Jump to content

Elon Musk

whelk

By whelk
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I've always liked Andy Burnham. Always strikes me as someone who genuinely wants to make a positive impact and is prepared to work across party lines and praise his opponents. I can respect that. 

Agree, even if I dont always agree can always respect what his intentions are, unlike a lot of them it seems to be for his people not himself.

Sarnia Cherie

Sarnia Cherie

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Turkish said:

Agree, even if I dont always agree can always respect what his intentions are, unlike a lot of them it seems to be for his people not himself.

Pity he's never been the Leader of the Labour Party. He's make a good PM.

  • Like 1
The Kraken

The Kraken

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

Pity he's never been the Leader of the Labour Party. He's make a good PM.

I’d imagine he’s being primed as a leading candidate to take over. Starmer isn’t exactly young.

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

Pity he's never been the Leader of the Labour Party. He's make a good PM.

I agree. He'd have a job curtailing the extremists in his party but I could see a future where I'd consider voting for him if he managed it. 

  • Like 1
LeBizzier69

LeBizzier69

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, egg said:

Blimey, Trump & Musk are struggling for top 5 shit now. 

I'm sorry, but Les and Dustin + Hale & Pace were compulsive 80s saturday night/sunday night viewing. 

  • Haha 2
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, The Kraken said:

I’d imagine he’s being primed as a leading candidate to take over. Starmer isn’t exactly young.

Starmer's a youngster, he's only 62. Burnham is only 7 years younger. 

I fear he's a bit like Starmer, Rishi and many others, ie you believe he's PM material until he actually becomes PM. 

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, egg said:

Starmer's a youngster, he's only 62. Burnham is only 7 years younger. 

I fear he's a bit like Starmer, Rishi and many others, ie you believe he's PM material until he actually becomes PM. 

Maybe but if that's the standard then that would be true for any potential Prime Minister who looks promising. 

Edited by hypochondriac
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Again, I don’t want to get into the whole league placing thing but I am not a young man and cannot recall any one person who, as an unelected individual, caused so much consternation amongst so many foreign governments in such a short space of time as Elon Musk. Trump was the POTUS and will be again soon. Of course he has a bigger voice. That is what makes this so problematic. No one voted for Elon Musk.

Have you any evidence of actual 'consternation' amongst European leaders or are you just frightening yourself in your social media echo chamber?

  • Like 1
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Have you any evidence of actual 'consternation' amongst European leaders or are you just frightening yourself in your social media echo chamber?

Macron cried about it a bit and some unimportant people in the EU called for banning X.

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Easier to throw abuse about rather than deal with the issue. It’s about your level sadly.

Just so we are clear can you explain why you are against a national enquiry?

AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Turkish said:

Just so we are clear can you explain why you are against a national enquiry?

Because the Tories want one, that is how shallow he is

  • Like 1
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Because the Tories want one, that is how shallow he is

I suspect this is the reason. I've no idea why anyone would be against it. Shame he's too much of a coward to address me directly. 

whelk

whelk

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Easier to throw abuse about rather than deal with the issue. It’s about your level sadly.

You have been outstanding on this thread in highlighting your inability to grasp anything let alone have any sort of debate. Thick as shit

  • Like 2
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

The Tories should have implemented the findings of the grooming gangs inquiry but didn't act on any of the 20 recommendations put forward, despite being in power for long enough.

This has been said a lot today but is it actually true? Personally, I've no idea what the Tories did or didn't do as I've not been following the story closely enough, but I've also read that the Tories were acting on a number of the recommendations. The tweet below, for example*

 

Screenshot_20250108-222603.png

*Yes, I'm fully aware this Emily person I've quoted is an ex-Tory advisor so, of course, her thoughts can be filed under "well, she would say that, wouldn't she" (as with all confirmation-bias 'evidence' on either side of a debate), but is she blatantly lying or is there any substance behind this alternative viewpoint?

Edited by trousers
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, trousers said:

This has been said a lot today but is it actually true? Personally, I've no idea what the Tories did or didn't do as I've not been following the story closely enough, but I've also read that the Tories were acting on a number of the recommendations. The tweet below, for example*

 

Screenshot_20250108-222603.png

*Yes, I'm fully aware this Emily person I've quoted is an ex-Tory advisor so, of course, her thoughts can be filed under "well, she would say that, wouldn't she" (as with all confirmation-bias 'evidence' on either side of a debate), but is she blatantly lying or is there any substance behind this alternative viewpoint?

I think they never implemented any of the 20 recommendations and also turned down a public inquiry.

  • Like 1
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, trousers said:

This has been said a lot today but is it actually true? Personally, I've no idea what the Tories did or didn't do as I've not been following the story closely enough, but I've also read that the Tories were acting on a number of the recommendations. The tweet below, for example*

 

Screenshot_20250108-222603.png

*Yes, I'm fully aware this Emily person I've quoted is an ex-Tory advisor so, of course, her thoughts can be filed under "well, she would say that, wouldn't she" (as with all confirmation-bias 'evidence' on either side of a debate), but is she blatantly lying or is there any substance behind this alternative viewpoint?

More people ended up in jail down to the changes that Keir Starmer brought in as DPP (which had nothing to do with the Tory Party). The CPS have charging guidelines. They previously were instructed to ignore or give less creedence to evidence given by people affected by drugs or alcohol. He overturned that amongst other major changes to charging guidelines. One of the victims cited an occasion when she visited a police station to make an accusation about sexual abuse only to be told to go away and come back when she wasn’t drunk.

During my time at the CPS and when Starmer was the DPP special teams were set up (RASSA units - Rape and Serious Sexual Assault) to deal with these cases more effectively. Another major change was to accept, in the first instance, that the alleged victim was telling the truth. Previously the onus was on them to provide convincing evidence to the police/CPS charging lawyer at the outset. This led to more cases entering the charging review stages with only those that subsequently failed to meet the evidential charging guidelines not going to court.

CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, trousers said:

This has been said a lot today but is it actually true? Personally, I've no idea what the Tories did or didn't do as I've not been following the story closely enough, but I've also read that the Tories were acting on a number of the recommendations. The tweet below, for example*

 

Screenshot_20250108-222603.png

*Yes, I'm fully aware this Emily person I've quoted is an ex-Tory advisor so, of course, her thoughts can be filed under "well, she would say that, wouldn't she" (as with all confirmation-bias 'evidence' on either side of a debate), but is she blatantly lying or is there any substance behind this alternative viewpoint?

Emily Sheffield is David Cameron's sister in law.

No one is saying the Conservatives did nothing but they didn't implement any of the recommendations from that Inquiry in the time they had. They set the terms and scope of all the Inquiries which now apparently weren't good enough.

What they also didn’t do is start a national Public Inquiry that that they are now pretending is absolutely vital. But it wasn't vital seven months ago or before that. Nothing significantly new has happened in that time. 

Kemi has never ever spoken to any victim, not even this week. She was the Goverment Minister for Women around the time the report was published and was in that role until the election. Incredibly well placed to make lots of noise about this topic but she never mentioned it on the record until whaddya know this week. 

 

Political opportunism and bad faith posturing worse than anything I've ever seen in British politics. 

Edited by CB Fry
  • Like 7
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, trousers said:

This has been said a lot today but is it actually true? Personally, I've no idea what the Tories did or didn't do as I've not been following the story closely enough, but I've also read that the Tories were acting on a number of the recommendations. The tweet below, for example*

 

Screenshot_20250108-222603.png

*Yes, I'm fully aware this Emily person I've quoted is an ex-Tory advisor so, of course, her thoughts can be filed under "well, she would say that, wouldn't she" (as with all confirmation-bias 'evidence' on either side of a debate), but is she blatantly lying or is there any substance behind this alternative viewpoint?

The Tories could have announced an inquiry on the day the report was published. Or the day after, or at any time up until the GE was announced, but didn't. Why are they calling for one now ?

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

More people ended up in jail down to the changes that Keir Starmer brought in as DPP (which had nothing to do with the Tory Party). The CPS have charging guidelines. They previously were instructed to ignore or give less creedence to evidence given by people affected by drugs or alcohol. He overturned that amongst other major changes to charging guidelines. One of the victims cited an occasion when she visited a police station to make an accusation about sexual abuse only to be told to go away and come back when she wasn’t drunk.

During my time at the CPS and when Starmer was the DPP special teams were set up (RASSA units - Rape and Serious Sexual Assault) to deal with these cases more effectively. Another major change was to accept, in the first instance, that the alleged victim was telling the truth. Previously the onus was on them to provide convincing evidence to the police/CPS charging lawyer at the outset. This led to more cases entering the charging review stages with only those that subsequently failed to meet the evidential charging guidelines not going to court.

Did you work for the CPS SOG? I can’t believe you never mentioned it before!

Sarnia Cherie

Sarnia Cherie

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, trousers said:

This has been said a lot today but is it actually true? Personally, I've no idea what the Tories did or didn't do as I've not been following the story closely enough, but I've also read that the Tories were acting on a number of the recommendations. The tweet below, for example*

 

Screenshot_20250108-222603.png

*Yes, I'm fully aware this Emily person I've quoted is an ex-Tory advisor so, of course, her thoughts can be filed under "well, she would say that, wouldn't she" (as with all confirmation-bias 'evidence' on either side of a debate), but is she blatantly lying or is there any substance behind this alternative viewpoint?

Professor Alexis Jay, who led the inquiry has been in the news this week saying that her recommendations were never acted upon. 

  • Like 2
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

Professor Alexis Jay, who led the inquiry has been in the news this week saying that her recommendations were never acted upon. 

They weren't,  none of them. The Tories now banging the drum for an inquiry having failed/refused to act on the inquiry carried out in their watch, is a disgraceful act of political grandstanding and opportunism. 

  • Like 7
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, egg said:

They weren't,  none of them. The Tories now banging the drum for an inquiry having failed/refused to act on the inquiry carried out in their watch, is a disgraceful act of political grandstanding and opportunism. 

If it was that important to Labour couldn’t they have done so in July. One recommendation was for a cabinet level minister for children, why didn’t Sir Kier appoint one to his first cabinet? Just as accusations can be made that the Tories are only pushing this because of Musk, accusations can also be made that Labour are only reacting to the Jay report because if Musk. It’s also relevant to point out that the Jay report wasn’t specifically reporting on Pakistani rape gangs, but wider abuse. If it’s true that Rochdale was only mentioned in relation to Cyril Smith and only 1 victim was interviewed, then clearly it was inadequate. Both parties have tip toed round this issue because of the racial element.

Theres no doubt Labour would have jumped on this bandwagon had they been in opposition (knowing the Tories wouldn’t set up one), so their moral outrage is just as cynical. I agree with Dan Hodges with regards to the future and Labours present stance, he wrote;

“And ultimately, it will prove to be an exercise not just in political stupidity, but futility. Because eventually, a full public inquiry into the rape gangs is going to be held.There is no way this can be avoided now. The bandwagon is rolling. There is no stopping it. Starmer and Labour can try to stand in its way. But if they do, it will crush them.“

 

egg

egg

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

If it was that important to Labour couldn’t they have done so in July. One recommendation was for a cabinet level minister for children, why didn’t Sir Kier appoint one to his first cabinet? Just as accusations can be made that the Tories are only pushing this because of Musk, accusations can also be made that Labour are only reacting to the Jay report because if Musk. It’s also relevant to point out that the Jay report wasn’t specifically reporting on Pakistani rape gangs, but wider abuse. If it’s true that Rochdale was only mentioned in relation to Cyril Smith and only 1 victim was interviewed, then clearly it was inadequate. Both parties have tip toed round this issue because of the racial element.

Theres no doubt Labour would have jumped on this bandwagon had they been in opposition (knowing the Tories wouldn’t set up one), so their moral outrage is just as cynical. I agree with Dan Hodges with regards to the future and Labours present stance, he wrote;

“And ultimately, it will prove to be an exercise not just in political stupidity, but futility. Because eventually, a full public inquiry into the rape gangs is going to be held.There is no way this can be avoided now. The bandwagon is rolling. There is no stopping it. Starmer and Labour can try to stand in its way. But if they do, it will crush them.“

 

It's poor form to say that labour should have done in their first five minutes of power what the Tories didn't/wouldn't. 

The attempts to turn a Tory failure into a labour one is staggeringly pathetic. 

  • Like 7
Holmes_and_Watson

Holmes_and_Watson

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Turkish said:

Did you work for the CPS SOG? I can’t believe you never mentioned it before!

That experience is why information on all the groups he hates are in colour coded folders. Only people with access to vital stationary catalogue have that kind of system. Oddly enough for this discussion, the folder on fighting child abuse is quite thin, as SOG considers some of those offences "trivial" and not a "crime of the century."

  • Haha 2
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Anyone else hoping Elon and Donnie can get us some nice spring weather......

Things might get quite warm.......

image.jpeg.8365cf0b51aa1b719f93f512bc15d2eb.jpeg

 

Edited by badgerx16
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, egg said:

It's poor form to say that labour should have done in their first five minutes of power what the Tories didn't/wouldn't. 

The attempts to turn a Tory failure into a labour one is staggeringly pathetic. 

Starmer first cabinet could have included the children’s minister as per the Jay report. What is he waiting for? It’s “staggeringly pathetic” to claim he couldn’t have done so in July. 

  • Haha 1
Gloucester Saint

Gloucester Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Starmer first cabinet could have included the children’s minister as per the Jay report. What is he waiting for? It’s “staggeringly pathetic” to claim he couldn’t have done so in July. 

All Kemi is doing is putting an illuminated beacon on the mess the governments she was part of made, especially idiotic given one of her cabinet roles was women and equalities!

Labour needs some PR input certainly but she needs a whole agency, and she’d still be utterly pathetic.

Ian Hislop absolutely nails it here. Also agree that Musk should have been challenged much earlier for lying and throwing wild accusations. 

 

Edited by Gloucester Saint
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Starmer first cabinet could have included the children’s minister as per the Jay report. What is he waiting for? It’s “staggeringly pathetic” to claim he couldn’t have done so in July. 

Please remind when the Jay report was?

Please remind me how long the Tories were in power thereafter. 

Staggeringly pathetic to suggest that labour should be criticised for what the Tories didn't do. Staggering. 

  • Like 4
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, egg said:

Please remind when the Jay report was?

Please remind me how long the Tories were in power thereafter. 

Staggeringly pathetic to suggest that labour should be criticised for what the Tories didn't do. Staggering. 

So we can’t criticise labour because the Tories didn’t do it , is that your defence of them. 
 

You still won’t answer the question. Why isn’t the Children’s minister cabinet level position (a recommendation) That’s not a money thing, or a time thing, it could have been done in July.

Labour had no more intention of implementing the review than the tories, until Musk got involved. 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
  • Haha 1
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

So we can’t criticise labour because the Tories didn’t do it , is that your defence of them. 
 

You still won’t answer the question. Why isn’t the Children’s minister cabinet level position (a recommendation) That’s not a money thing, or a time thing, it could have been done in July.

Labour had no more intention of implementing the review than the tories, until Musk got involved. 

Ever decreasing circles, and you to be in a minority on this. That's probably as you're wrong. 

I repeat, for the last time as it's tedious, that's it's daft to attack labour for not doing immediately upon taking office what the Tories did not do after the Jay report was issued in 2022 and before they vacated office in 2024.

I'm staggered that you can't see how silly your argument is. Most can. 

  • Like 1
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, egg said:

Ever decreasing circles, and you to be in a minority on this. That's probably as you're wrong. 

I repeat, for the last time as it's tedious, that's it's daft to attack labour for not doing immediately upon taking office what the Tories did not do after the Jay report was issued in 2022 and before they vacated office in 2024.

I'm staggered that you can't see how silly your argument is. Most can. 

Should Starmer have made the Children's minister a cabinet level position in July? 

egg

egg

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Should Starmer have made the Children's minister a cabinet level position in July? 

Starmer inherited a mess. His not making this a priority in July is understandable.

The Tories doing nothing for years (the first Jay report was 2014, and there were ambu more reports thereafter until the final report in 2022 which they ignored). That is unforgivable. 

  • Like 5
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, egg said:

Starmer inherited a mess. His not making this a priority in July is understandable.

The Tories doing nothing for years (the first Jay report was 2014, and there were ambu more reports thereafter until the final report in 2022 which they ignored). That is unforgivable. 

I’d have thought making the Minister for children a cabinet position was pretty easy to do, especially when you’ve criticised the previous government for not doing so. But I guess like you he didn’t think that really easy measure a “priority”. 
 

How long do you give Starmer to implement the recommendations in full. How long before it becomes “unforgivable “ that he hasn’t done so. Personally, I doubt he ever will as the compensation could be as much as 10bn. That’s the reason the Tories didn’t do so, and I’m pretty sure it’ll be the reason labour dont. No doubt you won’t find that quite so “unforgivable “. But we’ll wait and see. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...