Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Things i really dislike or downright hate.

Things i really dislike or downright hate.

+24
wanderlust
finlaymcdanger
Norpig
Ten Bobsworth
rammywhite
doffcocker
Soul Kitchen
boltonbonce
karlypants
Reebok Trotter
Michael Bolton
gloswhite
BoltonTillIDie
Natasha Whittam
xmiles
scottjames30
MartinBWFC
Boggersbelief
Copper Dragon
Mr Magoo
Banks of the Croal
aaron_bwfc
Keegan
Angry Dad
28 posters

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 7 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

Go down  Message [Page 11 of 15]

Cajunboy

Cajunboy
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington



Let's just chill.

Guest


Guest

Amazing how many people are certain about something they clearly know fuck all about. 

That’s something I downright hate.

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Amazing how many people are certain about something they clearly know fuck all about. 

That’s something I downright hate.

That's exactly my point!!   (but expressed neatly in far fewer words!)

:agree:

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Amazing how many people are certain about something they clearly know fuck all about. 

That’s something I downright hate.

As wonderfully demonstrated by your goodself on the Croynism thread where you showed your complete ignorance on a whole range of stuff, not least the differnce in functions between elected representatives and the permanent public servants.

Didn't stop you arguing for days on end though did it!

Any evidence found of all this alleged croynism yet, even just one shred of hard evidence...?

Let me answer for you...

...nothing at all so far, other than procedural recording of documents not published within the required guidelines.

Oh and despite all the faux anger and indignation from Team Maugham and 'friends', not one single person has raised any objection on any of the contracts that have since been published - almost as though there was never anything 'hidden' deliberately in the first place and no croynism having taken place at all!

Amazing really when you believe the government to be so corrupt!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:This government are demonstrably incompetent and in my view crooked.

Very Happy







Guest


Guest

How bored are you at the moment that you want to dig up that topic? I’ve explained my position to you, we’ve established you don’t have a position. 

Unless you have something to add (on the relevant thread) then why not just drop it?

You were once a decent poster but now this character you play is either a complete idiot or a wind up merchant.

xmiles

xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha

Getting back on topic, lying bastards lying who won't admit they are lying.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56350476

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

I see that the Society of Editors' boss, Ian Murray, has been forced to resign afer being grilled by the BBC's (and  Holcombe Brook's own!) presenter, Victoria Derbyshire, where he was unable to defend various examples of racism and bigotry in the press.......rather proving Harry's assertion about why he and Meghan felt as they did.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:How bored are you at the moment that you want to dig up that topic? I’ve explained my position to you, we’ve established you don’t have a position. 

Unless you have something to add (on the relevant thread) then why not just drop it?

You were once a decent poster but now this character you play is either a complete idiot or a wind up merchant.

Hahaha!

I didn't have a position???

Ok if that's what you want to believe.

The position I apparently didn't have was that MP's don't award contracts, it is civil servants that do - so if there was any 'cronyism' on the award of contracts, then it could only happen with a civil servants involvement and I don't believe you get that high up in the civil service if you are so corrupt as to be able to risk your career and civil service pension by doing something so stupid.

I said at the outset I stood to be proven wrong - and so far I haven't been - in fact if you actually read the judge's written judgement on the Judicial review to date - and I have, he has been quite complimentary to the key civil servant who was responsible for the decissions taken - the one if you will who had their head on the chopping block.  In fact Good Law Projects own Counsel didn't challenge him at all and took ever word he said to be honest and truthful - as did the judge too.

Quite a compliment in my eyes to the public servants honesty and integrity and a credit to his profession.  It certainly impressed me fwiw.

There was no criticism of the civil service, they did their jobs honestly and without bias - but the test to which the case had to be measured against were was the statutory publishing targets met? - which everyone knew before the judicial review was sought by Maugham that they hadn't, and accordingly that was the point the government lost on - which was always going to be the end result.

You asked some days back why the government contested the review - I believe Hancock reply was to refer the question back to Maguham for brining the review in the first place - knowing what the outcome was always going to be.

It was defended 'in the public interest' funnily enough - it was done so that the process could be laid bare in court - nothing hidden so to speak.

Everything could be inspected to show there was no corruption having taken place, no dodgy dealings and no secret handshakes, or whatever.

It cost the country money in losing the case but rather that and to be seen to be 'honest' in their workings than to have the constant slur of corruption and cronyism hanging over it as Maugham had seemingly got most people (including you!) believing it was (and many still believing it still is).

I still await anyone finding that smoking gun that cronyism did occur, you would have thought somebody would have found something by now wouldn't you?

I know I would after nearly a year of people looking around for something definitive to skewer the government on other than inuendo all the time

As for being a decent poster or not, frankly I don't care.

What is important to me is being honest - and I have always been that.

View me as a troll, idiot or whatever you care to believe, don't believe a word I write if you don't want to - non of it will change the fact that what I post is truthful.

If you or anyone else think I post bollocks then fine, it's only the internet.

Enjoy the rest of your evening.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

okocha wrote:I see that the Society of Editors' boss, Ian Murray, has been forced to resign afer being grilled by the BBC's (and  Holcombe Brook's own!) presenter, Victoria Derbyshire, where he was unable to defend various examples of racism and bigotry in the press.......rather proving Harry's assertion about why he and Meghan felt as they did.

Car crash of an interview!

As for Harry's assertion, do you real believe The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The FT, The Observer or even the Bolton News for example to be racist and bigoted because I certainly don't?


Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Sluffy wrote:

Car crash of an interview!

As for Harry's assertion, do you real believe The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The FT, The Observer or even the Bolton News for example to be racist and bigoted because I certainly don't?




Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Thu Mar 11 2021, 07:05; edited 2 times in total

Guest


Guest

Sluffy.
You just prove my view that you have not understood a point explained to you multiples times, I don’t know why you insist on doing it over and over again. 

The debate is not who made the final decision and awarded the contract, it was if MPs had had an influence over the process of finding and prioritising suppliers.

The VIP lane, in my view, shows they did. Unless you think a civil servant would have found Matt Hancock’s pub landlord to supply PPE without the health Secretary recommending him?

Nobody wants to read this debate again, so accept a different view and drop it or PM me if you really want to drag it out. I’m not getting sucked into your games on here.



Last edited by T.R.O.Y. on Thu Mar 11 2021, 07:07; edited 2 times in total

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Sluffy wrote:

Car crash of an interview!

As for Harry's assertion, do you real believe The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The FT, The Observer or even the Bolton News for example to be racist and bigoted because I certainly don't?



I wouldn't describe any of them as racist, Sluffy, but I would describe virtually all of them as having journalists with personal prejudices and agendas.

Most journos think of themselves as being smart, quick-witted, broad-shouldered and incisive. Few more so than Piers Morgan but when he first met La Markle he fell for her well-practised charm hook, line and sinker.

It was only when she later snubbed him that the penny dropped and he realised how manipulative she was and what a twerp he'd been. He didn't exactly need a twerp like Alex Beresford to remind him.

Isn't that why he blew a fuse, not to mention having a Guardianista for a boss, of course?

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Sluffy, you've only been back posting for a short while after your sabbatical, and in that time you've managed to upset Bonce, Norpig, (Lusty??), TROY, xm, Nat, me and common decency.....sometimes deliberately. 

Interesting debates had been peaceful and harmonious during your voluntary withdrawal from contributing, but now it seems that you want to continue to prove black's blue and to have digs at people, resurrecting issues that had, we thought, long been buried and agreed upon.

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

From today's BBC website:

EDIT

Copy and paste article removed due yet again to no link being provided.

Sluffy

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Silly me, I missed out the pregnant mother card. If I'd been dumb enough to watch the entire performance, I've little doubt there was a whole pack of cards in it. Yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk.

What a shame the Snivelling Sussex's weren't interviewed by Judge Judy with Ms Winfrey as their character witness. That I would watch. Ten minutes would be plenty.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

okocha wrote:Sluffy, you've only been back posting for a short while after your sabbatical, and in that time you've managed to upset Bonce, Norpig, (Lusty??), TROY, xm, Nat, me and common decency.....sometimes deliberately. 

Interesting debates had been peaceful and harmonious during your voluntary withdrawal from contributing, but now it seems that you want to continue to prove black's blue and to have digs at people, resurrecting issues that had, we thought, long been buried and agreed upon.

I am not here to be trolled and I have no doubt that is what you have been attempting to do for a very considerable time now.

I've posted nothing to cause any offence to anyone and given perfectly valid reasons and explanations to what I have said.

If you or anyone else do not like what I post then don't bother reading it.

It's as simple as that.



Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy.
You just prove my view that you have not understood a point explained to you multiples times, I don’t know why you insist on doing it over and over again. 

The debate is not who made the final decision and awarded the contract, it was if MPs had had an influence over the process of finding and prioritising suppliers.

The VIP lane, in my view, shows they did. Unless you think a civil servant would have found Matt Hancock’s pub landlord to supply PPE without the health Secretary recommending him?

Nobody wants to read this debate again, so accept a different view and drop it or PM me if you really want to drag it out. I’m not getting sucked into your games on here.

And yet again I point out that they had not.

A system was set up as per the explanation I posted back in November and which I link to below.

In short this system was the third string of an emergency procurement stategy to source PPE with one entry point to it and open to any company who were NOT already dealing directly to the NHS.

ANYONE could apply to what is now known as the 'fast track' system, it wasn't just mutually exclusive for 'friends' of the Tory party (see point 25 on the link below)

So in short Hancock's pub landlord might have said 'Matt, can I have one of these juicy fat contracts you are handing out', to which he would have had to reply 'I don't give them out, you have to go through the system and meet the approriate criteria like everyone else.  All I can do is provide you with that office details and you have to go there as everyone else has to do!'.

WHICH HE DID!!!

Bourne said his initial hope was that his packaging firm might be able to retool to provide personal protective equipment (PPE). Hancock messaged back, according to Bourne, directing him to a Department of Health and Social Care website, where he formally submitted details of the work his firm could do. Bourne’s lawyers said there was no further follow-up with Hancock.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/matt-hancock-former-neighbour-won-covid-test-kit-contract-after-whatsapp-message

That is the extent of the 'influence' any MP had over anyone getting a contract.

https://boltonnuts.forumotion.co.uk/t21726p120-nepotism-cronyism-watch

Once received into the system the civil servants may have considered prioritising referals from 'known' government sources - such as MP's, to be evaluated sooner on the basis that they (the MP's) must have had a genuine reason for forwarding them on for assessment - ie had some reason to believe the company could provide the urgently required PPE that was needed.

Even then at that point, the award of a contract would still not have been made if the company failed to meet the criteria, no matter if God himself had put the firm in touch with the process, let alone Matt Hancock et al.

The priority if you like was to get the equpment first and save lives and worry about everything else after.  

Fwiw it does genuinely look as though 'they' (the government/the civil servants/the system, or whoever you believe 'they' are) did actually achieve exactly that.

This wasn't about Conservative cronyism but thanks to Maugham and dislike even hatred of the Tory party by some/many, that is what it has turned into now and hence the witch hunt we now seem to be having. You indeed BELIEVE Hancock got his pub landlord a contract when the facts are there to show he didn't - that's how bad it is, when the truth seems to be the pub landlord never actually got a government contract at all but was a subcontractor to a company that did!

And it is worth repeating yet again that up to now NO evidence of cronyism as been uncovered, nothing, zero, zilch.



Last edited by Sluffy on Thu Mar 11 2021, 15:59; edited 1 time in total

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Sluffy wrote:

Car crash of an interview!

As for Harry's assertion, do you real believe The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The FT, The Observer or even the Bolton News for example to be racist and bigoted because I certainly don't?


BTW Sluffy, do you really think that The Guardian, The Observer and the Bolton News aren't prejudiced, biased, partial, one-sided or in a word 'bigoted'. Isn't that exactly what they are, along with the small legion of zealots on Nuts? 

They and Ms Markle must be gleeful that their zealotry seems to have cost someone else his job.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Ten Bobsworth wrote:BTW Sluffy, do you really think that The Guardian, The Observer and the Bolton News aren't prejudiced, biased, partial, one-sided or in a word 'bigoted'. Isn't that exactly what they are, along with the small legion of zealots on Nuts? 

They and Ms Markle must be gleeful that their zealotry seems to have cost someone else his job.

The point I was really trying to make was that you can't judge everybody as being the same.

The Okocha account seems to be suggesting that the newspapers are all bad and need to be regulated - a very dangerous step to take if people want to see control over press freedom.

Of course not all newspapers are the same and hence my pointing out the absurdity of that accounts statement.

Of course newspapers/media companies, etc depend on 'selling' their content and thus 'target' their consumers accordingly and tailor their content to be attractive for them to buy - they 'preach' if you will to those that have already been converted - and that's how they build up their brand loyalty.

It's simply a business when all is said and done.

As for Harry and Megan you've got to ask what are there reasons for doing the Oprah interview, I mean they publically stated they removed themselves from the royal family and to live in another country to take themselves out of the UK public spotlight and have since gone on to put themselves very quickly into the world's public spotlight instead!!!

They have signed an mega-million dollar contract with Netflix and a further one with Spotify, and apparently did the Oprah interview for free - hardly the actions of someone wanting to live out the rest of their lives away from public intrusion is it?

Clearly the Oprah interview was intended for self publicity for themselves and thus they simply didn't just turn up on the day and 'pour their hearts out' to Ms Winfrey, they would have known and have been well advised and drilled as to how to present themselves and what message to send to best meet their objectives.

There was clear 'play' to their intended audience - and no doubt everyone involved in the program - Team Sussex and Team Oprah, would have been extremely pleased with the results - widespread sympathy and 'understanding' for the Sussex's and cementing their place in the 'Hollywood' royalty now - and another worldwide scoop and no doubt critical acclaim again to Oprah and verification that she is still the queen of talk shows.

However was all that was said by Megan and Harry the truth though???

Certainly easy to make such claims (which lets be realistic, most people are happy to accept these days as gospel without doing any fact checks nor listening to the other side of the story.  That's just a fact of how society is these days - and anyone dissenting to what the popular line is, are considered to be wrong and possibly even ostracised for being so) but almost impossible to disprove.

Fwiw the Royal family has said that "recollections may vary" which in otherwords is that 'it is lies' and other issues that were mentioned such as Harry's 'cut off financially' and Megan's they wouldn't make Archie a prince in order to 'protect' him seem somewhat contrary to known facts already in the public domain -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-51047186
https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/annual-review/2019-2020/income-expenditure-and-staff
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56325934

As for Morgan and the Editor bloke, Morgan is big enough to speak for himself and the Editor threw himself under the bus with his dreadful public interview.

Seems also that Megan complained to ITV about Morgan BEFORE he quit.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/meghan-markle-complained-itv-piers-morgan-good-morning-britain-b923270.html

Morgan shared a quote by Winston Churchill, which read: “Some people’s idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”

Hard to disagre with that these days is it?

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Not just an outrage Sluffy, but you must pay for any protest with your head.

Victoria Derbyshire is a capable journalist and was giving Ian Murray a grilling but did he have to lose his job because she got the better of him on that occasion? 

Sadly this is the atmosphere that has been built up today by zealots who seem to have taken over much if not most of the broadcast media. The same zealotry is much in evidence on Nuts too.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 11 of 15]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 7 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Things i really dislike or downright hate.

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum