• Thank you all very much for sharing your time with us in 2025. We hope you all have a safe and happy 2026!

AND HERE WE GO - THE 2019 GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 18645
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ColchesterFC said:
Are you sure that it's a good idea to be promoting information on a public forum that the Court of Session in Edinburgh has ruled is "false in substance, materially inaccurate and defamatory"?
Click to expand...

Some folk only bleat on about court cases when they win. When they lose, the big brush and rug comes out...
 
SocketRocket said:
You can all share this as it shows the SNP lost the court case falsly accusing Swinson,
Shame on them.

BBC News - Jo Swinson wins court bid to stop SNP 'fracking' leaflet
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50565209
Click to expand...

Stop it!

BBC Fake News!

Our news reporter from D&G knows better. Further news, a herd of cows was seen crossing the A75 near Dumfries. When asked who they would be voting for they replied "turkeys. After all, it is nearly Christmas. Failing that, that ginger haired bint. Gingers are persecuted, and deserve to be cuddled."
 
chrisd said:
It's not acceptable to use social media in this way, but unfortunately (anti) social media just makes it so easy to bully etc. In the past someone would have to make much more effort to bully eg write a letter, telephone or pay a visit, but on a keyboard it's simple and the numpties out there dont care what they say. Sadly, I don't see how it can be stopped.
Click to expand...
This surely has to be the job of the social media companies. It's like the wild west as legislation tries in vain to catch up with internet explosion. It's not acceptable that companies like FB and Twitter don't accept the responsibilities as curators of their content like other media sources have to,
 
Doon frae Troon said:
Did you not open the link...…....that is where you will find the joke.
She openly admits taking the money.:love:
Click to expand...

A donation was made to her constituency office from the director of a "fracking company" that has never actually carried out any fracking, in a "personal capacity". Therefore the donation was not "from a fracking company", it was from a director of that company. It also wasn't a donation to her personally but to her constituency office. But let's not let the facts get in the way of your argument.

I read the story earlier that reported that the SNP had been blocked from distributing this leaflet because it wasn't true or as the court put it was "false in substance, materially inaccurate and defamatory". My question was why you felt it was OK to post information that a court has ruled as "defamatory" on a public forum.
 
Last edited:
funkycoldmedina said:
This surely has to be the job of the social media companies. It's like the wild west as legislation tries in vain to catch up with internet explosion. It's not acceptable that companies like FB and Twitter don't accept the responsibilities as curators of their content like other media sources have to,
Click to expand...

In such a fast moving environment as social media the companies couldn't keep up and once read, copy and pasted any message is on the net for life
 
ColchesterFC said:
A donation was made to her constituency office from the director of a "fracking company" that has never actually carried out any fracking, in a "personal capacity". Therefore the donation was not "from a fracking company", it was from a director of that company. It also wasn't a donation to her personally but to her constituency office. But let's not let the facts get in the way of your argument.

I read the story earlier that reported that the SNP had been blocked from distributing this leaflet because it wasn't true or as the court put it was "false in substance, materially inaccurate and defamatory". My question was why you felt it was OK to post information that a court has ruled as "defamatory" on a public forum.
Click to expand...

To point out the double standards of some of our Parliamentary leaders.
Leader of Anti fracking political party accepts money for her constituency office from commercial company who have gained fracking licences.
 
Doon frae Troon said:
To point out the double standards of some of our Parliamentary leaders.
Leader of Anti fracking political party leader accepts money for her constituency office from commercial company who have gained fracking licences.
Click to expand...

No she didn't. You seem to be struggling to grasp this point so I'll try again. She (or her office) accepted a personal donation from the director of a company that holds a fracking license NOT from a commercial company. I really didn't think this was so hard to grasp. If the SNP leaflet had stated that "Jo Swinson's office had received a donation of £14k from the director of a company which holds a license to carry out fracking" then that would have been factually accurate. To state that Jo Swinson received money from a fracking company isn't and is in fact "false in substance, materially inaccurate and defamatory".

But I guess that the aims of the SNP have been met because they have got this information out into the public domain and many thousands of people will now be sharing the original story on social media despite it not being true. Spreading fake news Doon? Maybe you should change your forum handle to "Trump frae Troon" or Doon frae Trump".
 
Dan2501 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1199632240873025536
Click to expand...

The NHS market has always been open to the USA. Being able to sell equipment and drugs into the NHS has always gone on. The NHS has very recently concluded a deal on the purchase of cystic fibrosis drugs that saw a significant reduction in price.

Thats a million miles away from the Tories are going to sell the NHS.

I look forward to seeing the detail Corbyn has just announced to see if it is a sale of the NHS or is it acknowledgement of current practices. If it is a sale it drives a coach and horses through the Tories promises. That said, the NHS is sacrosanct... would any party agree to a sale? It would be political suicide for many, many years to come.
 
Let's see what's in the document and then we can judge whether the document contradicts anything that Johnson and his 'poodles' have been saying (sorry about the poodling - but I just despair at ministers simply parroting the Johnson line - though can a poodle parrot?)

Poodle: a person or organization who is overly willing to obey another.
 
I don't understand why Labour are claiming that we would spend an extra £500 million per week on drugs if the US get access to the market. One example that Corbyn has raised is the issue of humira, a drug used to treat Crohn's disease and arthritis. The NHS currently pays around £1200 per pack whereas in America it is £8000 per pack. Assuming that US drug companies got access to the UK market why would the NHS stop buying it from our current supplier at £1200 and switch to an American supplier at £8000?
 
ColchesterFC said:
I don't understand why Labour are claiming that we would spend an extra £500 million per week on drugs if the US get access to the market. One example that Corbyn has raised is the issue of humira, a drug used to treat Crohn's disease and arthritis. The NHS currently pays around £1200 per pack whereas in America it is £8000 per pack. Assuming that US drug companies got access to the UK market why would the NHS stop buying it from our current supplier at £1200 and switch to an American supplier at £8000?
Click to expand...
acording to the despatches program the other week the current trade deal means we currently pay under the going rate fore some drugs which we buy for much less that the same drugs are sold in the US. under a new trade deal with the US they want out of that and us to pay the full us rate... in simple terms anyway
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top