have demanded responses from me recently, I'm not going to list the posts in which you did so, but there are about 20 in the past few weeks. Similarly your claim to have put Tricky on Ignore. Which suggests your word can't be trusted. Which sort of puts you in the same quartile as Boris. Not a good look!

[MadAmster]

With Boris's "team" starting to walk, how long can he last?

[swaledale]

yes we few here have noticed that you have no interest, demonstrated by the many occasions you have demanded responses from me recently, I'm not going to list the posts in which you did so, but there are about 20 in the past few weeks. Similarly your claim to have put Tricky on Ignore. Which suggests your word can't be trusted. Which sort of puts you in the same quartile as Boris. Not a good look!

Ah well you see, Thicky is on ignore and has been for months - occasionally I open up a post just to read what juvenile drivel he has posted and sometimes his posts are quoted by another poster and are visible. I have actually responded much less to his inane ramblings in fact I'd say I read less than 25% of his posts but sometimes when I do see a post of his, what he posts is so obviously stupid, I can't resist a response, but given I realise he is incapable of rational reasoned debate I should resist.

So you can apologise for incorrectly calling me a liar. I won't hold my breath expecting some integrity!

What that your post does reveal (though it's not a surprise to me) is that your rather fond of making an assumption without thinking things through and as a result make yourself look stupid.

That I would suggest is not a good look either, but then your probably past the point where you have any credibility. Its a sad fact that the ignorant person does not know how ignorant they are, precisely because they are ignorant. Sums you up perfectly I'd say.

Toodle pip Straw man.

[Andy_Faber]

With Boris's "team" starting to walk, how long can he last?

the thing is MA, political parties and the members of parliament who constitute them are elected by the general public not the media or other politicians, and Boris' popularity (although well in negative territory at present) is very 'elastic' with the plebs - time and a few well received speeches might well pull back any deficit. The 'team' members as individuals are largely irrelevant (I've already forgotten their names) but the power brokers will be assessing if the Tories not so secret weapon will fire on his own trenches come election time

[MadAmster]

the thing is MA, political parties and the members of parliament who constitute them are elected by the general public not the media or other politicians, and Boris' popularity (although well in negative territory at present) is very 'elastic' with the plebs - time and a few well received speeches might well pull back any deficit. The 'team' members as individuals are largely irrelevant (I've already forgotten their names) but the power brokers will be assessing if the Tories not so secret weapon will fire on his own trenches come election time

Where I come from that explanation falls into the realm of trying to teach your granny to suck eggs. His staff are walking, 5 at the last count including one woman who'd been his guide for 14 years. Tory MPs are slowly but surely withdrawing their support for him both verbally in public and in letters to the 1922 committee. Do I really have to type an essay covering all 587 bases or should I be able to rely on the intelligence most on here have?

[swaledale]

Where I come from that explanation falls into the realm of trying to teach your granny to suck eggs. His staff are walking, 5 at the last count including one woman who'd been his guide for 14 years. Tory MPs are slowly but surely withdrawing their support for him both verbally in public and in letters to the 1922 committee. Do I really have to type an essay covering all 587 bases or should I be able to rely on the intelligence most on here have?

For some you would be unwise to rely upon intelligence!

[MadAmster]

For some you would be unwise to rely upon intelligence!

I did say most not all, Swale.

"press" reports today that as many as 45 letters of no confidence in BoJo have now been sent to the 1922 Committee. Just 9 more required to trigger a vote.

[ramAnag]

I did say most not all, Swale.

"press" reports today that as many as 45 letters of no confidence in BoJo have now been sent to the 1922 Committee. Just 9 more required to trigger a vote.

I think the danger may be, MA...that if he survives such a vote there can’t be another one for twelve months. Think that’s the rule and who knows with these lickspittle MP’s looking after their own interests?