The Andy Burnham Thread

[rowlf]

4 hours ago, c_cubed51 said:

But what Agent Orange did was both illegal and inhumane. Are his cronies beginning to abandon him?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/trump-suffers-double-blow-with-two-court-losses-in-one-day-the-dam-has-broken/ar-AA295qIU?ocid=

At least here in the UK those crossing the channel illegally are treated according to the law, and humanely. And the UK doesn't even claim to be a Christian country.

ICE reportedly moves to shield 5,500 detention beds from state health and safety oversight

See what I mean? 

I see what you mean. It's always the same. You don't care who invades your country. Whatever your country, du jour, is. 

After 12 years of lefty rads in the White House, many 'progressive' circuit judges have been selected. Especially the ninth district court in CA. Almost always the Supreme Court has overruled these decisions.

For 4 years Biden has allowed a mass influx of illegals into our country estimated at 10-20 million people. That there be a mass removal process only makes sense. It's unfortunate that many innocents and illegals living here for decades have been caught up in this. However, because sanctuary cities refuse to hold illegals for ICE, they must take gather suspects en mass and confirm their identities.

You must realize releasing illegals is a crime.

You always follow this false narrative that something evil is good.

The UK does hold these invaders in high esteem. They are the 'chosen ones' that will change UK forever. It's not the citizen's bidding to do so, but the gov that owns you making the decision.

In the not-too-distant future, Englanders such as yourself won't have a country to come home to. I would wonder why you and your beloved aren't living in Beulah land today. But that's your business.

Maybe we both should mind our own business. At least not lie about things you know to be false.

On a different note. I have noticed the media attacks on the right have increased dramatically in response to the upcoming election.

It's interesting that former proud and successful countries can be brought to their knees without one shot being fired.

[The quiet one]

On 29/07/2026 at 13:21, ruby said:

I doubt it, that is another issue he has, the prisons are full. So there is not a lot he can do. 

Executing the rapists, murderers, terrorists and paedophiles would be a good start.

 

[Sparkler]

9 hours ago, rowlf said:

I see what you mean. It's always the same. You don't care who invades your country. Whatever your country, du jour, is. 

After 12 years of lefty rads in the White House, many 'progressive' circuit judges have been selected. Especially the ninth district court in CA. Almost always the Supreme Court has overruled these decisions.

For 4 years Biden has allowed a mass influx of illegals into our country estimated at 10-20 million people. That there be a mass removal process only makes sense. It's unfortunate that many innocents and illegals living here for decades have been caught up in this. However, because sanctuary cities refuse to hold illegals for ICE, they must take gather suspects en mass and confirm their identities.

You must realize releasing illegals is a crime.

You always follow this false narrative that something evil is good.

The UK does hold these invaders in high esteem. They are the 'chosen ones' that will change UK forever. It's not the citizen's bidding to do so, but the gov that owns you making the decision.

In the not-too-distant future, Englanders such as yourself won't have a country to come home to. I would wonder why you and your beloved aren't living in Beulah land today. But that's your business.

Maybe we both should mind our own business. At least not lie about things you know to be false.

On a different note. I have noticed the media attacks on the right have increased dramatically in response to the upcoming election.

It's interesting that former proud and successful countries can be brought to their knees without one shot being fired.

Oh dear, just a tirade of fascist bollox. 

“Fight like hell or you won’t have a country”… sound familiar, you really believe all the shit you are fed don’t you. It’s laughable.

Enemies, illegals, dems, lefties, … froth, rant, 🙄

[ruby]

30 minutes ago, Lynn and John said:

Labour would have still won under the FPTP system.  The length of time it took to count the votes again after no candidate received over 50% of the votes proved SV is too complicated as well as being a waste of time.  The SV system was bound to work against Reform UK because anti Reform UK voters will have made sure their 2nd choice was not for them.  The low turn out of 25% proves there isn't much appetite for elected Mayors and devolution in England.  It's scandalous that Burnham plans to give elected Mayors some of income tax revenue raised in their area for them to waste.  

Fortunately major changes like what Burnham wants to implement take time and money. Even if he lasts the 3 years he doesn't have the time or the money.

[rowlf]

Interesting article. Nothing about immigration. He does want to build council houses. No more immigrant housing, it would seem. After 2029, the plan is to 'pilot alternative long-term housing'. It would seem immigration is here to stay.   Sadly, the gov wants to keep the people right where you are. Held by the 'short and curlies'. It would seem to me the UK needs a 'breakaway' moment.

The UK does not build new hotels for immigrant housing; instead, the government rents existing private hotels as temporary "contingency accommodation" for asylum seekers. However, facing high costs and public backlash, the government announced plans to phase out hotel usage by 2029 and pilot alternative long-term housing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp9ezldrkkgo

[Sparkler]

41 minutes ago, rowlf said:

Interesting article. Nothing about immigration. He does want to build council houses. No more immigrant housing, it would seem. After 2029, the plan is to 'pilot alternative long-term housing'. It would seem immigration is here to stay.   Sadly, the gov wants to keep the people right where you are. Held by the 'short and curlies'. It would seem to me the UK needs a 'breakaway' moment.

The UK does not build new hotels for immigrant housing; instead, the government rents existing private hotels as temporary "contingency accommodation" for asylum seekers. However, facing high costs and public backlash, the government announced plans to phase out hotel usage by 2029 and pilot alternative long-term housing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp9ezldrkkgo

Thank you for admitting, finally, all those BAREFACED LIES you have told about “building 5 star hotels”.

Clown!!

[Alteredbhoy]

On 30/07/2026 at 17:01, ruby said:

Have you seen how many arrived yesterday, 752. This month could be a record.

Well the final figures for July are in. Two days before the end of the month you were predicting a record number.

The figure for July was 15% lower than both the two previous months. It was nearly 60% lower than the figure for July 2025. It was 75% lower than the record month. And it was 30% lower than the previous lowest July since small boat crossings became an issue.

You have access to the same data as I have. Why on earth do you spout so many falsehoods about the number of small boat crossings?

The lowest July figure for 5 years is clearly good news.

But you are desperate for there to be crossings that you exaggerate the numbers. You claim the numbersare rising when they are falling. You claim they are at record levels when they are not.

Why?

[rowlf]

4 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Well the final figures for July are in. Two days before the end of the month you were predicting a record number.

The figure for July was 15% lower than both the two previous months. It was nearly 60% lower than the figure for July 2025. It was 75% lower than the record month. And it was 30% lower than the previous lowest July since small boat crossings became an issue.

You have access to the same data as I have. Why on earth do you spout so many falsehoods about the number of small boat crossings?

The lowest July figure for 5 years is clearly good news.

But you are desperate for there to be crossings that you exaggerate the numbers. You claim the numbersare rising when they are falling. You claim they are at record levels when they are not.

Why?

Why not?

[ruby]

38 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Well the final figures for July are in. Two days before the end of the month you were predicting a record number.

The figure for July was 15% lower than both the two previous months. It was nearly 60% lower than the figure for July 2025. It was 75% lower than the record month. And it was 30% lower than the previous lowest July since small boat crossings became an issue.

You have access to the same data as I have. Why on earth do you spout so many falsehoods about the number of small boat crossings?

The lowest July figure for 5 years is clearly good news.

But you are desperate for there to be crossings that you exaggerate the numbers. You claim the numbersare rising when they are falling. You claim they are at record levels when they are not.

Why?

My numbers are off the Government website. Seems the gangs have got new tactics, I think cubed explained it pretty well. The days when it is zero and the weather is fine is when they are organising pickup points along the coast. Never mind I am sure Andy will sort it, well he will put a post on TicToc or X, that cures everything. As to the numbers the values for July are less than June 1731 verses 2343  but that is nothing to shout about that is still a lot of people.

[Alteredbhoy]

8 hours ago, ruby said:

My numbers are off the Government website. Seems the gangs have got new tactics, I think cubed explained it pretty well. The days when it is zero and the weather is fine is when they are organising pickup points along the coast. Never mind I am sure Andy will sort it, well he will put a post on TicToc or X, that cures everything. As to the numbers the values for July are less than June 1731 verses 2343  but that is nothing to shout about that is still a lot of people.

Yeah, Cubed explained that because of increased enforcement by the the French Police and difficulties the gangs are having in obtaining boats and engines, they aren't able to make as many attempts. The increased efforts of the French Police are a consequence of the deal the UK Government signed with France in the Spring of this year. The interruptions in the gangs' supply chains are a result of the deal that the UK Government signed with China in January.

But ruby won't accept that anything the UK Government is doing is having any effect.

And ruby keeps exaggerating the situation claiming "record numbers" are arriving, when the numbers are clearly way down on the record. 

ruby does not want to acknowledge the numbers are way down because ruby wants the numbers to be high so that he can justify his permanent whining about them.

ruby would rather make obvious bullshit claims about the numbers being at record levels than admit that they are being slowly brought under control.

[rowlf]

2 hours ago, Lynn and John said:

It doesn't look like there is much enforcement by the French police to us. Andy Pandy Burnham should be giving the French government the riot act.

I wonder how so many UK citizens can watch this and show no concern that this is happening, and possibly continue to happen for who knows how long.

Three women and a 4 yo child. The rest military aged men. And an intellectual bunch at that.

I just wonder where they got the money to pay for the trip.

I'm glad I have a POTUS that will fight for the people.

Too many think it is a compassionate thing to do.

I believe it's the tail wagging the dog.

[Alteredbhoy]

3 hours ago, Lynn and John said:

It doesn't look like there is much enforcement by the French police to us. Andy Pandy Burnham should be giving the French government the riot act.

 

Haha

Chris Philp whose first Government role was two years being responsible for Immigration Compliance during the Boris Wave of mass immigration and record levels of Channel crossings.

[c_cubed51]

1 hour ago, Lynn and John said:

Most UK citizens are angry about the small boat immigrant invasion. This forum doesn't reflect the opinions of most normal UK citizens. The opinions of anti British posters such as Awkwardbhoy are most certainly in the minority.

This piece of unsubstantiated codswallop from our resident miseryguts reminds me of the following Giles cartoon:

[ruby]

2 hours ago, Lynn and John said:

Andy Pandy has decided to go on holiday after just 2 weeks into his new job leaving nobody in charge because there is no deputy prime minister.  God help us.

No big deal, he didn't do much anyway.

[rowlf]

3 hours ago, Lynn and John said:

Andy Pandy has decided to go on holiday after just 2 weeks into his new job leaving nobody in charge because there is no deputy prime minister.  God help us.

 

48 minutes ago, ruby said:

No big deal, he didn't do much anyway.

From an ignorant foreigner's perspective, I believe things will happen without him. Same as Stymie.

It's called 'Getting caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea.' I'm sorry I have to tell you that.

[Alteredbhoy]

6 hours ago, ruby said:

No big deal, he didn't do much anyway.

What do you think he should have done in his first two weeks as Prime Minister, that he hasn't done?

[c_cubed51]

9 hours ago, Lynn and John said:

Andy Pandy has decided to go on holiday after just 2 weeks into his new job leaving nobody in charge because there is no deputy prime minister.  God help us.

6 hours ago, ruby said:

No big deal, he didn't do much anyway.

6 hours ago, rowlf said:

 

From an ignorant foreigner's perspective, I believe things will happen without him. Same as Stymie.

It's called 'Getting caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea.' I'm sorry I have to tell you that.

Three prejudiced, discriminatory and antagonistic people with nothing worthwhile to contribute.

[Alteredbhoy]

9 minutes ago, Lynn and John said:

Resign

So you can't think of a single sensible thing that he might have done, but hasn't. But your prejudice against Labour means you have to criticise him, even if you don't know why.

[ruby]

1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

So you can't think of a single sensible thing that he might have done, but hasn't. But your prejudice against Labour means you have to criticise him, even if you don't know why.

There is a hundred and one things he could have done. Fortunately it appears his master plan is falling apart along with the "bounce".

[c_cubed51]

17 minutes ago, ruby said:

There is a hundred and one things he could have done. Fortunately it appears his master plan is falling apart along with the "bounce".

Again, a 'nothing' contribution. Such bitterness!

[ruby]

14 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

Again, a 'nothing' contribution. Such bitterness!

Well for a start he could have not blocked the Conservative amendment to prolong Parliament for one day so they could question him on his policies. He has been avoiding the press just cosying up to his mate Lineker or Laura on the BBC because he knew they wouldn't ask any probing questions. Then of course there are the boats, yes AB thinks they are dropping but they aren't and most sensible people know that. Then we have the energy situation and BP. Do I need to go on?

[c_cubed51]

1. The House of Commons broke for the summer recess on Thursday 16 July, right on schedule. The House of Lords adjourned on Thursday 23 July, again, right on schedule. Both will reconvene on 1 September.

2. You continue to insist that the number of illegals crossing the channel in boats is not dropping, when empirical evidence clearly shows they have dropped by around 40%. What is wrong with you?

3. Explain what Mr Burnham ought to do about BP and the energy situation. I thought you would be pleased that BP is moving away from renewable energy sources, back towards fossil fuels.

Perhaps you do need to come up with something Mr Burnham really ought to have done, instead of moaning about stuff like the above.

[Sparkler]

1 hour ago, ruby said:

Well for a start he could have not blocked the Conservative amendment to prolong Parliament for one day so they could question him on his policies. He has been avoiding the press just cosying up to his mate Lineker or Laura on the BBC because he knew they wouldn't ask any probing questions. Then of course there are the boats, yes AB thinks they are dropping but they aren't and most sensible people know that. Then we have the energy situation and BP. Do I need to go on?

Clearly the PM has been taking lessons from trump and farage about having “interviews” with friendly “media”… when they get a difficult question, they stomp out like a petulant kid!

Oil companies making massive profits off rising prices? Surely not? Well we all know who we can thank for that don’t we. Is that strait open yet?

Its getting like dealing with Rowlf 🙄.

[ruby]

20 minutes ago, Sparkler said:

Clearly the PM has been taking lessons from trump and farage about having “interviews” with friendly “media”… when they get a difficult question, they stomp out like a petulant kid!

Oil companies making massive profits off rising prices? Surely not? Well we all know who we can thank for that don’t we. Is that strait open yet?

Its getting like dealing with Rowlf 🙄.

That's ok then, when BP leave the UK and move to the US, we no longer will receive the tax they pay, we can celebrate. They can declare their ill gained profits somewhere else and pay their tax there. Of course you as an individual will be making up the tax difference because the country needs that money to survive. I learn long ago if a company doesn't make profits jobs are at risk, but then you are probably thinking why should I worry, it is not me.

[c_cubed51]

16 minutes ago, ruby said:

I learn long ago if a company doesn't make profits jobs are at risk, 

This is true. What is upsetting is that BP's profits are obscene. But you have not explained what the PM is supposed to do about the situation. As Sparkler points out, the person to blame is the Orange Idiot. 

BTW - what is wrong with you, that you continue to deny that the number of illegals crossing the channel by boat has fallen by 40%?

2 hours ago, ruby said:

Then of course there are the boats, yes AB thinks they are dropping but they aren't and most sensible people know that. 

 

Edited August 5 by c_cubed51

[rowlf]

1 hour ago, c_cubed51 said:

1. The House of Commons broke for the summer recess on Thursday 16 July, right on schedule. The House of Lords adjourned on Thursday 23 July, again, right on schedule. Both will reconvene on 1 September.

2. You continue to insist that the number of illegals crossing the channel in boats is not dropping, when empirical evidence clearly shows they have dropped by around 40%. What is wrong with you?

3. Explain what Mr Burnham ought to do about BP and the energy situation. I thought you would be pleased that BP is moving away from renewable energy sources, back towards fossil fuels.

Perhaps you do need to come up with something Mr Burnham really ought to have done, instead of moaning about stuff like the above.

Always asking the inane questions. I have ay least one thing and the very first thing he should he could have done. Forgive me if I moan. He could have met the boat we saw loaded with illegals on the French coast and turned it around.

And if the HMS Dragin' is seaworthy by know, promise that your boat shall escort the boat from whence it came. But before doing so, take in custody the ringleaders to make an example of those to do the dirty work of others. You know, like you imprisoned the mother for suggesting the illegal cesspools should be burned to the ground.

However, blaming Andy is futile. He's just doing what he's told to do.

Undocumented migrants continue to depart from the northern coast of France to reach the United Kingdom via small boats across the English Channel, a route that has seen over 200,000 successful crossings since 2018. Despite major multi-million dollar agreements between London and Paris to stop the crossings, the crisis remains a highly volatile, active political and humanitarian issue.

[ruby]

4 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

This is true. What is upsetting is that BP's profits are obscene. But you have not explained what the PM is supposed to do about the situation. As Sparkler points out, the person to blame is the Orange Idiot. 

BTW - what is wrong with you, that you continue to deny that the number of illegals crossing the channel by boat has fallen by 40%?

 

BP profits aren't obscene they are profits, next year they could have a drilling rig explode and lose a fortune. It is called business, you wouldn't understand that you have never worked for a company that has to make profit. My old company made a fortune in the 1980s, last couple of years it has lost billions. VW did the same, unfortunately for a 100,000 workers in Germany they won't have a job next year. They are probably wishing their company made ad obscene profit. The German Government probably feels the same as it struggles with the loss of building tax and tax from those 100,000 people. Sadly life is not a magic money tree. It doesn't matter about the illegals dropping by 40% as someone said with a water leak, would you accept if a plumber said "I fixed it, it is only a drip" it will still flood just take longer.

[rowlf]

5 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

This is true. What is upsetting is that BP's profits are obscene. But you have not explained what the PM is supposed to do about the situation. As Sparkler points out, the person to blame is the Orange Idiot. 

You could have been pumping your own oil. But I have a feeling you would be paying the same, or more. There doesn't appear to be a limit as to the burden your their gov will place on the citizens.

[rowlf]

4 minutes ago, ruby said:

BP profits aren't obscene they are profits, next year they could have a drilling rig explode and lose a fortune. It is called business, you wouldn't understand that you have never worked for a company that has to make profit. 

Therein lies the problem. How can he understand if he has never been in that position?

I don't think street pastoring counts. Rumors have it the scholars are paid in dubees.

[ruby]

2 hours ago, rowlf said:

Therein lies the problem. How can he understand if he has never been in that position?

I don't think street pastoring counts. Rumors have it the scholars are paid in dubees.

I know I do wonder who pays his wages. BP is lost, Labour with its insane policy on drilling and tax has killed the golden goose that subsides taxes, I imagine the rest will follow. In Dagenham many years ago Ford shut the Fiesta production line and moved it to Germany. You wouldn't believe have many things shut within that area, cafes, pubs. People used to come off shift at unsocial hours of the day and need feeding. Never mind though, we have all those profits from the wind turbines and solar cell, oh wait a minute, we subsidise those and most of the equipment comes from China in one form or another.

[Alteredbhoy]

2 hours ago, ruby said:

It doesn't matter about the illegals dropping by 40% as someone said with a water leak, would you accept if a plumber said "I fixed it, it is only a drip" it will still flood just take longer.

What a facile and quite frankly stupid analogy.

Water is an inanimate object with no agency in the plumbing process. The plumber simply uses natural and physical laws to control the water. The water will simply obey the laws. It won't start running uphill. It won't start trying to deceive the plumber, or waiting for the plumber to leave before making it's move.

A more appropriate analogy would be to compare the attempts to stem the migrants to the work of the software engineers at a car manufacturer. The engineers are trying to make the cars less likely to break down or be involved in accidents. You wouldn't say that if the engineers reduced breakdowns by 40%, it was insignificant. I'm sure that the cars you worked on broke down. By your analogy, that makes you a failure.

[Alteredbhoy]

5 hours ago, c_cubed51 said:

2. You continue to insist that the number of illegals crossing the channel in boats is not dropping, when empirical evidence clearly shows they have dropped by around 40%. What is wrong with you?

The problem is that he isn't as intelligent as he likes to portray himself and he is aware of it. It causes him a degree of insecurity.

It shows in his habit of simply making stuff up to justify his position in any argument that he is losing.

So he makes up false and untrue claims like the BBC not reporting a racial murder because the victim was white. Or the UK being unable to generate renewable energy in the winter, when we generate more in the winter than the summer. Or EVs illegally having asbestos in their brakes. Or Ngozi Fulani having a recording device on her in the Palace when she was racially abused. Or solar panels ceasing to work when the sun is too bright. Or unemployment, government borrowing and migrant crossings all being at record levels, when they are nowhere near record levels. Or all those indicators rising when they are actually falling.

It's quite sad really, that he feels so insecure in his own knowledge that he feels the need to resort to fabrications and lies to justify his opinions, rather than acknowledging that his opinions are founded on ignorance.

[ruby]

4 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

The problem is that he isn't as intelligent as he likes to portray himself and he is aware of it. It causes him a degree of insecurity.

It shows in his habit of simply making stuff up to justify his position in any argument that he is losing.

So he makes up false and untrue claims like the BBC not reporting a racial murder because the victim was white. Or the UK being unable to generate renewable energy in the winter, when we generate more in the winter than the summer. Or EVs illegally having asbestos in their brakes. Or Ngozi Fulani having a recording device on her in the Palace when she was racially abused. Or solar panels ceasing to work when the sun is too bright. Or unemployment, government borrowing and migrant crossings all being at record levels, when they are nowhere near record levels. Or all those indicators rising when they are actually falling.

It's quite sad really, that he feels so insecure in his own knowledge that he feels the need to resort to fabrications and lies to justify his opinions, rather than acknowledging that his opinions are founded on ignorance.

I really love your posts. Seeing as we are into insults today, it highlights how stupid you are. As to the rest well it is so wrong that I will ignore it. We are really bring up the golden oldies, which are completely wrong. What about Naga you missed her, but then the BBC finally realised what a liability she was. It took them a while though. The whole post is full of lies but then most of us know that about you. Try something new. One out ten for effort.

[Alteredbhoy]

15 minutes ago, ruby said:

I really love your posts. Seeing as we are into insults today, it highlights how stupid you are. As to the rest well it is so wrong that I will ignore it. We are really bring up the golden oldies, which are completely wrong. What about Naga you missed her, but then the BBC finally realised what a liability she was. It took them a while though. The whole post is full of lies but then most of us know that about you. Try something new. One out ten for effort.

Haha, so which of the things that I claimed you said did you not say?

Pointing out that you lie repeatedly is not an insult. It is simply a statement of fact.

Edited August 5 by Alteredbhoy

[c_cubed51]

6 hours ago, ruby said:

Well for a start ... we have the energy situation and BP. Do I need to go on?

You have written a whole heap of stuff, and yet failed to explain what Andy Burnham is supposed to have done about the energy situation and BP.

Over to you.

[rowlf]

10 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Haha, so which of the things that I claimed you said did you not say?

Talk to me, you gutless wonder.

[ruby]

2 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

You have written a whole heap of stuff, and yet failed to explain what Andy Burnham is supposed to have done about the energy situation and BP.

Over to you.

Go work it out for yourself, there are enough pointers out there. What is it with you, you always want a link then when I give one you spend the next few posts criticising it. For one final time DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH LIKE I DO. I stopped telling you anything useful ages ago. Get you know it all mate to tell you, of course it will be a pack of lies. Has he applied to Cambridge University, seems they take anyone now. I am sure I can find a PhD thesis he can copy.

[c_cubed51]

1 minute ago, ruby said:

Go work it out for yourself, there are enough pointers out there. 

I am not the one who made the claim. The onus is on you to back up the remark you made. I submit that you are unable to do so.

Prove me wrong.

[Alteredbhoy]

3 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

I am not the one who made the claim. The onus is on you to back up the remark you made. I submit that you are unable to do so.

Prove me wrong.

It's a really strange debating style that he adopts. He states his opinion that Burnham should have done something, but when asked what, he says to look it up on Google. He isn't prepared to state his opinion of what Burnham should have done, but expects others to find his opinion on Google.

It's clear that he hasn't a clue what he thinks Burnham might have done, but wants to criticise him for not doing it.

He's a total fool and way out of his depth on this forum.

[c_cubed51]

1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

It's a really strange debating style that he adopts. He states his opinion that Burnham should have done something, but when asked what, he says to look it up on Google. He isn't prepared to state his opinion of what Burnham should have done, but expects others to find his opinion on Google.

It's clear that he hasn't a clue what he thinks Burnham might have done, but wants to criticise him for not doing it.

He's a total fool and way out of his depth on this forum.

What I find utterly confusing is his obvious support for BP, whilst having suggested that Burnham should have done something about "... the energy situation and BP."

5 hours ago, ruby said:

BP profits aren't obscene they are profits, ... It is called business, you wouldn't understand that you have never worked for a company that has to make profit. 

I assumed he was of the opinion that Burnham ought to have done something to bring down energy prices and curb the profits of companies such as BP, or at least raise the amount of tax BP pays. But no, it seems ruby believes the complete opposite, that the threat of increasing the amount of taxes that BP pays is what has caused the company to put its North Sea Oil business up for sale.

2 hours ago, ruby said:

 BP is lost, Labour with its insane policy on drilling and tax has killed the golden goose that subsides taxes, 

However, BP claims the decision is based on the unprofitability of continuing to drill for oil in the North Sea. Pumping for our own oil is not economically sound.

But who am I to argue? Luke 12:33 makes more sense to me than does the love of money.