Tories are lying *******s (warning may contain traces of Tory)

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No mention of the tories in the documentary though eh.

There was multiple mentions of the Tories thoughtout the early part including footage from the House of Commons, the infamous footage of John Gummer giving the burger to his daughter, repeated mentions of the then Governments insistence British beef was safe, footage of Tory MPs eating steak tartar, extensive mention of Thatchers privatisation of school meals and repeated criticisms of the conduct of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Do you actually even believe ha!f of what you post?

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've watched the 1st 15 minutes of the documentary on BBC2 about BSE/CJD, it gets more horrifying by the minute.

If you need any further proof of what really matters to the Conservative party or proof that they are lying ****bags then I suggest watching it.

Scandalous.

I've spoken to a few people who were involved in public health policy throughout the whole episode.

The idea of "the prion" is terrifying - a small protein that couldn't be killed with conventional sterilisation methods, it is very different to bacteria, viruses, fungi etc, and it is even more terrifying to think that they didn't at that time have a clue what these things were and how they behave.

I'm still not convinced that we have really learned all that many lessons and I"m sure that an outbreak of something truly horrific is still possible. The use of a lot of single use instruments in medicine has managed to minimise the risk of cross infection but now we are getting all eco-friendly, people are starting to question single use instruments, the use of plastics etc and I'm pretty uncomfortable about where this all might go.

I'll need to see this documentary.

[Mr Grieves]

https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/s...163167744?s=19

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There was multiple mentions of the Tories thoughtout the early part including footage from the House of Commons, the infamous footage of John Gummer giving the burger to his daughter, repeated mentions of the then Governments insistence British beef was safe, footage of Tory MPs eating steak tartar, extensive mention of Thatchers privatisation of school meals and repeated criticisms of the conduct of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Do you actually even believe ha!f of what you post?

Were their faces zoomed in, with the colours washed out, with eerie music playing away in the background?

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Were their faces zoomed in, with the colours washed out, with eerie music playing away in the background?

Given your conviction, however incorrect, that there was no mention of the Tories in the documentary I'm assuming you watched it therefore you don't need me to tell you the answer.

Unless of course you took umbrage at a documentary you didn't even see because of your pathological hatred of the BBC.

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Given your conviction, however incorrect, that there was no mention of the Tories in the documentary I'm assuming you watched it therefore you don't need me to tell you the answer.

Unless of course you took umbrage at a documentary you didn't even see because of your pathological hatred of the BBC.

I didn't watch it. But you're right. I already knew the answer.

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I didn't watch it. But you're right. I already knew the answer.

So just to be clear you stated there was 'no mention of the Tories' yet you didn't even watch the documentary so had no idea if what you said is accurate? For someone who gets very hung up on the truth and encouraging people to look for the 'facts' that doesn't seem a very rational thing to do.

I can't say I'm surprised though.

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So just to be clear you stated there was 'no mention of the Tories' yet you didn't even watch the documentary so had no idea if what you said is accurate? For someone who gets very hung up on the truth and encouraging people to look for the 'facts' that doesn't seem a very rational thing to do.

I can't say I'm surprised though.

Must just be my pathological hatred of the BBC. Only perfectly saine people indulge in such blatant propaganda.

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Must just be my pathological hatred of the BBC. Only perfectly saine people indulge in such blatant propaganda.

Saine? Freudian slip? 🤔😁

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Must just be my pathological hatred of the BBC. Only perfectly saine people indulge in such blatant propaganda.

It's amazing you have managed to get your frillies in a twist about a documentary you didn't see based on my post which was critical of the Conservative Party from start to finish because of my own disgust at them having viewed the programme in question.

It just screams someone who is just looking for an argument at every turn.

[Hibernia&Alba]

[Hibernia&Alba]

This is magic.

[ronaldo7]

12 of the 13 Scottish Tories voted to shut down parliament to enable a no deal Brexit.

Boris now has the Scottish Tories in his back pocket, and Ruth can't do a thing about it.

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

12 of the 13 Scottish Tories voted to shut down parliament to enable a no deal Brexit.

Boris now has the Scottish Tories in his back pocket, and Ruth can't do a thing about it.

Was Ruth the one who voted against/abstained?

We shouldn't be too surprised. They'd all vote to shut down Holyrood as well if that option was on the table.

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Was Ruth the one who voted against/abstained?

We shouldn't be too surprised. They'd all vote to shut down Holyrood as well if that option was on the table.

For all that Ruth has delusions of grandeur, she is still not an MP.

[ronaldo7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Was Ruth the one who voted against/abstained?

We shouldn't be too surprised. They'd all vote to shut down Holyrood as well if that option was on the table.

Westminster.

[ronaldo7]

I see the Tories are allowing 15 yr olds to vote for the next Leader/Prime Minister. Goes against the grain when they refuse 16 yr olds the vote in other elections.

Shysters.

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For all that Ruth has delusions of grandeur, she is still not an MP.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Westminster.

In my defence, she's far closer to Westminster in heart and in mind than she is to Holyrood.

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I see the Tories are allowing 15 yr olds to vote for the next Leader/Prime Minister. Goes against the grain when they refuse 16 yr olds the vote in other elections.

Shysters.

It's tory policy though.

"If your age group doesn't support us, then you're at the wrong age to vote....... unless you're fully signed up members of the Conservative Party."

[James310]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's tory policy though.

"If your age group doesn't support us, then you're at the wrong age to vote....... unless you're fully signed up members of the Conservative Party."

Do you believe all 16/17 year olds in Scotland should have the vote? Would their 'named person' accompany them to the polling station?

How is that going anyway, how many millions have been wasted to date? Money that could have been spent on vunerable children where the resources should be allocated to in the first place.

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Do you believe all 16/17 year olds in Scotland should have the vote? Would their 'named person' accompany them to the polling station?

How is that going anyway, how many millions have been wasted to date? Money that could have been spent on vunerable children where the resources should be allocated to in the first place.

Yes, I do believe all 16/17 year olds in Scotland should have the vote.

Are you saying you would rather resources were spent on a small number of vulnerable children (due to the vast majority going unidentified)? As opposed to more resources going into indentifying as many vulnerable children as possible?

[ronaldo7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In my defence, she's far closer to Westminster in heart and in mind than she is to Holyrood.

[James310]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes, I don't believe all 16/17 year olds in Scotland should have the vote.

Are you saying you would rather resources were spent on a small number of vulnerable children (due to the vast majority going unidentified)? As opposed to more resources going into indentifying as many vulnerable children as possible?

Fair enough, I would have thought you would support the vote for 16/17 year olds as they would boost the Indy vote.

I don't believe every single child in Scotland requires a named person. As you allude to it’s already extremely difficult to protect vulnerable children. This plan is stretching limited resources even further by creating a scheme that applies to all children regardless of need.

Named Persons are also very likely to be over-cautious in referring issues to social services, which will then further create unnecessary work for social workers, again diverting their time and preventing them to help the most vulnerable and needy children.

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fair enough, I would have thought you would support the vote for 16/17 year olds as they would boost the Indy vote.

I meant "do".

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't believe every single child in Scotland requires a named person. As you say it’s already extremely difficult to protect vulnerable children. This plan is stretching limited resources even further by creating a scheme that applies to all children regardless of need.

Named Persons are also very likely to be over-cautious in referring issues to social services, which will then further create unnecessary work for social workers, again diverting their time and allowing them to help the most vulnerable and needy children.

Why take the risk of vulnerable children going through their childhood unidentified, just so children who aren't currently vulnerable don't have somebody to talk to? Any non-vulnerable child right now, could become vulnerable at any moment.

The health and safety of children come first beyond all else. If there aren't enough social workers to deal with the level of vulnerable level of children identified, then that just means we'll have to find ways of investing more in that area.

[James310]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I meant "do".



Why take the risk of vulnerable children going through their childhood unidentified, just so children who aren't currently vulnerable don't have somebody to talk to? Any non-vulnerable child right now, could become vulnerable at any moment.

The health and safety of children come first beyond all else. If there aren't enough social workers to deal with the level of vulnerable level of children identified, then that just means we'll have to find ways of investing more in that area.

So old enough to vote but young enough to still have to have a named person. Strange contradiction.

You can cut it lots of ways, but I don't believe every single child in Scotland needs one, for the reasons I have given.

I am not alone, the British Association for Adoption and Fostering Scotland have stated the Named Person provision will “get in the way of ensuring that those who really need support actually receive it”.

Police Scotland has already highlighted evidence of wellbeing assessments causing “significant” time delay in children being removed from abusive
situations.

I believe it will never happen anyway, it has been tied up in the courts for years now wasting more money.

[Mon Dieu4]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fair enough, I would have thought you would support the vote for 16/17 year olds as they would boost the Indy vote.

I don't believe every single child in Scotland requires a named person. As you allude to it’s already extremely difficult to protect vulnerable children. This plan is stretching limited resources even further by creating a scheme that applies to all children regardless of need.

Named Persons are also very likely to be over-cautious in referring issues to social services, which will then further create unnecessary work for social workers, again diverting their time and preventing them to help the most vulnerable and needy children.

Don't think many people who think that 16/17 year olds should get to vote do so because they feel they would vote the way they want, would imagine that most of them think that if you are old enough to pay tax then you should get to have a say in who spends your tax money

I think it's pretty apparent that the majority of youngsters are pretty forward thinking due to the Internet and information now being on demand and it's scaring the old guard big time who will try to keep the status quo

[Just Alf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Do you believe all 16/17 year olds in Scotland should have the vote? Would their 'named person' accompany them to the polling station?

How is that going anyway, how many millions have been wasted to date? Money that could have been spent on vunerable children where the resources should be allocated to in the first place.

Specifically on the Tories, do you think it's right that they'll allow a 15 year old to cast a vote in this instance but not others..... Apologies for going away from the OP I know it's not lying but at least it's still the Tories.

[James310]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Specifically on the Tories, do you think it's right that they'll allow a 15 year old to cast a vote in this instance but not others..... Apologies for going away from the OP I know it's not lying but at least it's still the Tories.

No, it's not right, they should be consistent. It should be 18 and over if that's what the general election rules are.

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So old enough to vote but young enough to still have to have a named person. Strange contradiction.

Are you saying that people with named guardians shouldn't be allowed to vote? What about people with carers or support workers? Should they also be excluded from voting in your view?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You can cut it lots of ways, but I don't believe every single child in Scotland needs one, for the reasons I have given.

What reasons are those?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I am not alone, the British Association for Adoption and Fostering Scotland have stated the Named Person provision will “get in the way of ensuring that those who really need support actually receive it”.

Nice bit of selective quoting there. They also stated: "BAAF Scotland generally welcomes the Bill. We recognise that many of the details of the wide-ranging proposals will be in subsequent regulations and guidance."

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Police Scotland has already highlighted evidence of wellbeing assessments causing “significant” time delay in children being removed from abusive situations.

Shall I address your use of selective quoting again?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I believe it will never happen anyway, it has been tied up in the courts for years now wasting more money.

Believe whatever you like. You may be right, you may be wrong. Suppose only time will really tell.

[James310]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Are you saying that people with named guardians shouldn't be allowed to vote? What about people with carers or support workers? Should they also be excluded from voting in your view?




What reasons are those?



Nice bit of selective quoting there. They also stated: "BAAF Scotland generally welcomes the Bill. We recognise that many of the details of the wide-ranging proposals will be in subsequent regulations and guidance."



Shall I address your use of selective quoting again?



Believe whatever you like. You may be right, you may be wrong. Suppose only time will really tell.

I am sure they welcome the bill if it does not get in the way, I absolutely think it will.

It will stretch already scare resources, I don't see how it can't.

I don't think time will tell, it will never happen and quietly dropped in the coming years.