Which is something perfectly common tbf. Back when I was young many moons ago, all the people that wanted to get rid of feeding slaves to the lions were considered woke do gooder cultural marxist and defamed as people that wanted to bring Roman civilisation down. A few years have passed and now even the far right doesn't have it on the top of its agenda to feed people to lions in colosseums.

Don't you think some people deserve to be fed to lions? Child rapists for example? Slavery is abhorrent and I strongly disapprove of it but it does exist in the world even today and where it does exist, those slaves should be adequately fed with a balanced non-vegetarian diet.

You are right, they were in seventh heaven wielding all that power over us plebs. Now we must pay for it.

Sunak boasting about taking cash off deprived areas,Truss wanting to decrease civil service workers wages in same areas, Boris and his leveling up, liars and frauds the lot of them.

Take the most destructive policies of recent years, lockdown, sanctions, net zero. Both of the parties that could have political power in the UK are/were more or less aligned. Starmer just wants it to be even worse.

They all agree lapsy, and what I'm trying to tell you is that all of the immovable institutions agree too.

The only difference would be that the narrative would be supportive of Starmer, so it would provide him with the veneer of being successful.

I can give you a recent example, if the speaker was republican and went to Taiwan, the mainstream would have gone nuts, how dangerous it was encouraging ww3 etc. Pelosi could kick a cat and they would report it as a great event.

You can be of a liberalist slant, and still concede that's the way it is. Why pretend otherwise.

Tom Grinyer bma chief

hearing you speak about fwee speech is, ahem, somewhat surprising as you started a thread telling anyone who favoured lockdowns to stfu and you repeated the exact same sentiment a day or two ago. it is entirely predictable that what chaps like you really mean by fwee speech is fwee speech for people who have views you agree with.

All of the people in charge of social media.

It's not a conspiracy in the sense that they all sit around a table and plot. For example though, much of the civil service is led by liberalists, so of course they employ and promote people with the same ideology.

You can see this in the various police forces. To get promoted, you have to be overtly supportive of identity politics. Dick had a chain of failures behind her, but still reached the top job in policing (and kept it too long) purely down to that ideology.

surely you agree with free speech, jolly? I mean, not shutting people down because they have different views to you (legal views).

it shouldn't matter what your political ideology or default is.

nope. I said anyone who supported lockdown and is now moaning about paying the price should go back in their box.

they won't yes, because it's most likely they lack cognitive ability if they were demanding lockdown in the first place. and genuinely thought there would be no cost to them for shutting the economy down for 2 years

telling certain people they should stay in their box isnt a free speech issue - we have reached the inevitable stage where i laugh as you tie yourself up in knots.

did they say there would be no cost and did anyone actually say the economy should be shut down for two year? rhetorical questions, obviously.

it's not literal, jolly. obviously. a turn of phrase 'back in your box', something which I'd even credit you with grasping all on your own.

you were clearly telling people who had views you dont like to be quiet, you didnt want them to express their views.

Is this line still being peddled. Kemi Badenoch would have trounced Truss in member's vote. But Woke Tory MPs were scared of her.


he has to try and justify to himself why he's taken a beating in this market

We are all friends here.

Cider you keep trying to pin this on covid,everywhere had covid.

Who said fook industry? You know who well,boris and the torys.
Proof of that is not imposing controls on EU goods and putting British business at a huge disadvantage.

You are getting that now,the minus gdp,the minus exports to the EU,it was just hidden,the cat is out of the bag.

It was Rishi and the covid Quad impossed on Cabinet that further trashed the already struggling care sector and those made bed blocking worse....

https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/social-care/warning-many-care-workers-will-not-return-to-jobs-despite-vaccine-rule-change-02-03-2022/

Warning ‘many’ care workers will not return to jobs despite vaccine rule change

Revoking the Covid-19 vaccination mandate for health and care staff has come “too late” for the thousands of care home workers who already left the sector because of the policy, according to key charities and unions who warned many will not return to their previous jobs despite the rule change.

It was announced on Tuesday that nurses in England would no longer be required by law to be vaccinated against Covid-19, after a consultation saw widespread support for dropping the mandate.

Vaccination as a condition of deployment was introduced for care home staff late last year and was due to be extended to all patient-facing NHS and social care workers next month.

But now the government has confirmed the mandate will be scrapped from 15 March 2022.

It is estimated that tens of thousands of care home staff left their jobs because of the policy, leading to “immense workforce pressures” and contributing to the “most serious staffing crisis for decades”, according to Vic Rayner, chief executive of the National Care Forum (NCF), which brings together 160 of the UK’s social care organisation.

Findings from a recent survey of NCF members on the impact of the mandate in care homes found the policy had come at a great financial cost and was “quite simply, the wrong policy at the wrong time”.

Those informing the survey said on top of the thousands of pounds spent trying to implement it, it had also brought an “enormous extra workload” for organisations and had been “very damaging” to staff morale.

Other results showed the negative impact around recruitment, with 94% of respondents stating they thought the policy had made this more difficult.

One survey respondent spoke about the impact of staff losses on services and the people they care for and said: “The people we support have been unduly affected by this because they have seen their support workers of many years leave in a short period of time.

“It is my belief that these support workers are lost to the industry forever, because they now won't trust that this could not happen again.”

Ms Rayner demanded an apology and acknowledgement from the government on the “damage this policy has done” and the “very real impacts it has had on people working in the sector and those drawing on care and support”.

Unison’s head of care, Gavin Edwards, also stressed his concerns that despite the rule change, care home workers will refuse to return to work in the sector.

“There were always better ways of upping the jab rate in care,” he said.

“Making the vaccine mandatory meant thousands of experienced staff quit or were forced out of care homes. These were workers the struggling sector could ill afford to lose.”

Mr Edwards added: “Many won't go back either. They've found work elsewhere, some of it better paid and less stressful.”

Meanwhile, Professor Martin Green, chief executive of Care England, also stressed the decision to remove the mandate was “too late” for the thousands of care staff who had already left services because they did not want to be vaccinated.

Chief executive and general secretary from the Royal College of Nursing, Pat Cullen, also echoed this statement on Tuesday when she said: “Holding the threat of losing their jobs over the heads of the small minority of staff who had not been vaccinated was the wrong approach and this decision will be welcomed by those whose jobs were at risk.

“It does, however, come too late for those who have already lost their jobs.”

It is understood that the matter of re-hiring staff who have been dismissed or resigned as a result of the policy is for each individual employer to address.