O/T:- Johnson & Patel

[seriouspie]

So Serious, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that building vast lorry parks, with all the attended cost and inconvenience, is ok because, amongst other reasons, there are RAF bases in Lincolnshire? Really?

As I’m sure you know, there are a lot fewer bases than what there were because they’re not needed anymore. Don’t forget people were promised that Brexit would bring less red tape and cost, not more. That is already looking like the fantasy it always was.

Morning Fatboy .... Yes you misunderstood the context but that's nothing new.

[BigFatPie]

Morning Fatboy .... Yes you misunderstood the context but that's nothing new.

Please help me understand the context. What have RAF bases in Lincs got to do with hitherto unneeded lorry parks in Kent?

[seriouspie]

Please help me understand the context. What have RAF bases in Lincs got to do with hitherto unneeded lorry parks in Kent?

Let's calmly discuss this.

I was using the Lincs WW2 airfields as an example of I assume hitherto, either arable or pasture land, to build these RAF bases as a necessity to defend the country prior to war breaking out. I would assume it was not government land to start with so compulsory purchase orders would be issued. Like wise if logistical lorry parks are deemed necessary to make road haulage work after Brexit is complete, then the comparison is similar in context. Lincolnshire a county I love incidentally, was ideal both geographically and terrain wise. There were more wartime airfields in Lincs than any other county (48) from what I gather. On average , apparently 400 acres per airfield which combined with the others was far greater than your "swathes of land" in Kent.

If I'm not mistaken, I would suggest your anti Brexit views are being brought into play here. If perchance the "swathes of land" you refer to were used to build a large council estate, would you still object? The main word I have used in both comparisons is necessity. Anyway, I must reply to Sid's post, cheers for now.

[Elite_Pie]

Like wise if logistical lorry parks are deemed necessary to make road haulage work after Brexit is complete, then the comparison is similar in context. Lincolnshire a county I love incidentally, was ideal both geographically and terrain wise. There were more wartime airfields in Lincs than any other county (48) from what I gather. On average , apparently 400 acres per airfield which combined with the others was far greater than your "swathes of land" in Kent.

It may be my lack of logistical knowledge and experience, but would a lorry park in Lincolnshire be a solution when the problem is in Dover?

[BigFatPie]

Let's calmly discuss this.

I was using the Lincs WW2 airfields as an example of I assume hitherto, either arable or pasture land, to build these RAF bases as a necessity to defend the country prior to war breaking out. I would assume it was not government land to start with so compulsory purchase orders would be issued. Like wise if logistical lorry parks are deemed necessary to make road haulage work after Brexit is complete, then the comparison is similar in context. Lincolnshire a county I love incidentally, was ideal both geographically and terrain wise. There were more wartime airfields in Lincs than any other county (48) from what I gather. On average , apparently 400 acres per airfield which combined with the others was far greater than your "swathes of land" in Kent.

If I'm not mistaken, I would suggest your anti Brexit views are being brought into play here. If perchance the "swathes of land" you refer to were used to build a large council estate, would you still object? The main word I have used in both comparisons is necessity. Anyway, I must reply to Sid's post, cheers for now.

Sorry, I know I’m a bit stoopid, but you’ll have to talk me through that one again. Are you saying that because they’ve concreted over land for stuff like air bases and council estates then what does it matter if they build over a bit more land for lorry parks?

But why will need those lorry parks? Because of the red tape and customs checks will massively increase. We weren’t promised that. Let’s go back to your pebble crushing machine selling days. When you sold a machine to Herr Kieselbrecher in Berlin, what good would it have done either of you if that machine was held up for days in Kent? Do you think that will make stuff cheaper or more expensive? What about fresh food, what about the effect on that? (We can’t grow and harvest what we need ourselves so don’t suggest that).

Most importantly of all, what benefits can I look forward to as an average family bloke in Lincolnshire?

[applepie]

... the Minister may set the tone but performance is measured by either capability or conduct, or both. If the minister fell short on conduct in this case the PM had to decide on how serious was the offence. If civil service staff fall short on capability or conduct then it probably was sufficiently serious for PP to react in an unbecoming manner. However, that does not necessarily mean a sacking.

Bullying is a pretti ineffective management style, so perhaps she should go for incompetence?

[magpie_mania]

Bullying is a pretti ineffective management style, so perhaps she should go for incompetence?

Boris said she didn't bully though. (Fake news).

[Elite_Pie]

Boris said she didn't bully though. (Fake news).

Actually, he appeared to say that she might have bullied just a tiny bit, but she didn't mean to bully and she's said sorry anyway.

It's all about as credible as taking your wife and kid on a drive to test your eyesight.

[SmiffyPie]

Actually, he appeared to say that she might have bullied just a tiny bit, but she didn't mean to bully and she's said sorry anyway.

It's all about as credible as taking your wife and kid on a drive to test your eyesight.

Agree entirely and then there's saying Corbyn (Labour) wasn't (isn't) anti-Semetic. Who'd have thunk it!!

[sidders]

Agree entirely and then there's saying Corbyn (Labour) wasn't (isn't) anti-Semetic. Who'd have thunk it!!

Hello, Smiffy, nice to see you're still around.
The problem with anti Semitism and Labour is the point at which criticism of the Netanyahu government collides with implied criticism of Jews living here, many of whom despise the Zionist leanings of the Israeli Government. The Israeli government has abused the Palestinians almost as badly as they themselves were abused in Europe (pre-Holocaust).
It is a fine line and not enough has been made of it by Corbyn and his acolytes. By and large, Jews are kind, balanced and philanthropic people. Why couldn't the Labour party have said so?