LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

rjsterry

From the Sunday Times.



I know this government doesn't do sackings, but Raab really is a waste of space.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

They weren't prioritised. It's mainly a row about things said on social media.

They were given a landing slot, somebody processed them into the airport and loaded them on the plane and it was given a taking off slot.

In my book they were prioritised over people left behind

rick_chasey

There seems to be a lot of brexiters in cabinet who are confused about whether the priory is Brexit or not

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

They weren't prioritised. It's mainly a row about things said on social media.

They were given a landing slot, somebody processed them into the airport and loaded them on the plane and it was given a taking off slot.

In my book they were prioritised over people left behind

I'm not sure Mr Farthing comes out of this very well, but the idea that if only they had stopped him evacuating his animals it would have made a difference in the face of the lack of preparation by the government seems a bit of a stretch. The whole process should have been started weeks if not months ago.

tailwindhome

rick_chasey said:

There seems to be a lot of brexiters in cabinet who are confused about whether the priory is Brexit or not

But.... Brexit's done?

morstar

Mr Farthing has absolutely nothing to apologise for.

He has tried to do what he perceives as right by his charges, be they human or animal.

If society disagrees with his priorities and his needs can not be accommodated in a desperate situation, that is also a legitimate decision.

You can’t criticise him for trying to do the right thing by the animals under his care.

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

They weren't prioritised. It's mainly a row about things said on social media.

They were given a landing slot, somebody processed them into the airport and loaded them on the plane and it was given a taking off slot.

In my book they were prioritised over people left behind

I'm not sure Mr Farthing comes out of this very well, but the idea that if only they had stopped him evacuating his animals would have made a difference in the face of the lack of preparation by the government seems a bit of a stretch.

Maybe not a large difference, but even time spent stopping him from loading dogs and cats is wasted time.

Jezyboy

morstar said:

Mr Farthing has absolutely nothing to apologise for.

He has tried to do what he perceives as right by his charges, be they human or animal.

If society disagrees with his priorities and his needs can not be accommodated in a desperate situation, that is also a legitimate decision.

You can’t criticise him for trying to do the right thing by the animals under his care.

“I just found out that is you blocking me getting this flight out of Afghanistan for my staff and the animals. So here’s the deal buddy. You either get me that fucking Isaf number and you get me permission to get on to that fucking airfield, or tomorrow morning I’m going to turn on you and the whole fucking country, and everybody else who’s invested in this rescue, is going to know it’s you, you, blocking this fucking move. Alright?”

Nah guys a tool.

Pross

I'm still not convinced by the animal welfare argument of taking them out to a country that already has thousands of animals looking to be re-homed.

rjsterry

Jezyboy said:

morstar said:

Mr Farthing has absolutely nothing to apologise for.

He has tried to do what he perceives as right by his charges, be they human or animal.

If society disagrees with his priorities and his needs can not be accommodated in a desperate situation, that is also a legitimate decision.

You can’t criticise him for trying to do the right thing by the animals under his care.

“I just found out that is you blocking me getting this flight out of Afghanistan for my staff and the animals. So here’s the deal buddy. You either get me that censored Isaf number and you get me permission to get on to that censored airfield, or tomorrow morning I’m going to turn on you and the whole censored country, and everybody else who’s invested in this rescue, is going to know it’s you, you, blocking this censored move. Alright?”

Nah guys a tool.

I'm sure you'd be the absolute model of composure and manners in similar circumstances.

morstar

Pross said:

I'm still not convinced by the animal welfare argument of taking them out to a country that already has thousands of animals looking to be re-homed.

I agree there are a whole of raft of valid discussion points to take from this.

However, if he has undertaken to provide care for these animals and has then used every bit of leverage he has to keep to his promise, he has done what he can to fulfil his obligations.

What's his alternative, euthanise them all or just let them go? All options have massive downsides.

morstar

Jezyboy said:

morstar said:

Mr Farthing has absolutely nothing to apologise for.

He has tried to do what he perceives as right by his charges, be they human or animal.

If society disagrees with his priorities and his needs can not be accommodated in a desperate situation, that is also a legitimate decision.

You can’t criticise him for trying to do the right thing by the animals under his care.

“I just found out that is you blocking me getting this flight out of Afghanistan for my staff and the animals. So here’s the deal buddy. You either get me that censored Isaf number and you get me permission to get on to that censored airfield, or tomorrow morning I’m going to turn on you and the whole censored country, and everybody else who’s invested in this rescue, is going to know it’s you, you, blocking this censored move. Alright?”

Nah guys a tool.

Loads of people are massive tools in the pursuit of self service. If he has been a massive tool, it has been in pursuit of a more altruistic objective than many other things we don't bat an eyelid at.

kingstongraham

morstar said:

Pross said:

I'm still not convinced by the animal welfare argument of taking them out to a country that already has thousands of animals looking to be re-homed.

I agree there are a whole of raft of valid discussion points to take from this.

However, if he has undertaken to provide care for these animals and has then used every bit of leverage he has to keep to his promise, he has done what he can to fulfil his obligations.

What's his alternative, euthanise them all or just let them go? All options have massive downsides.

Turns out he could have left them with his staff.

But I'm not sure that any option as to what happens with a few dogs and cats the other side of the world should bother me or my government even slightly.

surrey_commuter

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

I'm still not convinced by the animal welfare argument of taking them out to a country that already has thousands of animals looking to be re-homed.

I agree there are a whole of raft of valid discussion points to take from this.

However, if he has undertaken to provide care for these animals and has then used every bit of leverage he has to keep to his promise, he has done what he can to fulfil his obligations.

What's his alternative, euthanise them all or just let them go? All options have massive downsides.

Turns out he could have left them with his staff.

But I'm not sure that any option as to what happens with a few dogs and cats the other side of the world should bother me or my government even slightly.

People have more empathy with people who are more like them culturally and visually. If the airlift was in a western, white, Christian, English speaking country do we think we would have sacrificed human lives to save cats and dogs?

morstar

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

I'm still not convinced by the animal welfare argument of taking them out to a country that already has thousands of animals looking to be re-homed.

I agree there are a whole of raft of valid discussion points to take from this.

However, if he has undertaken to provide care for these animals and has then used every bit of leverage he has to keep to his promise, he has done what he can to fulfil his obligations.

What's his alternative, euthanise them all or just let them go? All options have massive downsides.

Turns out he could have left them with his staff.

But I'm not sure that any option as to what happens with a few dogs and cats the other side of the world should bother me or my government even slightly.

People have more empathy with people who are more like them culturally and visually. If the airlift was in a western, white, Christian, English speaking country do we think we would have sacrificed human lives to save cats and dogs?

To be clear, I fully expected him to fail and would not be slating any government for saying ‘we can’t put animals before people’.

The only point I am making is not to take issue with the man doing his best to look after animals within his care.
People will strive to achieve what’s best for their own interests which is all he was doing.

It is up to the authorities to enforce more objective priority making decisions.

Nothing to do with race or creed and a pretty low blow if aimed at me.

surrey_commuter

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

I'm still not convinced by the animal welfare argument of taking them out to a country that already has thousands of animals looking to be re-homed.

I agree there are a whole of raft of valid discussion points to take from this.

However, if he has undertaken to provide care for these animals and has then used every bit of leverage he has to keep to his promise, he has done what he can to fulfil his obligations.

What's his alternative, euthanise them all or just let them go? All options have massive downsides.

Turns out he could have left them with his staff.

But I'm not sure that any option as to what happens with a few dogs and cats the other side of the world should bother me or my government even slightly.

People have more empathy with people who are more like them culturally and visually. If the airlift was in a western, white, Christian, English speaking country do we think we would have sacrificed human lives to save cats and dogs?

To be clear, I fully expected him to fail and would not be slating any government for saying ‘we can’t put animals before people’.

The only point I am making is not to take issue with the man doing his best to look after animals within his care.
People will strive to achieve what’s best for their own interests which is all he was doing.

It is up to the authorities to enforce more objective priority making decisions.

Nothing to do with race or creed and a pretty low blow if aimed at me.

Not aimed at you at all, it related to members of the Govt who prioritised animals over people. they did not do so until all Brits were out.

In Kosovo if Muslims were committing genocide on Christians do you think the west would have imposed an arms embargo or intervened earlier and harder?

And here is a question to which I am still unsure - if D-Day had failed would we have nuked Germany?

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

I'm still not convinced by the animal welfare argument of taking them out to a country that already has thousands of animals looking to be re-homed.

I agree there are a whole of raft of valid discussion points to take from this.

However, if he has undertaken to provide care for these animals and has then used every bit of leverage he has to keep to his promise, he has done what he can to fulfil his obligations.

What's his alternative, euthanise them all or just let them go? All options have massive downsides.

Turns out he could have left them with his staff.

But I'm not sure that any option as to what happens with a few dogs and cats the other side of the world should bother me or my government even slightly.

People have more empathy with people who are more like them culturally and visually. If the airlift was in a western, white, Christian, English speaking country do we think we would have sacrificed human lives to save cats and dogs?

To be clear, I fully expected him to fail and would not be slating any government for saying ‘we can’t put animals before people’.

The only point I am making is not to take issue with the man doing his best to look after animals within his care.
People will strive to achieve what’s best for their own interests which is all he was doing.

It is up to the authorities to enforce more objective priority making decisions.

Nothing to do with race or creed and a pretty low blow if aimed at me.

Not aimed at you at all, it related to members of the Govt who prioritised animals over people. they did not do so until all Brits were out.

In Kosovo if Muslims were committing genocide on Christians do you think the west would have imposed an arms embargo or intervened earlier and harder?

And here is a question to which I am still unsure - if D-Day had failed would we have nuked Germany?

The plane with the animals was one of the very last UK-bound planes to leave. If there are people left behind it is because the government failed to organise quickly enough, not because a cat or dog was sitting in their seat.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

I'm still not convinced by the animal welfare argument of taking them out to a country that already has thousands of animals looking to be re-homed.

I agree there are a whole of raft of valid discussion points to take from this.

However, if he has undertaken to provide care for these animals and has then used every bit of leverage he has to keep to his promise, he has done what he can to fulfil his obligations.

What's his alternative, euthanise them all or just let them go? All options have massive downsides.

Turns out he could have left them with his staff.

But I'm not sure that any option as to what happens with a few dogs and cats the other side of the world should bother me or my government even slightly.

People have more empathy with people who are more like them culturally and visually. If the airlift was in a western, white, Christian, English speaking country do we think we would have sacrificed human lives to save cats and dogs?

To be clear, I fully expected him to fail and would not be slating any government for saying ‘we can’t put animals before people’.

The only point I am making is not to take issue with the man doing his best to look after animals within his care.
People will strive to achieve what’s best for their own interests which is all he was doing.

It is up to the authorities to enforce more objective priority making decisions.

Nothing to do with race or creed and a pretty low blow if aimed at me.

Not aimed at you at all, it related to members of the Govt who prioritised animals over people. they did not do so until all Brits were out.

In Kosovo if Muslims were committing genocide on Christians do you think the west would have imposed an arms embargo or intervened earlier and harder?

And here is a question to which I am still unsure - if D-Day had failed would we have nuked Germany?

Given we immolated a number of cities with conventional munitions anyway, I think you are clutching at straws.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

I'm still not convinced by the animal welfare argument of taking them out to a country that already has thousands of animals looking to be re-homed.

I agree there are a whole of raft of valid discussion points to take from this.

However, if he has undertaken to provide care for these animals and has then used every bit of leverage he has to keep to his promise, he has done what he can to fulfil his obligations.

What's his alternative, euthanise them all or just let them go? All options have massive downsides.

Turns out he could have left them with his staff.

But I'm not sure that any option as to what happens with a few dogs and cats the other side of the world should bother me or my government even slightly.

People have more empathy with people who are more like them culturally and visually. If the airlift was in a western, white, Christian, English speaking country do we think we would have sacrificed human lives to save cats and dogs?

To be clear, I fully expected him to fail and would not be slating any government for saying ‘we can’t put animals before people’.

The only point I am making is not to take issue with the man doing his best to look after animals within his care.
People will strive to achieve what’s best for their own interests which is all he was doing.

It is up to the authorities to enforce more objective priority making decisions.

Nothing to do with race or creed and a pretty low blow if aimed at me.

Not aimed at you at all, it related to members of the Govt who prioritised animals over people. they did not do so until all Brits were out.

In Kosovo if Muslims were committing genocide on Christians do you think the west would have imposed an arms embargo or intervened earlier and harder?

And here is a question to which I am still unsure - if D-Day had failed would we have nuked Germany?

Given we immolated a number of cities with conventional munitions anyway, I think you are clutching at straws.

Is that in response to the “Muslims in Kosovo” or a “question to which I am still unsure”

Immolating cities seems to refer to Germany but clutching at straws makes no sense in response to me being unsure

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

I'm still not convinced by the animal welfare argument of taking them out to a country that already has thousands of animals looking to be re-homed.

I agree there are a whole of raft of valid discussion points to take from this.

However, if he has undertaken to provide care for these animals and has then used every bit of leverage he has to keep to his promise, he has done what he can to fulfil his obligations.

What's his alternative, euthanise them all or just let them go? All options have massive downsides.

Turns out he could have left them with his staff.

But I'm not sure that any option as to what happens with a few dogs and cats the other side of the world should bother me or my government even slightly.

People have more empathy with people who are more like them culturally and visually. If the airlift was in a western, white, Christian, English speaking country do we think we would have sacrificed human lives to save cats and dogs?

To be clear, I fully expected him to fail and would not be slating any government for saying ‘we can’t put animals before people’.

The only point I am making is not to take issue with the man doing his best to look after animals within his care.
People will strive to achieve what’s best for their own interests which is all he was doing.

It is up to the authorities to enforce more objective priority making decisions.

Nothing to do with race or creed and a pretty low blow if aimed at me.

Not aimed at you at all, it related to members of the Govt who prioritised animals over people. they did not do so until all Brits were out.

In Kosovo if Muslims were committing genocide on Christians do you think the west would have imposed an arms embargo or intervened earlier and harder?

And here is a question to which I am still unsure - if D-Day had failed would we have nuked Germany?

The plane with the animals was one of the very last UK-bound planes to leave. If there are people left behind it is because the government failed to organise quickly enough, not because a cat or dog was sitting in their seat.

So if another plane had landed instead do you think it would have taken off empty?

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

I'm still not convinced by the animal welfare argument of taking them out to a country that already has thousands of animals looking to be re-homed.

I agree there are a whole of raft of valid discussion points to take from this.

However, if he has undertaken to provide care for these animals and has then used every bit of leverage he has to keep to his promise, he has done what he can to fulfil his obligations.

What's his alternative, euthanise them all or just let them go? All options have massive downsides.

Turns out he could have left them with his staff.

But I'm not sure that any option as to what happens with a few dogs and cats the other side of the world should bother me or my government even slightly.

People have more empathy with people who are more like them culturally and visually. If the airlift was in a western, white, Christian, English speaking country do we think we would have sacrificed human lives to save cats and dogs?

To be clear, I fully expected him to fail and would not be slating any government for saying ‘we can’t put animals before people’.

The only point I am making is not to take issue with the man doing his best to look after animals within his care.
People will strive to achieve what’s best for their own interests which is all he was doing.

It is up to the authorities to enforce more objective priority making decisions.

Nothing to do with race or creed and a pretty low blow if aimed at me.

Not aimed at you at all, it related to members of the Govt who prioritised animals over people. they did not do so until all Brits were out.

In Kosovo if Muslims were committing genocide on Christians do you think the west would have imposed an arms embargo or intervened earlier and harder?

And here is a question to which I am still unsure - if D-Day had failed would we have nuked Germany?

Given we immolated a number of cities with conventional munitions anyway, I think you are clutching at straws.

Is that in response to the “Muslims in Kosovo” or a “question to which I am still unsure”

Immolating cities seems to refer to Germany but clutching at straws makes no sense in response to me being unsure

A bit of both. We've clearly let down Afghans who worked with us over the last 20 years. I think that's more to do with ineptitude than a deliberate choice. We have a Home Office that is a infamous for leaving people in the lurch and a Foreign Office clearly not paying attention to the worsening situation in Afghanistan.

I don't think you can intuit some squeamishness about using nuclear weapons on Europe when we deliberately reduced tens of thousands of civilians to ashes in Dresden and Hamburg.

kingstongraham

Michael Gove in a nightclubon his own - "a friend denied claims he tried to get out of paying the £5 entry fee by boasting he was the 'Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster'"

elbowloh

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

I'm still not convinced by the animal welfare argument of taking them out to a country that already has thousands of animals looking to be re-homed.

I agree there are a whole of raft of valid discussion points to take from this.

However, if he has undertaken to provide care for these animals and has then used every bit of leverage he has to keep to his promise, he has done what he can to fulfil his obligations.

What's his alternative, euthanise them all or just let them go? All options have massive downsides.

Turns out he could have left them with his staff.

But I'm not sure that any option as to what happens with a few dogs and cats the other side of the world should bother me or my government even slightly.

People have more empathy with people who are more like them culturally and visually. If the airlift was in a western, white, Christian, English speaking country do we think we would have sacrificed human lives to save cats and dogs?

To be clear, I fully expected him to fail and would not be slating any government for saying ‘we can’t put animals before people’.

The only point I am making is not to take issue with the man doing his best to look after animals within his care.
People will strive to achieve what’s best for their own interests which is all he was doing.

It is up to the authorities to enforce more objective priority making decisions.

Nothing to do with race or creed and a pretty low blow if aimed at me.

I'm with you Morstar. Farthing's priority was the animals and fought for them. It was the spineless twunts who gave in and granted the request who are to blame.

pblakeney

I find it strange to criticise someone for being proactive about their priorities.
You may disagree with those priorities but keep criticism for those who are ineffectual.

kingstongraham

kingstongraham said:

Michael Gove in a nightclubon his own - "a friend denied claims he tried to get out of paying the £5 entry fee by boasting he was the 'Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster'"

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/michael-gove-spotted-raving-suit-24863483.amp?111=&__twitter_impression=true

It would be a strange thing to witness.

Pross

So is Boris about to use his majority for something good with finally sorting out social care funding or will it just be a .ajor benefit to wealthy pensioners in the South East?

I'm happy to cough up a bit more NI (would rather it was income tax though as that way pensioners would pay too) if if is going to improve an area that has been neglected for decades.

Will also be interesting to see whether there is enough rebellion that they need opposition votes despite that big majority.

john80

I could not quite understand the tears from the guy on the news. He had to sell his mum's house to fund her care. Is he upset b cause he needed that inheritance or because he had some mad connection with his childhood home. Surely if they need the care then they should pay over someone working and paying their NI contributions.

Social care and who pays for it is really messed up.

rjsterry

Pross said:

So is Boris about to use his majority for something good with finally sorting out social care funding or will it just be a .ajor benefit to wealthy pensioners in the South East?

I'm happy to cough up a bit more NI (would rather it was income tax though as that way pensioners would pay too) if if is going to improve an area that has been neglected for decades.

Will also be interesting to see whether there is enough rebellion that they need opposition votes despite that big majority.

Wouldn't hurt me particularly either but increasing NI has to be about the worst way to fund this and drive a wedge between the generations. Can't say the 'all nighter before deadline' approach inspires confidence that this is a well thought out plan either.

rjsterry

john80 said:

I could not quite understand the tears from the guy on the news. He had to sell his mum's house to fund her care. Is he upset b cause he needed that inheritance or because he had some mad connection with his childhood home. Surely if they need the care then they should pay over someone working and paying their NI contributions.

Social care and who pays for it is really messed up.

Worth noting that social care is not just old folks on their own who can't cope.

john80

What interested me was the notion that private individuals pay more than the council. This seems a bit unjust to me in the sense that you are subsidising the council.