O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[ramAnag]

It has nothing to do with the career you adopted, just a comment on an opportunity lost. Over the last 12 months or more you have demonstrated an exceptional skill at spin doctoring - take it as a compliment, it's meant that way. You can twist and turn any debate to your own perspective with adroit skills, focusing on the one aspect of a multi faceted debate that supports your contention whilst ignoring the other aspects / bigger picture.

It's a great skill, be proud, not defensive.

Bit of a false compliment, imo, GP...and it was you, and TTR, who mentioned teaching...yet again.


Perhaps you need to look back a little. I’ll take responsibility for introducing the comparison with Thatcher, but it wasn’t me who introduced Blair and his involvement in Iraq into a debate about comparing Starmer and Johnson. You need to look at post #1274 and 1275 from Tricky and Andy respectively for that. No ‘spin’...just fact.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I reiterate, I only mentioned teaching as it was your chosen job, factual. I make no judgement here on the job as a teacher. Thus teachings gain is spindoctorings loss. If you'd become a barber, then the tonnsorial arts would have gained.....

[Trickytreesreds]

I’m obviously not saying anything of the sort, Tricky and I’m not entirely surprised that ‘words fail you’...they regularly do.
History is always open to interpretation and you and I will invariably interpret things differently.
The only facts I’ve presented...i.e. the relative lengths of the two ‘campaigns’ and the number of British dead, are inescapably true.

No, sorry RA, but facts are facts. You have quoted statistics, not facts about that conflict.
Its like quoting the number of downed planes in the Battle of Britian. Ignore why those planes were shot down and concentrate on the lives lost.

All casualties are a great sorrow.
But the facts are-
British sovereign territory was invaded by a foreign aggressive power.
British Military personnel were captured
British civillians were taken hostage.

So, please tell me Neville, how would you have responded to that?

I personnally would have expected the Green party to have responded in exactly the same way.

[ramAnag]

I’m obviously not saying anything of the sort, Tricky and I’m not entirely surprised that ‘words fail you’...they regularly do.
History is always open to interpretation and you and I will invariably interpret things differently.
The only facts I’ve presented...i.e. the relative lengths of the two ‘campaigns’ and the number of British dead, are inescapably true.

No, sorry RA, but facts are facts. You have quoted statistics, not facts about that conflict.
Its like quoting the number of downed planes in the Battle of Britian. Ignore why those planes were shot down and concentrate on the lives lost.

All casualties are a great sorrow.
But the facts are-
British sovereign territory was invaded by a foreign aggressive power.
British Military personnel were captured
British civillians were taken hostage.

So, please tell me Neville, how would you have responded to that?

I personnally would have expected the Green party to have responded in exactly the same way.

Sorry Tricky, that’s just one of your classic responses. ‘I hope you’re not a history teacher blah...astonishing blah...Neville blah...Green Party blah...’ and then, best of all, ‘you have quoted statistics...not facts about that conflict’.

We’ll invariably interpret history and even current events differently Tricky. We have an entirely different outlook and perspective. However, just because the facts I’ve quoted don’t suit your ‘agenda’ it doesn’t mean they’re not facts and I have better things to do than argue with someone who fails to understand the concept of ‘fact’.

Perhaps you could point out the factual inaccuracies I have made about a) the length of both ‘campaigns’ and b) the number of deaths amongst British personnel. Until then...

[Geoff Parkstone]

rA: I suspect its not the facts that you select, but rather the facts you choose to ignore that frustrates Tricky.

[Ram59]

[QUOTE=ramAnag;39708897]Funny thing, Blair - who imo did so much good - is repeatedly, and fairly, castigated for taking us into war in Iraq, while Thatcher - who imo did so much damage - remains the ‘darling of the Right’ and was given almost heroic status for taking us to war with Argentina.

Have a wild guess where more British troops died...Iraq or the South Atlantic?



Just looked on here after a bit of a break and wondered how we got on to this topic.


As for the above statement, but much as I wanted to, I couldn't let it go without comment.

I'm speechless!

[Trickytreesreds]

Sorry Tricky, that’s just one of your classic responses. ‘I hope you’re not a history teacher blah...astonishing blah...Neville blah...Green Party blah...’ and then, best of all, ‘you have quoted statistics...not facts about that conflict’.

We’ll invariably interpret history and even current events differently Tricky. We have an entirely different outlook and perspective. However, just because the facts I’ve quoted don’t suit your ‘agenda’ it doesn’t mean they’re not facts and I have better things to do than argue with someone who fails to understand the concept of ‘fact’.

Perhaps you could point out the factual inaccuracies I have made about a) the length of both ‘campaigns’ and b) the number of deaths amongst British personnel. Until then...

The figures you quote, are not inaccurate.
But the circumstances are.

Thatcher HAD to take us to War, in response to an attack on this nation.

Blair took as to war, to suit his own political gains with lies.

Irrespective how many died, who moralistically was correct and who committed a war crime?
It isn't rocket science, but I suspect that because Thatcher and Tories were in power. You cannot grudgingly give credit to a conservative government, doing the right thing.
The other day, you said you was a proud national? I think that nationality is par with Neville Chamberlain and not Winston Churchill.

[Andy_Faber]

I'd just popped on to make an on-topic comment but we are so far OFF topic here I'm not sure anyone would notice. Everyone (but me) appears to have made their views clear now on the latest O/T issue so time for a break.

[ramAnag]

[QUOTE=Ram59;39709786]

Funny thing, Blair - who imo did so much good - is repeatedly, and fairly, castigated for taking us into war in Iraq, while Thatcher - who imo did so much damage - remains the ‘darling of the Right’ and was given almost heroic status for taking us to war with Argentina.

Have a wild guess where more British troops died...Iraq or the South Atlantic?



Just looked on here after a bit of a break and wondered how we got on to this topic.


As for the above statement, but much as I wanted to, I couldn't let it go without comment.

I'm speechless!

I’m not sure being ‘speechless’ is actually a ‘comment’ Ram.

We disagree, not for the first time, or the last, I suspect. We have different perspectives. From mine, Blair is the best PM of my lifetime, Thatcher and Johnson the two worst. I very much doubt you’d agree.

I disagreed entirely with Blair over Iraq and Thatcher over the Falklands but, as has been made clear, it’s not really relevant to this thread.

Curiously Blair does remain relevant to the Covid aspect of current events as the Blair Foundation has a lot to say, much of it very useful, about vaccinations and the ‘road map’ back to something like normality.

[swaledale]

What is conveniently overlooked regarding the Falkland's is that the Tory government had downgraded the defence resources for the islands meaning they were vulnerable to a possible attack and it was well known that the Argentine President was looking for something to boost his flagging presidency. If it had been a Labour Government caught with its "pants down" there would have been hell to pay!

On top of that diplomatically the Uk Government had been making noises about power sharing with Argentina, viewing the Falklands as an expensive liability which they would like to be rid of.

Thatcher certainly ignored any option of a peaceful negotiation with Argentina and took a risk which paid off politically, if not for those who lost their lives. The irony is that if Galtieri hadn't invaded, it is more than likely that some power sharing agreement with a view to handing over ownership would have happened.

Then there is the bigger question s to why the UK should have "sovereign" territory thousands of miles away in the South Atlantic and why UK taxpayers should foot the bill for defending it? Its a an historical anachronism and I for one think that in the modern world one we should be relinquishing.