(17-06-2017 14:50 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ] (17-06-2017 14:26 )hugh_g_rection Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah. Yeah. She's the real victim in this...
Jesus christ. If it was making Labour look bad you'd be politicizing the f**k out of it.
Who said she was the real victem?
And Labour have done nothing I could have had a go at? could have had a field day.
But to keep constantly trying to lay the blame on her when she can't possibly have known anything about the fire hazzards in the tower is nothing short of absurdity.
Worst still, it's using the deaths of those people for political motives. You and others may not have a problme with that, but I do.
As for how she deals with the press and public, it's been pretty clear to me since I was first aware of her she's an heads down office type of person.
It's always the finger pointers that would have done everything perfectly.
What we have here is a natural tragidy, it could have been prevented, but then, it may not, sprinkler systems may not have been effective against it.
What needs to be ask what was in the building materials that made a building like that catch fire and spread so rapidly. Fire engines was in the scene in minutes pooring gallons of water on and it still did nothing to holt the spread.
From what I could see on the news, the fire spread up the outside and they escape routes blocked off due to smoke. I don't know how effective sprinklers are against smoke, out side or via the detritus in the cavens of the walls.
You see you're talking about specific details of the disaster now. I won't do that until all of the information is available. My comments so far have been related to political, media and public reaction to the tragedy, and up to a point, our reaction to their reaction.
You may have seen on the actual London Fire thread someone posted a link to twitter where Labour MP Clive Lewis tweeted a picture that I believe actually IS politicizing the tragedy. And I responded to that post with exactly what I think, which is that I think it is a disgrace.
Now what I do NOT think is a disgrace and do NOT think is politicizing a tragedy, is the Labour Party as a whole, Her Majesty's opposition, asking legitimate questions of the government about how their policies and decisions may potentially have made this disaster worse than it would otherwise have been.
It's called holding the government to account... you know...? ... Their job?
Just so we're clear. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm not even bothered about what you think. But while some people have a certain need to post incorrect, blinkered and biased information, it is important that information is adequately challenged. Even on a wank channel forum...
(18-06-2017 01:37 )hugh_g_rection Wrote: [ -> ]You see you're talking about specific details of the disaster now. I won't do that until all of the information is available. My comments so far have been related to political, media and public reaction to the tragedy, and up to a point, our reaction to their reaction.
You may have seen on the actual London Fire thread someone posted a link to twitter where Labour MP Clive Lewis tweeted a picture that I believe actually IS politicizing the tragedy. And I responded to that post with exactly what I think, which is that I think it is a disgrace.
Now what I do NOT think is a disgrace and do NOT think is politicizing a tragedy, is the Labour Party as a whole, Her Majesty's opposition, asking legitimate questions of the government about how their policies and decisions may potentially have made this disaster worse than it would otherwise have been.
It's called holding the government to account... you know...? ... Their job?
Just so we're clear. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm not even bothered about what you think. But while some people have a certain need to post incorrect, blinkered and biased information, it is important that information is adequately challenged. Even on a wank channel forum...
Therein lies the point. I've actually been saying all along it SHOULD be about the victims, anything else at the moment should be put aside and left till later.
Nobody knows how or why anything has happend yet (thought some suggestions have been made has I mentioned). An investigation and an inquiry later should reveal that. But that hasn't stoped all the finger pointing and blaming; with the aim of most of this finger pointing being at May.
Yes, people should be brought to account, AFTER an enquiry, not before and certainly not before all the victems have yet to be identified as much as possible.
As for Labour, I have actually said very very little about them, which I certainly could.
Yout post is very passive aggresive.
one way or another it will be a case of WHEN not IF they choose to oust her
(18-06-2017 09:23 )Nadam Wrote: [ -> ]Thatcher out!
Back to the 70's it is then.
(18-06-2017 13:45 )HannahsPet Wrote: [ -> ]80's
Hope so, people never had it so good AND, the bastard unions were broke, never been a problem since.
(18-06-2017 02:04 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ]Therein lies the point. I've actually been saying all along it SHOULD be about the victims, anything else at the moment should be put aside and left till later.
Nobody knows how or why anything has happend yet (thought some suggestions have been made has I mentioned). An investigation and an inquiry later should reveal that. But that hasn't stoped all the finger pointing and blaming; with the aim of most of this finger pointing being at May.
Yes, people should be brought to account, AFTER an enquiry, not before and certainly not before all the victems have yet to be identified as much as possible.
As for Labour, I have actually said very very little about them, which I certainly could.
No you got it a bit wrong there too. You were talking about building details with regard to it's adherance to fire regulations, and the scale of the catastrophe in an attempt to absolve the Conservative government of any accountability whatsoever. That information is NOT available yet. Which is why I didn't and will continue not to engage with that.
Labour MPs are asking questions about policy with regard to emergency service cuts and what they have potentially done to hinder adequate prevention of response to disasters. That information IS available. We know about the cuts.
(18-06-2017 02:04 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ]Yout post is very passive aggresive
Thanks for the amateur psychology. Probably best if you leave that to the experts aswell. Unless you're planning to save me money on a psychiatrist?
(18-06-2017 15:27 )hugh_g_rection Wrote: [ -> ]No you got it a bit wrong there too. You were talking about building details with regard to it's adherance to fire regulations, and the scale of the catastrophe in an attempt to absolve the Conservative government of any accountability whatsoever. That information is NOT available yet. Which is why I didn't and will continue not to engage with that.
No, I relaid something I read in the press, I have posted another today where they seem to be blaming the cladding.
Quote:Labour MPs are asking questions about policy with regard to emergency service cuts and what they have potentially done to hinder adequate prevention of response to disasters. That information IS available. We know about the cuts.
It's pretty obvious ulteria motives are in place too.
Quote:Thanks for the amateur psychology. Probably best if you leave that to the experts aswell. Unless you're planning to save me money on a psychiatrist?
I rest my case.
You're not the first to try and be smarmy with me.