The Andy Burnham Thread

[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.

[Alteredbhoy]

15 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

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."

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.

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.

He's just criticising Burnham for the sake of criticising him, as he did to Starmer.

He criticises Burnham for not taking action over energy prices, which can realistically only be done in the short term by taxing the windfall. But you can be sure that if Burnham returns from his holidays and takes action to tax the windfall, ruby will be at the head of the queue to criticise him.

He takes up contradictory positions and when asked to explain them replies with a petulant "look it up on Google".

Edited August 5 by Alteredbhoy

[ruby]

9 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

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."

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.

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.

You obviously can't read, funny that seeing as you are an English teacher but there again with the revelations of Cambridge University that shouldn't be a surprise anymore. At least my degree was externally assessed, Polys used to do that, another reason for doing my degree there. The reasons are pretty obvious, as are the solutions. As I said I am not going to spoon feed you so you can criticise, there is enough information out there you can find it. Where do you think I find it. So go and do some research, you are always moaning I don't, well it appears you don't want to. Here is a clue 75% taxation. Of course the messiah of the North is on holiday for two weeks, so obviously he doesn't think it is important along with the boats.

[Love All Nylon]

On 31/07/2026 at 12:28, 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.

The UK is the land of milk, honey and benefits - why would illegal immigrants not take the chance of a small boat crossing?

Burnham is now on the case, which means precious little will be achieved. I think the number of new 'guests' has reached 2,000 since he became PM. It just cannot continue, but it does and will.

[Love All Nylon]

On 03/08/2026 at 19:20, c_cubed51 said:

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

Okay, in a few paragraphs please explain why you consider that undocumented illegal immigrants landing in our country, costing us billions so far, is something not to be concerned about?  I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.

 

[ruby]

28 minutes ago, Love All Nylon said:

Okay, in a few paragraphs please explain why you consider that undocumented illegal immigrants landing in our country, costing us billions so far, is something not to be concerned about?  I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.

 

Surely you know the answer? I doubt you will get an honest one.

[Love All Nylon]

1 minute ago, ruby said:

Surely you know the answer? I doubt you will get an honest one.

Just curious...

[ECCouple]

9 hours 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. 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.

VW is not laying off 100,000 people in Germany. Categorically not. Your arguments would carry more weight if you got your basic facts right. Maybe read your source material more carefully or, here’s an idea, read more than one source!

[ruby]

25 minutes ago, ECCouple said:

VW is not laying off 100,000 people in Germany. Categorically not. Your arguments would carry more weight if you got your basic facts right. Maybe read your source material more carefully or, here’s an idea, read more than one source!

Not yet, the initial going in point was a 100,000, they have been negotiating with the Unions to bring that down.

straight from the BBC: 

Volkswagen is considering cutting up to 100,000 jobs globally and closing four plants in Germany amid plunging profits, slow electric vehicle demand, and fierce competition from Chinese automakers. The sweeping overhaul has triggered massive worker protests and fierce resistance from the IG Metall union. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2wzpwn51lo

So before you fire abuse perhaps you should do a bit of reading yourself. So are you telling me the BBC is wrong, God forbid.

It all depends how many plants they shut. VW owns Skoda, Audi, Seat, Cupra, Porsche, Bentley and Lamborghini. The one in Berlin is due to close. If they shut plants that is big numbers.

So it might be 50,000 or 100,000 that won't be known until they have finished negotiating, 100,000 was the going in point.

So perhaps you would like to apologise.

 

 

 

 

[rowlf]

1 hour ago, ruby said:

Surely you know the answer? I doubt you will get an honest one.

It's what us Yanks call a 'no brainer'. Socialists and Commies will disagree. Proof? They have yet to reply to your question. It's some kind of a special society. They don't want anyone to know who they are......... officially. It would make them appear weak and 'less than'.

[c_cubed51]

6 hours ago, rowlf said:

It's what us Yanks call a 'no brainer'. Socialists and Commies will disagree. Proof? They have yet to reply to your question. It's some kind of a special society. They don't want anyone to know who they are......... officially. It would make them appear weak and 'less than'.

The people you call Socialists and Commies are a figment of your imagination, which is one reason no-one has replied to ruby overnight. Another is that people in the UK can sleep peacefully in their beds, unafraid of someone breaking and entering their homes. We have no need of a gun on our bedstands. It's people like that who appear to be weak and "less than".

[Alteredbhoy]

7 hours ago, ruby said:

Not yet, the initial going in point was a 100,000, they have been negotiating with the Unions to bring that down.

straight from the BBC: 

Volkswagen is considering cutting up to 100,000 jobs globally and closing four plants in Germany amid plunging profits, slow electric vehicle demand, and fierce competition from Chinese automakers. The sweeping overhaul has triggered massive worker protests and fierce resistance from the IG Metall union. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2wzpwn51lo

So before you fire abuse perhaps you should do a bit of reading yourself. So are you telling me the BBC is wrong, God forbid.

It all depends how many plants they shut. VW owns Skoda, Audi, Seat, Cupra, Porsche, Bentley and Lamborghini. The one in Berlin is due to close. If they shut plants that is big numbers.

So it might be 50,000 or 100,000 that won't be known until they have finished negotiating, 100,000 was the going in point.

So perhaps you would like to apologise.

 

 

 

 

That's more really comic dishonesty, ruby.

You start by saying 100,000 VW. Workers "won't have a job next year". When someone points out that the number of VW workers losing their job isn't 100,000, you concede that it maybe half that figure, but demand an apology for being corrected.

You are unbelievably dense, and unbelievably touchy about being corrected, despite the cavalier way you make things up.or exaggerate them.

There is a very obvious solution and it lies entirely in your hands.

[c_cubed51]

8 hours ago, Love All Nylon said:

Okay, in a few paragraphs please explain why you consider that undocumented illegal immigrants landing in our country, costing us billions so far, is something not to be concerned about?  I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.

This, from AI:

Polling indicates that a significant majority of the British public is frustrated or disapproves of the handling of small boat crossings. While the issue generates strong emotional responses regarding border control and fairness, public sentiment is complex, with varying opinions across different demographics and regions. [1, 2]

Research highlights that media coverage of these crossings often triggers immediate shifts in public perception. While a large portion of the population supports stricter enforcement or refusing asylum claims from those entering illegally, others—including various humanitarian organizations—advocate for establishing safe, legal routes and addressing the root causes of the migration. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The point of Giles' cartoon is that much of the hype around the issue is media-driven and that many people in society couldn't give a rat's behind about boat crossings. People on the right of the political spectrum are driven by prejudice, ignorance and fear, and an inability to put themselves into the shoes of those crossing the channel. Statistical facts do not sway their opinions. People on the left care about others. They tend to be more highly educated, literate and numerate. They appreciate that one needs to take a balanced view of the situation and not be transported by the media, especially right-wing channels like GBNews, into a state of irrational fear.

Now, as to your claim that those crossing the channel illegally have cost us billions so far, 

While small boat arrivals are highly visible, they represent only a portion of the broader irregular migration challenge: [1, 2]

• Small Boats vs. Total Migration: Small boat crossings account for roughly 5% of total immigration into the UK. [1]

• Visa Overstayers: The majority of undocumented people in the UK originally arrived via legal pathways (such as work, study, or family visas) and subsequently overstayed their legal limits or had applications withdrawn. [1, 2, 3]

• No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF): It is a common misconception that all undocumented migrants receive state benefits. Under UK law, individuals without legal status or those on temporary visas are subject to NRPF rules, legally blocking them from accessing mainstream welfare benefits like Universal Credit or Child Benefit. [1]

The small boat crossing issue, whilst I do not wish to deny its existence, is not the main reason the UK government spends those billions of pounds.

Try to keep calm, and do not let media outlets such as GBNews and politicians like Nigel Farage stir your emotions. Try to be like the Giles family in the cartoon. Get a dog or two, and a cat. Spend less time watching TV. Take regular naps. Talk to granny, and your kids and grandkids. Appreciate what you have.

 

[c_cubed51]

11 hours ago, ruby said:

At least my degree was externally assessed, Polys used to do that, another reason for doing my degree there. 

I hate to burst your bubble, but every institution of higher learning with which I was associated during my career used external moderators to ensure that their examination systems met the highest academic standards. I, myself, acted as an external moderator to several colleges of education back in the day.

Some of those institutions were (still are) far more prestigious than your poly, others probably on a par with it or arguably less so.

External moderation is the norm, ruby. And each year a book is published and circulated to all academic institutions, rating the academic standards achieved by all those institutions during the previous years.

[ECCouple]

7 hours ago, ruby said:

Not yet, the initial going in point was a 100,000, they have been negotiating with the Unions to bring that down.

straight from the BBC: 

Volkswagen is considering cutting up to 100,000 jobs globally and closing four plants in Germany amid plunging profits, slow electric vehicle demand, and fierce competition from Chinese automakers. The sweeping overhaul has triggered massive worker protests and fierce resistance from the IG Metall union. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2wzpwn51lo

So before you fire abuse perhaps you should do a bit of reading yourself. So are you telling me the BBC is wrong, God forbid.

It all depends how many plants they shut. VW owns Skoda, Audi, Seat, Cupra, Porsche, Bentley and Lamborghini. The one in Berlin is due to close. If they shut plants that is big numbers.

So it might be 50,000 or 100,000 that won't be known until they have finished negotiating, 100,000 was the going in point.

So perhaps you would like to apologise.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the opportunity to apologise, but I decline.

You stated that VW was cutting 100,000 jobs in Germany, and you presented it as settled fact. You were wrong to do so. Your statement was incorrect, as now admitted by you. 

[ruby]

1 hour ago, c_cubed51 said:

I hate to burst your bubble, but every institution of higher learning with which I was associated during my career used external moderators to ensure that their examination systems met the highest academic standards. I, myself, acted as an external moderator to several colleges of education back in the day.

Some of those institutions were (still are) far more prestigious than your poly, others probably on a par with it or arguably less so.

External moderation is the norm, ruby. And each year a book is published and circulated to all academic institutions, rating the academic standards achieved by all those institutions during the previous years.

They may do today, but that didn't in my day that was the major difference between a Polytechnic and a University.

[ruby]

1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

That's more really comic dishonesty, ruby.

You start by saying 100,000 VW. Workers "won't have a job next year". When someone points out that the number of VW workers losing their job isn't 100,000, you concede that it maybe half that figure, but demand an apology for being corrected.

You are unbelievably dense, and unbelievably touchy about being corrected, despite the cavalier way you make things up.or exaggerate them.

There is a very obvious solution and it lies entirely in your hands.

So it is the same old story. 5000 jobs loss is serious even if they agree on a lower number than 100,000, the rumours being a  lot less than that, it is still a huge loss. There again you don't think the boats are an issue, so why would the loss of 50,000 jobs cause an issue in your world. Since you are such a whizz kid with maths work out how much Government income will be lost. Of course don't forget that for every job in VW there will be several in component suppliers. Of course no issue, Germany can find the money off that magic money tree that guys like you think exists. 

[c_cubed51]

12 minutes ago, ruby said:

They may do today, but that didn't in my day that was the major difference between a Polytechnic and a University.

Not true, ruby. I'm talking decades ago! 

A quick Google search reveals that the concept of external moderation started at the University of Durham in 1832, spread to other British Universities in the 19 century, and eventually to other various higher education systems, both in the UK and internationally.

You are deluded, I'm afraid.

Edited August 6 by c_cubed51

[c_cubed51]

1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

That's more really comic dishonesty, ruby.

12 minutes ago, ruby said:

So it is the same old story. 5000 jobs loss is serious even if they agree on a lower number than 100,000, the rumours being a  lot less than that, it is still a huge loss. 

I'm reminded of the story of a woman, who, when asked if she would sleep with a man for GBP1 million, agreed to do so. However, when the man asked if she would sleep with him for GBP100, replied, "Certainly not! What do you think I am, a whore?"

to which the man replied, "We have already established that. Now we are negotiating the price."

You see, ruby, someone who steals an apple from the corner shop is as much  a thief as a person who steals millions of pounds.

It's the same with levels of dishonesty. You are as dishonest as #47.

[Sparkler]

13 hours ago, c_cubed51 said:

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."

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.

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.

Simply explained, there was going to be a rant about BP and profits, until somebody (ahem) pointed out that the reason for that would be somebody starting a war… and then we saw that dissent is verboten, and it became a back bending twisted argument, simply to avoid any criticism whatsoever of trump and the warmongering US.

🙄

[rowlf]

5 hours ago, c_cubed51 said:

The people you call Socialists and Commies are a figment of your imagination, which is one reason no-one has replied to ruby overnight. Another is that people in the UK can sleep peacefully in their beds, unafraid of someone breaking and entering their homes. We have no need of a gun on our bedstands. It's people like that who appear to be weak and "less than".

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

I say that the gov owns you. You say that people in the UK can sleep peacefully in their beds.

Tell that to the mother sentenced to prison for something called hate speech.

The boy that was stabbed to death while the officer was handcuffing him could have used a gun, The women raped by illegals could have damned well used a gun in her hands.

There will always be a ying to the yang.

[ruby]

4 hours ago, c_cubed51 said:

I'm reminded of the story of a woman, who, when asked if she would sleep with a man for GBP1 million, agreed to do so. However, when the man asked if she would sleep with him for GBP100, replied, "Certainly not! What do you think I am, a whore?"

to which the man replied, "We have already established that. Now we are negotiating the price."

You see, ruby, someone who steals an apple from the corner shop is as much  a thief as a person who steals millions of pounds.

It's the same with levels of dishonesty. You are as dishonest as #47.

Tell that rubbish to a guy in Germany that has just lost their job. I doubt you would get a very sensible response. My father got made redundant at 55, never got another job because he was too old. At that age the pension won't be much as you haven't paid enough in, but guys like you still keep spouting rubbish.

[Sparkler]

45 minutes ago, rowlf said:

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

If it walks like a criminal, talks like a criminal, then it’s probably the president of the USA. 🙄

46 minutes ago, rowlf said:

The boy that was stabbed to death while the officer was handcuffing him could have used a gun, The women raped by illegals could have damned well used a gun in her hands.

Yes Rowlf, let’s sacrifice 40,000 lives a year in the hope of saving 2. Clown.

In the USA the kid who was stabbed would have been shot by the cops before he was even cuffed. That or asphyxiated after being cuffed.

Why do you persist with this “raped by illegals” bollox when it’s been proven time after time that far more rapes are committed by those born in any given country.

And still no comment by you about the 44,000,000 women in the USA that have experienced rape of sexual violence in their lifetime. Just once again making yourself look foolish.

[c_cubed51]

25 minutes ago, ruby said:

Tell that rubbish to a guy in Germany that has just lost their job. I doubt you would get a very sensible response. My father got made redundant at 55, never got another job because he was too old. At that age the pension won't be much as you haven't paid enough in, but guys like you still keep spouting rubbish.

Tell that to someone who, in their 70s, can still get and hold down a job. People who don't do lifelong learning and who refuse to retrain, get stuck, as your father sadly did.

You deliberately obfuscate and ignore the thrust of my post. Someone who is even slightly dishonest, as you have been shown to be on numerous occasions, is just as dishonest as a chronic and habitual liar. 

No lies!

[rowlf]

5 hours ago, c_cubed51 said:

I'm reminded of the story of a woman, who, when asked if she would sleep with a man for GBP1 million, agreed to do so. However, when the man asked if she would sleep with him for GBP100, replied, "Certainly not! What do you think I am, a whore?"

to which the man replied, "We have already established that. Now we are negotiating the price."

You see, ruby, someone who steals an apple from the corner shop is as much  a thief as a person who steals millions of pounds.

It's the same with levels of dishonesty. You are as dishonest as #47.

You're getting desperate. And I think you get a mushy dreaming about #47.

[rowlf]

5 hours ago, c_cubed51 said:

Not true, ruby. I'm talking decades ago! 

A quick Google search reveals that the concept of external moderation started at the University of Durham in 1832, spread to other British Universities in the 19 century, and eventually to other various higher education systems, both in the UK and internationally.

You are deluded, I'm afraid.

Just a hint. Why don't you first say what time period you are talking about.

[ruby]

28 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

Tell that to someone who, in their 70s, can still get and hold down a job. People who don't do lifelong learning and who refuse to retrain, get stuck, as your father sadly did.

You deliberately obfuscate and ignore the thrust of my post. Someone who is even slightly dishonest, as you have been shown to be on numerous occasions, is just as dishonest as a chronic and habitual liar. 

No lies!

You are an idiot, haven't you heard of ageism, sure it is illegal but it still happens. According to the BBC it is more prominent now than it ever was. Go tell that to the steel worker in Port Talbot where there literally are no jobs. Sure if you are like me that has done training all their life not an issue but even then if the market is awash with your skill set, even then it is difficult. I notice you are still throwing the insults, you should know better and not be so bitter and twisted about the BP profits. So what they made a big profit, many other companies do as well. If you want to get upset look at how much Dale Vince creams off the Government in Net Zero subsidies without which his company would be totally unprofitable.