Chapman brexit

Those who agree with him are probably thinking stick to politics.

The reaction to the greyhound closure from Harvey was the usual arrogant horse racing rebuff to any 'outsiders' you don't know what you are talking about.

What did Chapman say about Brexit, please?

He basically said that the people who voted for it ,didn't understand what they were voting for,and compared that with the Welsh govt voting on greyhound racing ban.

that's a lot of people that didn't understand. what a C. we didn't get what we voted for boats still coming.

Obviously chapman just appeals to the social media cesspit and says things he knows will generate a reaction.

Most people who vote in elections don't know what they are voting for. Most people voting Leave in the EU reffy knew what they were voting for than a usual election I'd argue, they didn't know they'd still be waiting for it a decade later.

True cider. I think if you asked that question then somewhere near to 80% of those leave voters would reply zero net immigration please

All politicians argued that the numbers were hard to control due to EU membership. Not THAT much of a stretch therefore to expect that leaving the EU would lead to more control. Which it did, and the establishment decided to do the opposite and open the floodgates.

It's almost like, (God forbid), mass immigration will remain untrammelled whatever happens in elections...

well 80% must be pretty FOOKING thick,because they then went on to vote Tory/Johnson,who,s manifesto policy was to give the same access to THE REST OF THE WORLD to come to the UK as those from Europe, anyone not knowing that would increase migration rather than cut it,let alone get it to zero,really should have the vote taking away,
just to quote JOHNSON IN LEADERSHIP and GE campaign,
I WAS THE MOST LIBERAL MAYOR ON IMMIGRATION IN THE WESTERN WORLD

Labour were going to openly ignore democracy, so what do you suggest people should have voted for in the general elections following the referendum?

The Tory party never wanted to leave the EU, or control immigration. As we found out. As least we technically left, which means it can be implemented when we finally elect people who actually want to leave, and stop mass immigration.

Under a Labour government in 2019 we would never have even technically left. So the outcome was the lesser of two evils.

REFDORM/FARAGE current immigration policy

NO MASS DEPORTATIONS AND QUITE HAPPY TO LET 400,000 MIGRANTS IN AS LONG AS 400,000  PEOPLE EMMIGRATE,
vast majority of those 400,000 for example leaving will be UK nationals

don't suppose many reform voters count that as zero migrants

Under 1st past the post that would have led to a Labour gvnt and a cancellation of democracy. dw it will happen at the next GE

2020

REFORM/FARAGE don't want to control immigration either TICE  has stated he,s quite happy to swap 400,000 migrants for 400,000 UK nationals leaving, that to him = zero migration ,do you think reform voters agree with that ?
but like Tory,s/Johnson before them,tice /farage rely on /play on Maj of their voters been thick as fook, as TRUMP readily admits on live tv he loves the poorly educated voters

You think the smarter people voted for the current halfwit to be in charge, and Rachel from accounts to run the economy?

I suppose you could argue, they didn't know what they were voting for :)

Cider and the smart people of the past 14 years.

Cider23 Feb 25 10:53Joined: 29 Aug 02 | Topic/replies: 60,729 | Blogger: Cider's blog
Obviously chapman just appeals to the social media cesspit and says things he knows will generate a reaction.

As you well know - This is now the way of the world - all your hero's across the pond are doing exactly this - and you love it (so long as they are on "your side"). The fact that you tolerate it (for your own side) but abhor it when others do it, makes you a hypocrite imo.

The actual truth is no longer relevant - it's just a case of who can project "their truth" most effectively to their tribe. They used to call it "spin", where you put a positive or negative slant on the facts to suit your argument/opinion - the power of social media has taken this to a whole new level, spin has escalated to just blatant lies.

Given that you are part of this yourself (happy enough to perpetuate and repeat blatant lies on here on a daily basis), makes it laughable that you want to call out others for doing it imo.

spaarow, my reply is in the context of 1st timer's ludicrous implication that the party someone votes for is indicative of their intelligence. I don't judge peoples' intelligence on their political persuasion or affiliation. Starmer and this current crowd are not reflective of the people that voted for them. Some will be thick, some will be smart. Ideology is not correlated with intelligence in my view.

Given that you are part of this yourself (happy enough to perpetuate and repeat blatant lies on here on a daily basis), makes it laughable that you want to call out others for doing it imo.


I don't state contrarian views for attention. In fact I'm not interested in attention at all. In real life, I abhor it. I also don't care what other people say or think about me. Which is why I am ordinarily proven right with the passing of time, if I say or write things that people don't want to hear/read at the time.

Cider - I didn't state that you are an attention seeker. I stated that you are 100% "tribal" and therefore pretty happy to perpetuate/repeat blatant lies - if they suit your own agenda or political views.

I'm stating Chapman is deliberately contrarian, and amplifies controversial views seeking clicks and attention. That's a currency in today's world. They won't always align with his 'real life' views.
I am nothing like that, my views align with my analysis at that time. You might say 'tribal'. I say consistent. My own ideology is that I believe in the individual over the collective. I believe in personal responsibility, not abdication of responsibility. I'll be surprised if you find anything I say or write that deviates from that, although I'm sure there might isolated examples.

Indeed. I spent an entire career locked in rooms with people just like you. The agenda/requirement was to find workable solutions to very difficult problems. Almost always in situations where two sides were absolutely diametrically opposed to each other in all of their views. So a bit like real life or politics - but in a business setting.

Of course, the vast majority of that time was completely wasteful - because if you always know what somebody thinks or is going to say (before they say it) on every subject, they add no value whatsoever to any part of the process.

I don't see how you could infer/draw that conclusion from what I wrote.

I've lost count of the number of people who I have led/managed over the years in my early career. Comfortably in the hundreds, likely approaching at least 1000. You might have spent some time with someone like me locked in a room if I was a decision maker in a disciplinary of yours.

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't looking for a discussion about who was the most senior manager or who managed the most people.

I'm saying if you are 100% fixed in your views - there is little point in you being in a room where a mutually workable outcome is required. If your views are 100% fixed (absolute) we always know what you are going to do and what you are going to say. You don't need to be there as you don't have any of the the answers. Or at least any of the answers that are going to work in the real world - or in any scenario where the views of other people are a necessary part of the solution.

They voted for £300,000,000 a week for the NHS, and no foriners.

you destroyed your economy with your little englander brexit.....scottish oil wont bail you out this time like it did for mad maggie....

It's quite difficult to wrap my head around what you're arguing. Perhaps you prefer people who compromise their principles in the short term to make their life easier, get the advantage over someone, or cheat/bluff their way through to a longer term target. Perhaps that's why you appear to be a supporter/defender of the current government.

I'm not discussing who was the most senior manager. You appeared to be alleging that I would be difficult to work with. I wasn't. My successful record is indicative of that. What I am is determined, stoic and resilient. A lot of people don't like their hard earned empires disrupted, well that wasn't a problem for me.

Refreshing to see some articulate arguments for a change.

Incidentally, Chapman will be in for a rollocking over his remark.

Cider - you are being naive and also exposing perhaps that you never reached a level where you were involved in any difficult or serious decision making. Of course you have to compromise.

What do you think happens every year in the Private Sector regarding pay? A business employs say 100k people and inflation is running at 2.5%. They've had a good year and the future is looking vaguely rosy too.

The business initially proposes a 2% pay rise across the board (and if they are feeling very brave they also throw in some demands about productivity!). The Union demands 6.5% across the board citing increased executive pay & bonus, profits, new contracts won, the share price, increased dividends, etc.

How does that always play out iyo?

Of course initially it plays out with both sides behaving like you - posturing, manipulating data, refusing to budge and repeatedly trotting out their 100% fixed views that don't facilitate any kind of progress whatsoever.

But eventually the pragmatists, the realists, the problem solvers, the people that get things done - they can usually be identified, they can usually be encouraged to work together - quite often, even in a way that allows both sides to save face and/or claim victory!

fyi - this doesn't usually play out "in the room" - that simply isn't possible because the vast majority of the people in the room (on both sides) are too predictable and fixed in their views to make anything happen.

Those people are a necessary part of the process - the extremes are a necessary starting point! - but eventually they are bypassed because they are incapable of adding any value or achieving an outcome.

That's real life, it's business, it's politics. People that aren't pragmatic, realistic or capable of trade-offs, they can't find solutions that work, so they get sidelined, bypassed, excluded or left behind.

local to me we have a well known young  businessman was on rich man poor man on ch 4 yrs ago done very well for himself,but has his own local Facebook page THE MIGHTY REDCAR  and has become an absolute pain,always promising to stand for council , mp, supported/tell his fanboys who to vote for logically ,nationally, Indy,s,Tory,s LAB last GE now supporting REFORM but slagging of local reform candidate so obviously hoping REFORM will bank roll him to be their local candidate,
but he,s very much like cider,easy solutions to difficult issues all revolving around d running a council like a business,local councilors he criticises interact with him on Facebook ,explaining 70/80% of their money goes on adult/childrens social services,they now produced a balanced budget but used some reserves to do it so he classes  that as a failure/failed business
I,m sure him and cider could spend many hrs together putting  the world to right

Aberdoina with his Scottish oil nonsense again. The contributions from it wouldn't even cover Lammy Restaurant bill for the week!

They voted to not be ruled by Europe,for us to make our own laws,and not let the eu dictate to us.

iPhone charging cables,changed,more cost to customers,apple fleecing you.

Eu,voted to make all mobile phone chargers the same socket from 2027.
Apple Samsung etc.

This benefits its 300 mill citizens,

Britain will follow suit,yet we didn’t get a say.

Rest of the world will follow suit,cos they want to sell into the eu market.

These are the type of laws,all the brexiteers didn’t want,

We will follow all eu laws anyway,has business will follow it.,we just don’t get a say now.

Which is good,has I trust 26 countries to come up with some good laws,without our nutcase idiots getting involved.

We took less immigration than France,Germany etc,we are an island.so less immigration was never going to happen.

Those polish white Christian plumbers who’s grandads landed on the beaches on d day with us,were sent home,so we could get more immigrants from around the world.

The right wing media,need a bogey man to blame to their readers to stop them sussing were the real fault lies,so the eu was a useful kicking ball.then immigrants,but if you say it enough,  people demand solutions,so Cameron had to offer them an olive branch,they weren’t meant to win.

So who can they blame now,40k immigrants in dinghies out of 300k immigrants.

Why doesn’t farage stand at Heathrow instead of Dover,as more come in this way.

Given the English Channel is the busiest shipping lane in the world,how are reform going to stop the boats.

Perhaps when farage privatises the NHS,this might deter them,no free medical care for them,AND FOR YOU.

with all these locked rooms, Cider and The Management either worked in a prison or a loony bin.