Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another station
when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying for it as if
she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to brick the TV anyway.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
That's an amazing invention but who would ever want to use one of them?
(President Hayes speaking to Alexander Graham Bell on the invention of the
telephone)

On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

> Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
> station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
> for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
> brick the TV anyway.
>

I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.

--
Davey.

On 17/12/2023 18:05, Davey wrote:
>
> On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT
> "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>> Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
>> station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
>> for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
>> brick the TV anyway.

FFS, grow up.

> I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
> She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
> interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.

Didn't see the interview, but Baroness Mone is just another snout in the
trough, and deserves pretty much anything that comes her way.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 17/12/2023 in message <ulnfc0$32jlm$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>On 17/12/2023 18:05, Davey wrote:
>>
>>On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT
>>"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
>>>station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
>>>for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
>>>brick the TV anyway.
>
>FFS, grow up.
>
>>I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
>>She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
>>interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.
>
>Didn't see the interview, but Baroness Mone is just another snout in the
>trough, and deserves pretty much anything that comes her way.

Not true if you actually consider the facts, which Kuenssberg clearly
didn't.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

In article <ulnd9v$320v1$2@dont-email.me>,
Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT
> "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

> > Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
> > station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
> > for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
> > brick the TV anyway.
> >

> I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
> She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
> interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.

By "made up her mind" you really mean "did a lot of research".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 17/12/2023 17:53, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another station
> when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying for it as
> if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to brick the TV
> anyway.

Rather than comments such as the above which reveal more about your own
immaturity than it does about the person you describe, why not get
involved with something rather more worthwhile and important, such as
curtailment of reasonable free-speech?

Russian trolls are again trying to game the system at YouTube to get
useful Pro-Ukraine sources deleted, their latest target is Warthog
Defence - complain about that instead; here's how:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uEyNNxyk7c

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Sun, 17 Dec 23 19:08:07 UTC
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> In article <ulnd9v$320v1$2@dont-email.me>,
> Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
> > On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT
> > "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> > > Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
> > > station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind
> > > paying for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I
> > > will have to brick the TV anyway.
> > >
>
> > I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my
> > feeling. She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone
> > before the interview started, and was not going to be diverted from
> > that.
>
> By "made up her mind" you really mean "did a lot of research".
>

Questions that would have provided more information, but she did not
mention:
1. How much profit did the other companies that provided PPE under the
same scheme make? How did it compare with that made by Medpro? Was
Medpro any more profitable than any other company? We were not told.
2. In what way was the PPE provide by Medpro deficient, if in fact it
was? We were not told.

I have no interest in Baroness Mone or her husband or Medpro PPE, but
it seems that Kuenssberg only supplied information that supported her
viewpoint, and none that might have not supported it. I sympathise with
the Baroness when she says that she asked the Cabinet office what she
had to do regarding reporting her link to the company. It seems like a
perfectly reasonable thing to do in the circumstances, if they don't
know, who would?
--
Davey.

On 18/12/2023 00:48, Davey wrote:
> Questions that would have provided more information, but she did not
> mention:

I have never paid much attention to the case, just seemed to have been a
typical Labour smear campaign when they target an individual and she
made an idea target for them with being well off.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 10:15:21 +0000
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

> On 18/12/2023 00:48, Davey wrote:
> > Questions that would have provided more information, but she did not
> > mention:
>
>
> I have never paid much attention to the case, just seemed to have
> been a typical Labour smear campaign when they target an individual
> and she made an idea target for them with being well off.
>
>

Nor did I pay much attention until the programme. But Kuenssberg's
usual attitude of 'I am always right, whatever the interviewee says' was
clearly to the fore on Sunday's programme.

--
Davey.

On 17/12/2023 19:05, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 in message <ulnfc0$32jlm$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 17/12/2023 18:05, Davey wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT
>>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
>>>> station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
>>>> for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
>>>> brick the TV anyway.
>>
>> FFS, grow up.
>>
>>> I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
>>> She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
>>> interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.
>>
>> Didn't see the interview, but Baroness Mone is just another snout in
>> the trough, and deserves pretty much anything that comes her way.
>
> Not true if you actually consider the facts, which Kuenssberg  clearly
> didn't.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67736860

The facts appear to be ...

"Michelle Mone has admitted that she stands to benefit from tens of
millions of pounds of profit from personal protective equipment (PPE)
sold to the UK government during the pandemic by a company led by her
husband, Doug Barrowman."

.... so, given that she's been denying it all the time through the
interim, an admitted liar ...

"But a defiant Baroness Mone said: "I don't honestly see there is a case
to answer. I can't see what we have done wrong."]

.... but doesn't see anything wrong in lying ...

"PPE Medpro is being sued by the UK government for £122m plus costs for
"breach of contract and unjust enrichment""

.... so presumably sub-judice and we shouldn't pre-judge the verdict, but
it doesn't exactly look good for them that the government is suing its
own appointee to the HoL, nor for the government, for that matter ...

"She told the BBC her life had been "destroyed" by allegations about
their PPE profits, even though "we've only done one thing, which was lie
to the press to say we weren't involved".

.... well, as the modern saying has it: 'duh' ...

"The couple confirmed to the BBC that they had been under investigation
by the National Crime Agency (NCA) "ongoing for two-and-a-half years",
and said that they had both only been interviewed once.

They also confirmed the investigation was into conspiracy to defraud,
fraud by false representation, and bribery."

.... and ...

"He told the BBC that PPE Medpro had agreed two contracts, to a value of
£202m, making a 30% profit of around £60m, which he described as a "good
return"

.... so a potentially fraudulent 30% profit out of a national crisis ...

"Baroness Mone said: "I should have said I am involved, straight away,
but I didn't want the press intrusion for my family. My family have gone
through hell with the media over my career, and I didn't want another
big hoo-ha.""

.... emotive claptrap, if you want genuinely to protect your kids from
scandal, you don't thrust your snout deep in the trough in the first place.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 18/12/2023 in message <ulp9ob$3fifl$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>On 17/12/2023 19:05, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>On 17/12/2023 in message <ulnfc0$32jlm$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>>On 17/12/2023 18:05, Davey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT
>>>>"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
>>>>>station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
>>>>>for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
>>>>>brick the TV anyway.
>>>
>>>FFS, grow up.
>>>
>>>>I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
>>>>She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
>>>>interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.
>>>
>>>Didn't see the interview, but Baroness Mone is just another snout in the
>>>trough, and deserves pretty much anything that comes her way.
>>
>>Not true if you actually consider the facts, which Kuenssberg  clearly
>>didn't.
>
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67736860
>
>The facts appear to be ...
>
>"Michelle Mone has admitted that she stands to benefit from tens of
>millions of pounds of profit from personal protective equipment (PPE) sold
>to the UK government during the pandemic by a company led by her husband,
>Doug Barrowman."

This isn't true, she has a POTENTIAL interest based on certain events
coming together but it hasn't yet crystallised.

>... so, given that she's been denying it all the time through the interim,
>an admitted liar ...

No, she understands the law better than you.

>"But a defiant Baroness Mone said: "I don't honestly see there is a case
>to answer. I can't see what we have done wrong."]
>
>... but doesn't see anything wrong in lying ...

She didn't.

>"PPE Medpro is being sued by the UK government for £122m plus costs for
>"breach of contract and unjust enrichment""
>
>... so presumably sub-judice and we shouldn't pre-judge the verdict, but
>it doesn't exactly look good for them that the government is suing its own
>appointee to the HoL, nor for the government, for that matter ...

Nothing to do with her.

>"She told the BBC her life had been "destroyed" by allegations about their
>PPE profits, even though "we've only done one thing, which was lie to the
>press to say we weren't involved".
>
>... well, as the modern saying has it: 'duh' ...

This is a confused mish-mash, you need to try and unravel it.

>"The couple confirmed to the BBC that they had been under investigation by
>the National Crime Agency (NCA) "ongoing for two-and-a-half years", and
>said that they had both only been interviewed once.
>
>They also confirmed the investigation was into conspiracy to defraud,
>fraud by false representation, and bribery."
>
>... and ...
>
>"He told the BBC that PPE Medpro had agreed two contracts, to a value of
>£202m, making a 30% profit of around £60m, which he described as a "good
>return"
>
>... so a potentially fraudulent 30% profit out of a national crisis ...

Contract law is generally not concerned with how good a bargain has been
agreed by the parties so if they have struck a good deal o be it,
certainly doesn't make it fraud.

>"Baroness Mone said: "I should have said I am involved, straight away, but
>I didn't want the press intrusion for my family. My family have gone
>through hell with the media over my career, and I didn't want another big
>hoo-ha.""
>
>... emotive claptrap, if you want genuinely to protect your kids from
>scandal, you don't thrust your snout deep in the trough in the first place.

Not sure exactly what you are saying she was or wasn't involved in but
from watching the interview she seems to have followed the rules.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
You can't tell which way the train went by looking at the tracks

On 18/12/2023 11:56, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 18/12/2023 in message <ulp9ob$3fifl$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 17/12/2023 19:05, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17/12/2023 in message <ulnfc0$32jlm$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/12/2023 18:05, Davey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT
>>>>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
>>>>>> station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
>>>>>> for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
>>>>>> brick the TV anyway.
>>>>
>>>> FFS, grow up.
>>>>
>>>>> I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
>>>>> She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
>>>>> interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't see the interview, but Baroness Mone is just another snout
>>>> in  the trough, and deserves pretty much anything that comes her way.
>>>
>>> Not true if you actually consider the facts, which Kuenssberg
>>> clearly didn't.
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67736860
>>
>> The facts appear to be ...
>>
>> "Michelle Mone has admitted that she stands to benefit from tens of
>> millions of pounds of profit from personal protective equipment (PPE)
>> sold to the UK government during the pandemic by a company led by her
>> husband, Doug Barrowman."
>
> This isn't true, she has a POTENTIAL interest based on certain events
> coming together but it hasn't yet crystallised.

As the televised report made clear, there is a parliamentary, here the
House Of Lords, *REQUIREMENT* on every individual member to declare
*POTENTIAL* or *PERCEIVED* conflicts of interest, and this she did not
do ...

>> ... so, given that she's been denying it all the time through the
>> interim, an admitted liar ...
>
> No, she understands the law better than you.

.... continuing from above, subsequently over the intervening period she
lied about the potential and perceived conflict of interest to the
general public and the press, even employing lawyers in an attempt cover
it up, but finally has now admitted it, so your saying "No" and trying
to deny the fact of her lying is just pointlessly pissing in the wind,
and show a deep and untrustworthy level of bigotry.

>> "But a defiant Baroness Mone said: "I don't honestly see there is a
>> case to answer. I can't see what we have done wrong."]
>>
>> ... but doesn't see anything wrong in lying ...
>
> She didn't.

She has *ADMITTED* that she *LIED*, yet still denies doing anything wrong!

>> "PPE Medpro is being sued by the UK government for £122m plus costs
>> for "breach of contract and unjust enrichment""
>>
>> ... so presumably sub-judice and we shouldn't pre-judge the verdict,
>> but it doesn't exactly look good for them that the government is suing
>> its own appointee to the HoL, nor for the government, for that matter ...
>
> Nothing to do with her.

She was the go-between between the company, which was expressly set up
to handle the contract, and the government, and stands to gain
personally or through her family from the contract, so it has everything
to do with her - note that the £61m pounds profit has gone to the Isle
Of Man, a tax haven, and into the personal finances of the family.

>> "She told the BBC her life had been "destroyed" by allegations about
>> their PPE profits, even though "we've only done one thing, which was
>> lie to the press to say we weren't involved".
>>
>> ... well, as the modern saying has it: 'duh' ...
>
> This is a confused mish-mash, you need to try and unravel it.

On the contrary, it's transparently simple: consistently over the
interim period she lied to the press, employed lawyers to state the
denial and threaten legal action for libel against those who might
question it, but now has finally admitted the truth, yet complains about
the public consequences and claims to have done nothing wrong! "Duh"
indeed!

>> "The couple confirmed to the BBC that they had been under
>> investigation by the National Crime Agency (NCA) "ongoing for
>> two-and-a-half years", and said that they had both only been
>> interviewed once.
>>
>> They also confirmed the investigation was into conspiracy to defraud,
>> fraud by false representation, and bribery."
>>
>> ... and ...
>>
>> "He told the BBC that PPE Medpro had agreed two contracts, to a value
>> of £202m, making a 30% profit of around £60m, which he described as a
>> "good return"
>>
>> ... so a potentially fraudulent 30% profit out of a national crisis ...
>
> Contract law is generally not concerned with how good a bargain has been
> agreed by the parties so if they have struck a good deal o be it,
> certainly doesn't make it fraud.

While contract law may not be generally concerned with profit margins,
the public have a right to know where public money was/is being
(mis)spent. Further, I said specifically "we shouldn't pre-judge the
verdict" and "potentially fraudulent".

>> "Baroness Mone said: "I should have said I am involved, straight away,
>> but I didn't want the press intrusion for my family. My family have
>> gone through hell with the media over my career, and I didn't want
>> another big hoo-ha.""
>>
>> ... emotive claptrap, if you want genuinely to protect your kids from
>> scandal, you don't thrust your snout deep in the trough in the first
>> place.
>
> Not sure exactly what you are saying she was or wasn't involved in but
> from watching the interview she seems to have followed the rules.

I'm saying that her justification for lying to the public to protect her
family is merely a front, an attempt at emotional manipulation of public
opinion, because if she really cared about the consequences to her
family, she'd would have obeyed all the relevant parliamentary rules
from the start, or at least, if her failure to do so was a genuine
mistake, when she discovered that she hadn't, would have openly admitted
to the mistake, rather than employing lawyers in an attempt to cover it up.

The only part of the mostly truly nauseating interview that I felt might
actually have some truth was the allegation that she and her husband
were being made scapegoats. The Covid Inquiry has a heard a great deal
of evidence about the government's scientifically ignorant, haphazard,
panicked, and ultimately catastrophic, in terms of the number of
avoidable deaths, response to the pandemic, so it's not unnatural that
the government, being on the defensive, may wish to show that lessons
are being learnt, misspent money being pursued, and individuals and/or
companies being held responsible. But the government couldn't make them
scapegoats if they hadn't behaved the way they did in the first place,
so they don't deserve a sympathy vote on that count either.

They also make a very serious allegation about an attempt being made to
have them pay to avoid further enquiries - or some such euphemism, I'm
not going to relisten to the interview to copy down the exact wording
used. If this is true, it should be investigated fully and any
appropriate consequences to anyone involved should duly follow, however,
the allegation is being made by people with a known history of lying, so
my guess is that likely it will be quietly ignored.

But, to come back to topic, your siding with a snout in the trough
rather than a mainstream and relatively unbiased and well regarded
reporter honestly doing her job by exposing the snout in the trough
shows that you have a deep unconscious bigotry that you need to address.
I suggest that you begin by reading these:

Note the absence of the real controllers of the company from its stated
officials and the embarrassing number of resignations amid the 'front'
people nominally in control of it:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12597000/officers

Note also that there are now 3 sets of actions against her and/or her
husband and/or the company - HoL inquiry into standards, NCA
investigation, legal action by government - this may seem nothing
compared to, at the last count, the 91 against Trump, but, however you
look at it, it still doesn't look good:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmpubacc/1590/report.html

On 18/12/2023 00:48, Davey wrote:
>
> Questions that would have provided more information, but she did not
> mention:
>
> 1. How much profit did the other companies that provided PPE under the
> same scheme make? How did it compare with that made by Medpro?

Irrelevant - it's not a defence of a con to say that others would have
been more of a con.

> Was Medpro any more profitable than any other company?

Again irrelevant - they admit to a 30% profit, which, once all the
writs have flown and the dust settled, may yet turn out to have been
fraudulently earned.

> 2. In what way was the PPE provide by Medpro deficient, if in fact it
> was? We were not told.

Allegedly according to the legal documents, they weren't even sterile,
rather a basic failure if true, but we should remember that this is
still sub-judice, and this in turn may explain the BBC's only mentioning
it in passing, to avoid possible Contempt of Court for prejudicing a
fair trial:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/ppe-medpro-uk-government-alleges-firm-supplied-defective-gowns-nhs

> I have no interest in Baroness Mone or her husband or Medpro PPE, but
> it seems that Kuenssberg only supplied information that supported her
> viewpoint, and none that might have not supported it. I sympathise with
> the Baroness when she says that she asked the Cabinet office what she
> had to do regarding reporting her link to the company. It seems like a
> perfectly reasonable thing to do in the circumstances, if they don't
> know, who would?

*If*, as admitted liars, this allegation can be believed at all, then
the briefest of online searches found the following:

MPs:
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/faqs/

Lords:
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/house-of-lords-commissioner-for-standards-/house-of-lords-commissioner-for-standards-/

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 18/12/2023 17:01, Java Jive wrote:
> Fake news kills!

I think I will wait for a proper analysis, there are too many highly
politically motivated people and unreliable media involved, all out to
score points.

On 18/12/2023 18:14, JMB99 wrote:
>
> On 18/12/2023 17:01, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Fake news kills!
>
> I think I will wait for a proper analysis, there are too many highly
> politically motivated people and unreliable media involved, all out to
> score points.

I have no particular political motivations concerning this other than
debunking the bigotry of others in blaming the messenger, the BBC in
general and Kuenssberg in particular, for the message, that there's more
than a slight whiff of corruption concerning this. As I have said,
there are three separate investigations currently ongoing, we shall have
to wait and see what they find.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 18/12/2023 18:51, Java Jive wrote:
> I have no particular political motivations concerning this other than
> debunking the bigotry of others in blaming the messenger, the BBC in
> general and Kuenssberg in particular, for the message, that there's more
> than a slight whiff of corruption concerning this.  As I have said,
> there are three separate investigations currently ongoing, we shall have
> to wait and see what they find.

Lots of crazy things happened at that time. It was reported that the
French had a stockpile of PPE and burnt it all which then put pressure
on other countries to get stock - didn't the EU grab some on its way to
the UK?

On 18/12/2023 19:42, JMB99 wrote:
>
> On 18/12/2023 18:51, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> I have no particular political motivations concerning this other than
>> debunking the bigotry of others in blaming the messenger, the BBC in
>> general and Kuenssberg in particular, for the message, that there's
>> more than a slight whiff of corruption concerning this.  As I have
>> said, there are three separate investigations currently ongoing, we
>> shall have to wait and see what they find.
>
> Lots of crazy things happened at that time.  It was reported that the
> French had a stockpile of PPE and burnt it all which then put pressure
> on other countries to get stock

Your memory is muddled, it was face-masks, not PPE:

https://theweek.com/coronavirus/107095/france-coronavirus-response-burning-masks

"“As coronavirus arrived in France this winter, staff at an army base in
the east of the country were dutifully burning hundreds of thousands of
facemasks,” The Times reports. “The incinerations were part of a
money-saving programme to run down the state’s stock of 1.7 billion
protective masks that had reached a peak in 2011.”

After false alarms with Sars and swine flu, ministers had decided they
would no longer hold protective equipment in reserve. So when the
coronavirus pandemic began, they were forced to try to buy masks on the
open market, but could secure only 14 million per week when 40 million
were needed."

>> didn't the EU grab some on its way to the UK?

Not that I can find. Either that's a very revealing misremembering of
one or other of two possible candidate actual events where consciously
or unconsciously you've changed the story to make the EU look bad, or
else it was a fake news story at the time, but, if the latter, three
pages of search hits didn't find it.

1) There was an actual incident where US-made face-masks already
actually in-transit to Germany were very probably diverted back to the
US on the orders of Donald Trump, so nothing to do with the EU as an
organisation:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-52161995

"The US has been accused of redirecting 200,000 Germany-bound masks for
its own use, in a move condemned as "modern piracy".

The local government in Berlin said the shipment of US-made masks was
"confiscated" in Bangkok."

2) HMG declined, apparently on purely political grounds, to join an
EU-scheme to procure PPE in bulk:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/22/uk-government-accused-of-cover-up-over-eu-scheme-to-buy-ppe

"Ministers are being pressed to reveal the full details of how the
government missed out on four opportunities to join an EU medical
supplies consortium, in the wake of a U-turn by the top civil servant in
the Foreign Office over comments suggesting it was a “political decision”.

The Labour MP Chris Bryant, who sits on the foreign affairs select
committee, said on Wednesday that he “feared the government was involved
in a full-on cover-up” over how it came to miss out on four rounds of
procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE), ventilators and
laboratory supplies launched by the EU in late February and March.

UK officials failed to take up an invitation to join the steering
committee of participating countries that issues orders for medical
equipment until 19 March – after the bulk purchases had been made.

Bryant said he feared either Foreign Office ministers or the prime
minister decided not to be associated with any EU scheme for political
reasons “even though it was patently in the interests of the NHS and its
staff to explore every possible avenue to acquire masks, gowns and
ventilator equipment, as fast and most effectively as possible”.

His intervention came a day after the Foreign Office’s permanent
secretary, Sir Simon McDonald, told MPs that ministers had indeed taken
a political decision not to join the scheme."

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Sunday 17 December 2023 at 18:05:53 UTC, Davey wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT
> "Jeff Gaines" <jgne...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> > Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
> > station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
> > for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
> > brick the TV anyway.
> >
> I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
> She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
> interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.
>
> --
> Davey.

Difficult isn't - when someone admits that they are a liar, do you believe them or suspect that they are lying?

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 05:14:33 -0800 (PST)
"R. Mark Clayton" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday 17 December 2023 at 18:05:53 UTC, Davey wrote:
> > On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT
> > "Jeff Gaines" <jgne...@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
> > > station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind
> > > paying for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I
> > > will have to brick the TV anyway.
> > >
> > I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my
> > feeling. She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone
> > before the interview started, and was not going to be diverted from
> > that.
> >
> > --
> > Davey.
>
> Difficult isn't - when someone admits that they are a liar, do you
> believe them or suspect that they are lying?

Certainly a conundrum, about which riddles have been created. But as the
Baroness stated, lying to the press is not a crime. On the other hand,
the press would never lie to the public, would it?

When Piers Morgan says that he never instructed anybody to hack into
voicemails, and wouldn't know how to himself, he never actually says
that he did not use information that might have been obtained that way.
As discussed elsewhere, 'lying by omission'.

I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE supplied by
Medpro.
And I still do not know how Medpro's 30% profit margin compares with
other suppliers' profit margins. If it is the same, or even less that
others', then a major plank of this action against it is nullified.

For once, I agree with Java Jive that we need to wait until this
information is published.

--
Davey.

On 19/12/2023 14:14, Davey wrote:
> I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE supplied by
> Medpro.
> And I still do not know how Medpro's 30% profit margin compares with
> other suppliers' profit margins. If it is the same, or even less that
> others', then a major plank of this action against it is nullified.

The attacks seem to be mainly from Labour who prefer attacking the
government to actually devising policies and also think all profit is
wrong (unless by a Labour crony!).

On 19/12/2023 15:43, JMB99 wrote:
>
> On 19/12/2023 14:14, Davey wrote:
>>
>> I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE supplied by
>> Medpro.

That's because you seem determined to ignore anything that you've
already been told about the case that doesn't fit your bigoted
preconceptions:

On 18/12/2023 17:01, Java Jive wrote:
>
> Allegedly according to the legal documents, they weren't even sterile,
> rather a basic failure if true, but we should remember that this is
> still sub-judice, and this in turn may explain the BBC's only
> mentioning it in passing, to avoid possible Contempt of Court for
> prejudicing a fair trial:
>
>
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/ppe-medpro-uk-government-alleges-firm-supplied-defective-gowns-nhs

>> And I still do not know how Medpro's 30% profit margin compares with
>> other suppliers' profit margins. If it is the same, or even less that
>> others', then a major plank of this action against it is nullified.

FFS! You are either terminally naive or extremely politically biased -
the fact that there is *ANY* profit margin at all, let alone one as
high as 30%, is exactly what nullifies their hypocritical claim in the
interview that in watching TV footage at the start of the pandemic they
felt inspired to 'help'. Think about BandAid & LiveAid - someone
whose prime motivation is a desire to help does something at cost, or
even donates funds to a cause, they don't take a 30% profit and then
squirrel away the resulting £61m (before tax, it should be said) in a
family trust based in a tax haven!
> The attacks seem to be mainly from Labour who prefer attacking the
> government to actually devising policies and also think all profit is
> wrong (unless by a Labour crony!).

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this opinion stated as if it were a fact?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <ulsiq9$4jit$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 15:43, JMB99 wrote:
> >
> > On 19/12/2023 14:14, Davey wrote:
> >>
> >> I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE
> >> supplied by Medpro.

> That's because you seem determined to ignore anything that you've
> already been told about the case that doesn't fit your bigoted
> preconceptions:

Oh goody goody! Java Jive is calling anyone he disagrees with a bigot
again.

Can I be a bigot today please. Go on cheer me up on this dark, wet
night. Racist, Liar or any other of your lovely pejorative
descriptions in your normality would also help. Thanks. :-)

> On 18/12/2023 17:01, Java Jive wrote:
> >
> > Allegedly according to the legal documents, they weren't even
> > sterile, rather a basic failure if true, but we should remember
> > that this is still sub-judice, and this in turn may explain the
> > BBC's only mentioning it in passing, to avoid possible Contempt
> > of Court for prejudicing a fair trial:

Deary, deary me. Not twigged yet then. The BBC isn't interested in
the truth. It's interested in influencing the population's thinking
to the woke left. Millions have realised this now which is why only
die-hard marxists and the very spoilt, privileged middle classes
watch the BBC news / current affairs.

Are Hamas terrorists JJ, did they commit genocide 7th October?

> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/ppe-medpro-uk-govern> ment-alleges-firm-supplied-defective-gowns-nhs

The Guardian. Lol. Lol.

I normally like to use the JJs of this world as a guide, He confirms
the wrong path and thinking for me, very useful.

So I'm troubled to find myself largely agreeing with JJ on this one.
Most disconcerting I must have missed something.

Bob.

On 19/12/2023 18:16, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <ulsiq9$4jit$1@dont-email.me>,
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 19/12/2023 15:43, JMB99 wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19/12/2023 14:14, Davey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE
>>>> supplied by Medpro.
>>
>> That's because you seem determined to ignore anything that you've
>> already been told about the case that doesn't fit your bigoted
>> preconceptions:
>
> Oh goody goody! Java Jive is calling anyone he disagrees with a bigot
> again.
>
> Can I be a bigot today please. Go on cheer me up on this dark, wet
> night. Racist, Liar or any other of your lovely pejorative
> descriptions in your normality would also help. Thanks. :-)

Your obvious mental deficiencies have made you this ng's biggest pile of
steaming bigoted shite for years, what makes you think you actually have
a choice in the matter?

>> On 18/12/2023 17:01, Java Jive wrote:
>> >
>> > Allegedly according to the legal documents, they weren't even
>> > sterile, rather a basic failure if true, but we should remember
>> > that this is still sub-judice, and this in turn may explain the
>> > BBC's only mentioning it in passing, to avoid possible Contempt
>> > of Court for prejudicing a fair trial:
>
> Deary, deary me. Not twigged yet then. The BBC isn't interested in
> the truth. It's interested in influencing the population's thinking
> to the woke left. Millions have realised this now which is why only
> die-hard marxists and the very spoilt, privileged middle classes
> watch the BBC news / current affairs.

Duh! You carp at the BBC when the report linked was to the Guardian!
See what I mean? Mentally deficient!

> Are Hamas terrorists JJ, did they commit genocide 7th October?

They are certainly terrorists, not sure about genocide:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9n77DPJ7AE

More to the point however, they are OT.

>> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/ppe-medpro-uk-govern> ment-alleges-firm-supplied-defective-gowns-nhs
>
> The Guardian. Lol. Lol.

Laugh like an idiot all you like, you not liking sources that happen to
contradict your world view doesn't make them any less true, all you
accomplish is confirming your own lack of mature intellect.

> I normally like to use the JJs of this world as a guide, He confirms
> the wrong path and thinking for me, very useful.
>
> So I'm troubled to find myself largely agreeing with JJ on this one.
> Most disconcerting I must have missed something.

You missed growing up sufficiently to be able argue like an adult.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <ulsofe$5jfr$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 18:16, Bob Latham wrote:
> >
> > In article <ulsiq9$4jit$1@dont-email.me>,
> > Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19/12/2023 15:43, JMB99 wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 19/12/2023 14:14, Davey wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE
> >>>> supplied by Medpro.
> >>
> >> That's because you seem determined to ignore anything that you've
> >> already been told about the case that doesn't fit your bigoted
> >> preconceptions:
> >
> > Oh goody goody! Java Jive is calling anyone he disagrees with a bigot
> > again.
> >
> > Can I be a bigot today please. Go on cheer me up on this dark, wet
> > night. Racist, Liar or any other of your lovely pejorative
> > descriptions in your normality would also help. Thanks. :-)

> Your obvious mental deficiencies have made you this ng's biggest
> pile of steaming bigoted shite for years, what makes you think you
> actually have a choice in the matter?

And there he shows himself in all his glory. Such intellect, such
maturity. Lol.

> >> On 18/12/2023 17:01, Java Jive wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Allegedly according to the legal documents, they weren't
> >> > even sterile, rather a basic failure if true, but we should
> >> > remember that this is still sub-judice, and this in turn may
> >> > explain the BBC's only mentioning it in passing, to avoid
> >> > possible Contempt of Court for prejudicing a fair trial:
> >
> > Deary, deary me. Not twigged yet then. The BBC isn't interested
> > in the truth. It's interested in influencing the population's
> > thinking to the woke left. Millions have realised this now which
> > is why only die-hard marxists and the very spoilt, privileged
> > middle classes watch the BBC news / current affairs.

> Duh! You carp at the BBC when the report linked was to the
> Guardian! See what I mean? Mentally deficient!
"
If not being a lefty with the woke mind virus means I'm Mentally
deficient", I'm happy with that. Thanks.

> > Are Hamas terrorists JJ, did they commit genocide 7th October?

> They are certainly terrorists,

Wow, I'm impressed.

> not sure about genocide:

well almost.

[Snip]

> >> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/ppe-medpro-uk-govern> ment-alleges-firm-supplied-defective-gowns-nhs
> >
> > The Guardian. Lol. Lol.

> Laugh like an idiot all you like, you not liking sources that
> happen to contradict your world view doesn't make them any less
> true, all you accomplish is confirming your own lack of mature
> intellect.

If seeing the Guardian for the rubbish lefty rag it is makes me any
of those things, I'm a happy man. Thanks.

> > I normally like to use the JJs of this world as a guide, He
> > confirms the wrong path and thinking for me, very useful.
> >
> > So I'm troubled to find myself largely agreeing with JJ on this
> > one. Most disconcerting I must have missed something.

> You missed growing up sufficiently to be able argue like an adult.

Irony. How's the counselling going?

Have a good christmas JJ.

Bob.

On 19/12/2023 18:56, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <ulsofe$5jfr$1@dont-email.me>,
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 19/12/2023 18:16, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <ulsiq9$4jit$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 19/12/2023 15:43, JMB99 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19/12/2023 14:14, Davey wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE
>>>>>> supplied by Medpro.
>>>>
>>>> That's because you seem determined to ignore anything that you've
>>>> already been told about the case that doesn't fit your bigoted
>>>> preconceptions:
>>>
>>> Oh goody goody! Java Jive is calling anyone he disagrees with a bigot
>>> again.
>>>
>>> Can I be a bigot today please. Go on cheer me up on this dark, wet
>>> night. Racist, Liar or any other of your lovely pejorative
>>> descriptions in your normality would also help. Thanks. :-)
>>
>> Your obvious mental deficiencies have made you this ng's biggest
>> pile of steaming bigoted shite for years, what makes you think you
>> actually have a choice in the matter?
>
> And there he shows himself in all his glory. Such intellect, such
> maturity. Lol.

LOL indeed! Did you escape the straight-jacket today?

>>>> On 18/12/2023 17:01, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Allegedly according to the legal documents, they weren't
>>>> > even sterile, rather a basic failure if true, but we should
>>>> > remember that this is still sub-judice, and this in turn may
>>>> > explain the BBC's only mentioning it in passing, to avoid
>>>> > possible Contempt of Court for prejudicing a fair trial:
>>>
>>> Deary, deary me. Not twigged yet then. The BBC isn't interested
>>> in the truth. It's interested in influencing the population's
>>> thinking to the woke left. Millions have realised this now which
>>> is why only die-hard marxists and the very spoilt, privileged
>>> middle classes watch the BBC news / current affairs.
>>
>> Duh! You carp at the BBC when the report linked was to the
>> Guardian! See what I mean? Mentally deficient!
>> "
> If not being a lefty with the woke mind virus means I'm Mentally
> deficient", I'm happy with that. Thanks.

Nobody mentioned anything about leftiness or wokeness, so again you show
a complete inability to argue a rational point.

>>> Are Hamas terrorists JJ, did they commit genocide 7th October?
>
>> They are certainly terrorists,
>
> Wow, I'm impressed.
>
>> not sure about genocide:
>
> well almost.
>
> [Snip]

So yet again you miss the chance to learn something.

>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/ppe-medpro-uk-govern> ment-alleges-firm-supplied-defective-gowns-nhs
>>>
>>> The Guardian. Lol. Lol.
>>
>> Laugh like an idiot all you like, you not liking sources that
>> happen to contradict your world view doesn't make them any less
>> true, all you accomplish is confirming your own lack of mature
>> intellect.
>
> If seeing the Guardian for the rubbish lefty rag it is makes me any
> of those things, I'm a happy man. Thanks.

Your problem is that it's not a lefty rag, but a centrist newspaper, and
your thinking of it as a lefty rag merely reveals more about your own
hopeless bigotry than it reveals anything about the newspaper.

>>> I normally like to use the JJs of this world as a guide, He
>>> confirms the wrong path and thinking for me, very useful.
>>>
>>> So I'm troubled to find myself largely agreeing with JJ on this
>>> one. Most disconcerting I must have missed something.
>
>> You missed growing up sufficiently to be able argue like an adult.
>
> Irony. How's the counselling going?
>
> Have a good christmas JJ.

Fuck off, childish loser.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk