Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • davemorton
    • By davemorton 30th Nov 18, 12:43 PM
    • 27,221Posts
    • 325,375Thanks
    davemorton
    Elite: Is this table taken please?
    • #1
    • 30th Nov 18, 12:43 PM
    Elite: Is this table taken please? 30th Nov 18 at 12:43 PM
    Just looking for a spare quiet table in the corner of the arms for a few exiled elite to chat, is this table free please?
    “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
    Juvenal, The Sixteen Satires
Page 628
    • Enterprise 1701C
    • By Enterprise 1701C 11th Nov 19, 8:34 AM
    • 22,011 Posts
    • 221,794 Thanks
    Enterprise 1701C
    Good morning all, blue sky here.

    Hope to ice the Christmas cake today

    Thanks for the stone cold sleazy, though it was too old to even microwave, made one afresh

    I know TM has played the quiz tweets, how regularly she does so I do not know.
    What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare
    • Sleazy
    • By Sleazy 11th Nov 19, 10:07 AM
    • 19,027 Posts
    • 40,941 Thanks
    Sleazy
    8 in the quiz for me today.
    I blame the man-flu ....
    Weekly Distance Walked 26 km / Total For Year 1361 km

    Quod scripsi, scripsi
    • bubbs
    • By bubbs 11th Nov 19, 4:09 PM
    • 56,907 Posts
    • 648,960 Thanks
    bubbs
    Afternoon all
    Bit chilly today, the wind is cold, colder than it was at 6.30 this morning!
    Sealed pot challenge number 242 £350 for 2015, 2016 £400 Actual£345, £400 for 2017 Actual £500 £770 for 2018 £1295 for 2019
    Stopped Smoking 22/01/15
    :- 5 st 1 1/2lb
    • tweets
    • By tweets 11th Nov 19, 4:53 PM
    • 34,141 Posts
    • 446,628 Thanks
    tweets
    Good morning all, blue sky here.

    Hope to ice the Christmas cake today

    Thanks for the stone cold sleazy, though it was too old to even microwave, made one afresh

    I know TM has played the quiz tweets, how regularly she does so I do not know.
    Originally posted by Enterprise 1701C
    Glad she plays it must not play when I look unless she under a different name
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • bubbs
    • By bubbs 11th Nov 19, 6:09 PM
    • 56,907 Posts
    • 648,960 Thanks
    bubbs
    26th tweets
    Black Friday offer - 25% off Tu Clothing (leak) - Includes Clothing & Accesories online & instore
    Sealed pot challenge number 242 £350 for 2015, 2016 £400 Actual£345, £400 for 2017 Actual £500 £770 for 2018 £1295 for 2019
    Stopped Smoking 22/01/15
    :- 5 st 1 1/2lb
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 11th Nov 19, 6:13 PM
    • 21,671 Posts
    • 270,408 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    I've heard "next to all staff will be kept" (in relation to British Steel).

    In other words, some staff will lose their jobs. That's what I am interpreting it as - Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Andrea Leadsom telling us she has received the above assurance. I know I am cynical, but if she meant "all", she would or should have said "all". As it is, "next to all", to me - she doesn't want to announce that there will be some job losses.
    • Sunshinemummy
    • By Sunshinemummy 11th Nov 19, 7:06 PM
    • 16,860 Posts
    • 198,982 Thanks
    Sunshinemummy
    I've heard "next to all staff will be kept" (in relation to British Steel).

    In other words, some staff will lose their jobs. That's what I am interpreting it as - Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Andrea Leadsom telling us she has received the above assurance. I know I am cynical, but if she meant "all", she would or should have said "all". As it is, "next to all", to me - she doesn't want to announce that there will be some job losses.
    Originally posted by Savvybuyer
    Aren't the UK government still providing aid to China.... whilst they buy huge amounts of the UK....something wrong!
    10
    • Sarahdol75
    • By Sarahdol75 11th Nov 19, 7:16 PM
    • 7,257 Posts
    • 93,595 Thanks
    Sarahdol75
    Evening.

    Its sooo cold.
    • tweets
    • By tweets 11th Nov 19, 7:36 PM
    • 34,141 Posts
    • 446,628 Thanks
    tweets
    26th tweets
    Black Friday offer - 25% off Tu Clothing (leak) - Includes Clothing & Accesories online & instore
    Originally posted by bubbs
    Thank you bubbs
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • Sleazy
    • By Sleazy 11th Nov 19, 8:03 PM
    • 19,027 Posts
    • 40,941 Thanks
    Sleazy
    Weekly Distance Walked 26 km / Total For Year 1361 km

    Quod scripsi, scripsi
    • Sleazy
    • By Sleazy 11th Nov 19, 8:21 PM
    • 19,027 Posts
    • 40,941 Thanks
    Sleazy
    Weekly Distance Walked 26 km / Total For Year 1361 km

    Quod scripsi, scripsi
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 11th Nov 19, 11:24 PM
    • 21,671 Posts
    • 270,408 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Aren't the UK government still providing aid to China.... whilst they buy huge amounts of the UK....something wrong!
    Originally posted by Sunshinemummy
    It looks like development aid was stopped in 2011 but other aid (total nearly £47 million) was being sent in 2016 - other Government departments were picking up the spend for the International Development Department instead and sending £2.6 million more between them the year before. This according to the Daily Mail (a Tory newspaper as well):
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5658151/Why-Britain-gives-47MILLION-China-foreign-aid-despite-promise-stop-eight-years-ago.html

    Another broken Tory promise it appeared. This, an article from eight years before and look how the newspapers write it - headline "UK terminates development aid to China and Russia" as if it had immediately already happened on the publication of the story as opposed to being a wait-and-see if this promise is ever kept, as we can never be sure with the Government:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jun/16/development-aid-uk-china-russia

    The headline appears to be an accurate reflection of what has happened, at least in relation to China (I have not looked into Russia as that wasn't mentioned in the original question, then again not everything below was in the question either). However, the headline is misleading as to what the article then appears to say. It opens by mentioning "aid", rather than development aid in "Britain is to stop giving aid to China and Russia as part of a government plan to target financial help to the world's poorest nations, the development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, said today."

    This appears to have been technically true as it seems to report a fact that that was what the then Development Secretary said, however what the then Development Secretary said seems to have been misleading as the promise to stop giving "aid" was not met. The two paragraph quotations attributed to him in the article then each mention "aid" not "development aid" and although it was a statement from the Development Secretary it seems to have been misleading as it wasn't clarified to be development aid only and instead he doesn't seem to have said well my department is stopping but the money is going to be sent by other departments instead - seems therefore to be misleading to me!

    The statement quoted in the strapline also appears to be misleading - 'Money should be spent helping the poorest people in the poorest countries,' says development secretary Andrew Mitchell.

    If we assume the stopping of development aid to China (I am assuming it hasn't been resumed since 2016) meant that sending to China was considered not to be sending to "the poorest people in the poorest countries", then it is misleading and a broken promise to still be sending aid to China (namely aid that falls outside of "development aid" and/or is sent by (or via - I have closed off that loophole!) departments other than International Development).

    Britain appears to be the only country in the G8 to send at least 0.7% of its GDP in foreign aid, even though I actually agree with sending at least this amount (although it might get less value if Brexit causes GDP to grow less quickly).

    This from the Daily Mail too.
    In fact, before I go there, first guess who the "father" in this case is. The Court of Appeal in 2013 said (emphasis is mine):
    The "fade factor" relied on by Mr Price carries little weight in this case. First, much that has been published by the media in relation to the claimant's paternity remains available online. It is also included in [spoiler removed], a book written by Sonia Purnell. Secondly, the permanent injunction sought by the claimant would only restrain the defendant from referring to the information, although many other media organisations have published the same thing. Thirdly, it is fanciful to expect the public to forget the fact that the man who is said to be the claimant's father, and who is a major public figure, has fathered a child after a brief adulterous affair (not for the first time). Nor are they likely to forget the outline facts of the story including the identity of the mother. The mother accepted in cross-examination that any woman who embarked on an affair with the father was "playing with fire" (day 3 p 90) and that such an affair was bound to attract "very considerable media attention in both the national media and the London press" (day 3 p 91). As Mr Browne puts it, once it was out, there could be no question of returning it to obscurity.

    Conclusion
    For all these reasons, and on the defendant giving the undertaking to which I have referred at para 50 above, I would dismiss this appeal. The judge carefully considered all the issues and reached a conclusion which is beyond challenge. It is not in dispute that the legitimate public interest in the father's character is an important factor to be weighed in the balance against the claimant's expectation of privacy. The core information in this story, namely that the father had an adulterous affair with the mother, deceiving both his wife and the mother's partner and that the claimant, born about 9 months later, was likely to be the father's child, was a public interest matter which the electorate was entitled to know when considering his fitness for high public office."
    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/554.html

    You are entitled to know.

    Now the Mail article:
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328067/Boris-Johnsons-secret-lovechild-daughter-Stephanie-victory-publics-right-know.html

    Can't keep it down, we have a right to know what happened in the past as this looks highly relevant to character now. We don't actually know how many children our Prime Minister has as he won't tell us.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/21/boris-johnson-fathered-child-affair

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/37-lies-gaffes-scandals-make-18558695

    37 says the original link, but I have far more than that. I found around 37 false or misleading statements in his speech of under 9 minutes at Downing Street on 6 November alone. And also identified around 15 false or misleading statements in a five minute interview last week by Nadhim Zahawi. I thought virtually the entire interview throughout was just so untruthful. Hardly anything that is actually factually correct in it and misleading by omission statements given in it several times, although I suppose partial information is part of the job of politicians - it's for the opposing parties to give the other parts, though sometimes they don't do so and it just annoys me that the original politician is allowed to get away with all that without challenge on the vast majority of it - the newscasters do try but they don't know all the facts to hand on everything and if everything had been challenged on that interview, we would never have got more than one or two points. Eventually I just stop listening and just let their untruths keep coming with no way to stop them.

    The Mirror has upped to 43 lies, gaffes and scandals at the time of writing but I have far more. Broken promises everywhere - Johnson promises and then doesn't deliver. A track record of non-delivery/blaming others for the very thing he has done throughout.
    I originally noticed about 7 untruths in his Downing Street speech - the first in the sentence immediately after "Good afternoon" (I even almost had to check the time of day to see if he was correct about that). The first part of the sentence immediately after those two words was true (as I think he did see the Queen) but the second part I think was a lie. A couple of hours later BBC Reality Check made me aware of a further misleading part that I didn't know was wrong. He spoke of free ports and suggested they are a benefit of Brexit (the one that he campaigned for in the first place which never involved the checks down the Irish Sea that he now denies will be the case) - however the UK apparently had free ports as a member of the EU and last had one in 2012. So we can have these without leaving, thus not a benefit of Brexit.

    I think the other two benefits also fall down, as well as every, or almost every, promise in the speech. In my course of researching other parts of the speech, I found further parts that were misleading and further broken promises, such as the
    "an infrastructure revolution … gigabit broadband in every home" promise which has no specific end date failing to point out this has abandoned the previous unrealistic and unachievable pledge for full fibre for all by 2025 that he referred to in his first Downing Street speech. His "biggest programme of NHS investment in a generation" seems only true for recent years that the NHS is getting more money (as a result of Theresa May's plans) but it looks like this is a below average increase over the history of a generation. The 40 hospitals have not got money for building, it's only six that are getting upgrades to provide new buildings on existing sites - they are not completely new hospitals on new sites but money for building on existing ones. "Up to" 38 other hospitals have money to develop plans for upgrades over the next five years but not for any actual building works. It is just repetitive playing of a broken record - I could form a Prime Minister's speech from him merely from splicing together the same slogan sentences he repeats again and again - nothing new in anything, it seems, just repeats of the same misleading statements and broken pledges until eventually they are faded away.

    There was also a separate row earlier in the year over whether more money for the NHS was "new" or not. Money is going in next year but more has already come out due to urgent repairs in a recent 12 month period. I did start writing the figures and more detail but I have got rid of that as I think people have all lost any interest in largely meaningless figures. In short, don't believe any pledge you hear from him or his ministers as it seems it is all either misleading or needs more context to it and the Opposition are probably providing a better offer, whilst he is dressing his up to make it look good.

    It also seems he may be about to go back on what he said in July when he claimed he would not nominate a UK Commissioner to the EU: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/11/boris-johnson-expected-break-pledge-not-nominate-eu-commissioner-brexit

    Instead of more figures at the moment, I need to add more to the original post as further was said than I heard earlier. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (in charge of the Department that it seems a few years ago sent the most of UK aid to China) also said that medium to long term, it was "likely" that there would be an expansion in jobs. It was near all current ones that would be kept. So it depends, it seems to me, what they are expanding into because, even if there is an expansion, some current ones may go or might not be in areas expanded into and, whether there are fewer that go than are created elsewhere, the total figures don't matter to individual people that lose their jobs: at the end it doesn't matter if yours is one of the fewer jobs that is lost and you're not in the expanded area.

    As to China buying huge amounts of the UK, it may be China, USA and everywhere non-EU able to do so as the UK the weaker party that desperately needs the deals after leaving the EU, weaker as one country than as part of 28 and currently able to benefit from the trade deals that the EU has, and thus may have to take whatever it can get from the others - has, predictably perhaps, already failed to get many rollover trade deals, no need for Canada to do a trade deal with us after the no deal tariff proposals of 0% were proposed, so it may be everywhere else buying huge parts of the UK as well as Macron able to get what he wants of the UK through the withdrawal deal that, from the point of view of France, is very clever on his part as leaves us having to accept what France wants in some respects. So much for having a "successful" and "strong" economy in this country.

    I think I will abandon being objective, although I still say it is because the truth is on my side and the rest is all lies. As such it has got me to feel so strongly against it that I do need to point my point and stick by it. I am not objective - I am biased. I have an opinion (several of them, to be pushed because they are right). It is an issue of trust, and with all the lies, we know whom we can't trust. The Conservative Party clearly tweeting things that are false and they just seem to be making things up, probably because they are. I may return to this at some point because I actually didn't think their tweeted "fake news" was fake news to me, because when I saw it it came across as obviously untrue and then I thought another party was worse, shouldn't have done that, but at the end it is a matter of trust and I don't have any at all in the Tories as virtually everything they say seems to be (and then I find it is) untrue, whilst the other parties are largely telling the truth and (sadly perhaps) not beating them at their own game as not wanting a negative campaign (can put people off) and actually restraining themselves whilst the Tories just make things up.

    They know there are no rules about politicians. They can lie as much as they like in this context - people do believe them and are getting taken in by it, the light voter that hears the stuff that filters through from repetition and isn't the detail so that they don't know it is untrue. Yes people do say politicians lie, but actually (apart from this bunch on one side only) they don't lie all the time, when they do, there are lots of people who believe them and then inevitably will be let down when the promised undeliverable thing will not materialise (because the facts said it would not do so all along) and worse still there isn't an offence of misconduct that applies because that was suggested to involve some element of covering up to it - whereas because the lies are out in the open, apparently that's fine - to me, it is even worse as they are in greater circulation and more people able to believe them when they are openly distributed rather than being more secret. Any other job you'd be sacked (and Mr Johnson has been at least twice), making things up and deceiving former partners as found by the courts, he will deceive you if you accept what he says.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-50184281
    "They define narcissists as being likely to 'engage in risky behaviour, hold an unrealistic superior view of themselves, are over-confident, show little empathy for others, and have little shame or guilt'.
    With such negative qualities, the researchers wanted to know why narcissism seemed to be so visible and often rewarded rather than penalised."

    It seems to me because people like to believe their lies are true because they make them feel good, appear to be good and narcissists are experts in making things look good.

    This I think (even though I have no experience of the problems of relationships, since, as an autistic people, I manage to avoid such things) sums it up.

    "They might have trampled over others and left a trail of emotional damage around them - but narcissists also seem to be insulated against feeling bad about themselves."

    Such as the brief periods of twice adultery and then quickly dump people. Others suffer their emotional twisting and misuse and are made to carry the blame by the narcissist taking none and buy using them ruthlessly for their own ends. They are happier because they have no shame. The people currently being used - or attempted to be used and I hope it doesn't work but it probably will - are the electorate. It's because he doesn't seem the nasty, manipulative individual that he is and perhaps comes across as bumbling (I have no idea on the latter aspect as I don't know how things come across) that he seems so benign when he is not.

    If it were an attempt on character assassination or lies on my part, both of which I could never really know how to succeed in doing, it would be based on rumours, gossip and unsubstantiated information and tittle-tattle from any Jo Public on the internet, rather than references to court judgements and reliable information from reputable sources of news and academic researchers. If people think it is cynical to present this at an election time, it is not, instead it is being presented at the most vital time for it to be presented and it would not be able to be presented had no-one committed any adultery in the first place. People may of course dig things up about the Opposition, that seem to have been presented far more widely of late, but this is part of a character assassination especially by the right-wing press as based on what someone said decades ago rather than any actual ruling and, after identifying Johnson's claim that Corbyn and Labour "sided with Putin" over the Skripal incident as one of needing to look into to see if it had validity, and not being aware of much of the facts around this allegation, I have looked into it and found it to be misleading. They didn't actually side with Putin - they may not have had evidence that the Government had and therefore were requesting the evidence and arguably carrying out the functions of what the Opposition should do. It is clear Corbyn condemned the Skripal incident. It's been taken out of context and presented to suggest something that it was not. If anyone has any claims made by Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else that they want me to try to look into, let me know.

    Alternatively or additionally, if anyone wants me to revisit any of my judgements, please present me with the reasons why you think I should and I will have a look into any facts you present, that you think I may have omitted to consider, and I will see if I keep my original judgement or whether I might want to revise it and possibly decide something else instead.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 12-11-2019 at 2:15 AM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 11th Nov 19, 11:34 PM
    • 21,671 Posts
    • 270,408 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Originally posted by Sleazy
    So much to take issue with there! Despite the asterisk footnote, although I will not fall for the bait at the moment. Instead the answer to misinformation may be to move on and put the irrelevant story that I want to put instead, so that everyone else is then trying to defend against that and then, if they fall for it, they are then on my terms. That's how the framing approach works.

    Instead of saying things are misleading and thus drawing attention to and driving more traffic to the original claims and sites, I need to put my point of view and repeat it incessantly no matter how stark the claim and regardless of whether or not it is true.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 11-11-2019 at 11:36 PM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 12th Nov 19, 2:24 AM
    • 21,671 Posts
    • 270,408 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Received an email which included this a week ago (I know, I'm getting round to it). Good way of avoiding answer questions (by any Government).

    "Because of the General Election, the closing date for the petition you signed has changed. All petitions now have to close at 00:01am on 6 November. This is because Parliament will be dissolved, which means all parliamentary business – including petitions – will come to an end until after the election. This means the petitions site will be closed and people will not be able to start or sign petitions.

    We’re sorry we weren’t able to give you more notice that this would happen.

    The petition will be available for people to read on the site even though it will be closed for signatures. This petition won’t be reopened after the election.

    The Government can’t respond to petitions during the election period. This means if the petition has over 10,000 signatures, it can’t receive a response from the current Government after 5 November. After the election, the new Government will have to decide whether it wants to respond to petitions from before the election."

    In fact Parliament debated the petition I signed and the Government already responded (the latter with a rambling statement of partially repetitive information that has since proven to be factually incorrect and that, even at the time, admitted, without saying it, that it was in the wrong and contradicted its own previous approach, providing, if it needed to, more evidence against it for the court case that was ongoing at the time and ended with a statement that doesn't prove what it says).
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 12-11-2019 at 2:31 AM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 12th Nov 19, 3:26 AM
    • 21,671 Posts
    • 270,408 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    https://fullfact.org/news/conservative-claim-labour-1-trillion/

    "The Conservatives actually used the wrong figure for the amount of revenue generated by private schools."

    Is this supposed to be from the Chancellor of the Exchequer? (He was making this inflated claim yesterday and claiming the fundamentals of the economy to be "strong" when there is lack of investment and the slowest annual growth for nearly a decade) Can we trust him, or them, to continue running public finances when they get such basic things wrong as using a wrong figure? They should go to the back of the class if they are going to produce "financial figures" like this. A new claim today, about an alleged cost per taxpayer - I am not circulating the number - is also inaccurate as it is based on this totalled up figure that counts up things it should not, assumes everything is immediately implemented on day one of a new government and fails to take into account, for example, any revenue raised by nationalised industries on a figure that gives no value to having their assets. This is also a distraction and intended to get an untruthful figure implanted in people's minds, through constant repetition over the next several weeks, regardless of whether it is true or not. I am in fact doing its work by giving it more attention - we need to look at real news and ignore things like this. The huge made-up figure must be called a lie because previous figures have been claimed over a year ago and found "The figure hasn't been confirmed, and we don't know what time period it covers, and whether it refers to spending increases compared to now, or total spending"* by Full Fact in the past, so therefore must be known to be unsubstantiated. In relation to total government spending over five years, it doesn't look as large as maybe a bald figure by itself, and one that is inflated, includes some double-counting and lots of other flaws, may.

    Some of the figures within it may be reasonable, but as some are double-counted or flawed, the final figure is unreasonable and simply wrong whatever turns out to be in the Opposition's manifesto.

    I do have Labour and the Liberal Democrats (sorry Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats) saying something that is worst case or which, shall we say, present in a different way to the original sources. Some were a week ago now and have been mentioned widely elsewhere: I may get to them eventually or it has now become belated. However, they are not as blatantly inflated and outlandish as this.

    I think the Conservatives' aim is try to get me outraged, so I will avoid being and I will move on instead. Best way is to look the other way, it's simply two separate false figures now and instead point out the incompetent calculation as well as move on to much else incompetent as well - such as the non-delivery of a government https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50296672 That was a "great track record of building" according to them. Zero. They don't care about us and we're paying the party to do nothing. Put out new figure for the number of extra doctors that, on the track record, I suspect we will not get as they are nowhere near to getting the ones they promised in 2015 would be delivered by next year. That will not happen - they are nowhere near to being able to achieve it.

    *I need to provide the link, although reluctant to do so as it gives more circulation to the claim: https://fullfact.org/economy/would-labour-borrow-trillion-pounds/
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 12-11-2019 at 3:56 AM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 12th Nov 19, 4:00 AM
    • 21,671 Posts
    • 270,408 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Originally posted by Sleazy
    I can confirm that however, so that is now is a "fact" according to the definition. (And, even if not, I can just use Humpty Dumpty and say that it is and therefore it is.) I can use the BBC's approach which is that a confirmation of what someone has said is provided merely because someone else says it is the case. Such as James Cleverly who "confirmed" last August https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49234594 that there would be an inquiry into Islamophobia in the Tory Party when it is a fact that one will not now take place. (I now notice other media also said he gave confirmation.)

    confirm
    [kənˈfəːm]

    VERB
    establish the truth or correctness of (something previously believed or suspected to be the case).

    It did no such thing at all. The alleged "confirmed" did not confirm anything: it did not establish the truth or correctness of the mere assertion and allegation that he gave that it would take place.

    establish
    [ɪˈstablɪʃ, ɛˈstablɪʃ]

    VERB
    3. show (something) to be true or certain by determining the facts.

    It did not show this to be the truth or that it was in any way certain and did not determine it to be a fact that it would happen.

    I dispute the whole argument that it did or ever did, and refute entirely that he ever "confirmed" anything or was ever capable of doing so and require anyone that asserts that it does to provide evidence that it does and does so without relying on anything that comes from themselves or any other human being whose equal assertion does not prove anything. He was capable of merely asserting that some such thing would happen, but none of that established or showed that it would - it has not determined anything and hasn't determined anything to be the truth or to be a true fact - and it has not in fact happened so the assertion contradicted by the facts that have shown themselves to be the case. I wouldn't trust anything he says.

    However, it has to be a "reliable" source. Presumably No 10 Downing Street is taken to be a reliable source whereas a member of the public like me is not.

    Therefore, in all this non-delivery record, I don't get disappointed when something isn't delivered because I am not drawn in to anything being "confirmed" at all and treat it as a mere assertion awaiting proof in being shown by being actually delivered and I expect all along that what was promised will turn out not to be the case. Others, I know, are comforted by the lies, evasions and promises. But I am not drawn in and expect untrue things to be the untrue things that they are and expect factually undeliverable things to be, well, never delivered.

    I don't like so-called factoids under your definition anyway. Because if something is unconfirmed, it is unconfirmed and thus has not become a fact* regardless of whether or not it has become - wrongly as ever - accepted as being something that in fact it is not. I am not doing this thing of things being what they are not, or not being something that in fact they undeniably are (barring and ruling out any denial made that simply denies the truth of the matter), even though 'everyone else' seems perfectly happy to deceive themselves in this way. No!! Not playing the game. Will call the elephant in the room out and embarrass everyone else because I am not putting up with this charade. I take this far too seriously. I accept only truth and the full and whole truth. A rare beacon I know.

    * if it has to be something, it is an unconfirmed piece of nonsense that purports to be a fact.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 12-11-2019 at 4:28 AM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 12th Nov 19, 4:28 AM
    • 21,671 Posts
    • 270,408 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    And I've just noticed - the apostrophe police as well!


    (There is a large circle I get the urge to put around that apostrophe towards the end of the heading.)

    • Enterprise 1701C
    • By Enterprise 1701C 12th Nov 19, 7:44 AM
    • 22,011 Posts
    • 221,794 Thanks
    Enterprise 1701C
    Good morning all, glorious morning here, a little on the cool side again though

    Have made a few as I seem to be first up at a reasonable time, help yourselves
    What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare
    • tweets
    • By tweets 12th Nov 19, 7:59 AM
    • 34,141 Posts
    • 446,628 Thanks
    tweets
    Good Morning

    Thanks for the Enterprise

    Wet and windy here again .
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • tweets
    • By tweets 12th Nov 19, 8:01 AM
    • 34,141 Posts
    • 446,628 Thanks
    tweets
    Boris was yesterday's smartest player!

    43 players played

    https://www.funtrivia.com/private/main.cfm?tid=99008

    Today's Topic (Tuesday): *** FunTrivia Mixed Bag (default)
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,286Posts Today

8,647Users online

Martin's Twitter