Welcome to Sky Blues Talk!

You're currently viewing the forum as a guest. Join thousands of fellow Coventry City fans today!

Register Log in

Do you want to discuss boring politics? (51 Viewers)

I would also question if Mr Burnham is indeed suddenly finding a anti Isreal stance he returns the money from pro Israel lobbyists such as Gary Lubner
 
Grendel said:
I don’t believe Andrew Burnham has ever stated that the Israel has committed genocide has he?

Not too surprising given the circle he mixes in

novaramedia.com

Andy Burnham Chooses Pro-Israel Corporate Lobbyist As Chief of Staff

Britain's likely next prime minister, Andy Burnham, has made his pick for the highly influential role of chief of staff: a pro-Israel lobbyist who until recently led a firm representing arms companies, private water firms and tech giants.
novaramedia.com novaramedia.com
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about Burnham, I'm saying it's weird how you take more of an issue with sanctions on Israel than you do with genocide.
 
Grendel said:
Its going to prove interesting to say the least - US already threatening to impose significant trade restrictions on UK imports if this happens
Click to expand...

"The Trump administration did not oppose a UK-led initiative to impose new sanctions on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, U.S. officials and Western diplomats say.

The White House's decision not to push back on the UK effort, which 11 other Western countries have joined, is a signal of its frustration with the Netanyahu government's policy in the West Bank.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham briefed President Trump ahead of the sanctions announcement.

Two sources with knowledge of the call said Trump didn't push back or ask Burnham to change course."


 
PVA said:
"The Trump administration did not oppose a UK-led initiative to impose new sanctions on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, U.S. officials and Western diplomats say.

The White House's decision not to push back on the UK effort, which 11 other Western countries have joined, is a signal of its frustration with the Netanyahu government's policy in the West Bank.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham briefed President Trump ahead of the sanctions announcement.

Two sources with knowledge of the call said Trump didn't push back or ask Burnham to change course."


Click to expand...
It suits Britain and the US really because it ignores completely the genocide in Gaza
 
Last edited:
PVA said:
"The Trump administration did not oppose a UK-led initiative to impose new sanctions on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, U.S. officials and Western diplomats say.

The White House's decision not to push back on the UK effort, which 11 other Western countries have joined, is a signal of its frustration with the Netanyahu government's policy in the West Bank.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham briefed President Trump ahead of the sanctions announcement.

Two sources with knowledge of the call said Trump didn't push back or ask Burnham to change course."


Click to expand...
G hasn’t admitted being wrong on this forum once in at least 15 years so he won’t start now.
 
fernandopartridge said:
It suits Britain and the US really because it ignores completely the genocide in Gaza
Click to expand...

I admit I assumed there would be actual sanctions -when you look at it there’s literally no sanctions at all - as I said Burnham won’t accept Israel commits genocide which isn’t that surprising given his Israel donors.

The cynical view is there had to be a token gesture before a certain by election - surely not.
 
Last edited:
Brighton Sky Blue said:
G hasn’t admitted being wrong on this forum once in at least 15 years so he won’t start now.
Click to expand...

To be fair it’s being laughed at more than anything. A dead cat according to a certain Coventry based MP yesterday
 
Grendel said:
I admit I assumed there would be a risk sanctions -when you look at it there’s literally no sanctions at all - as I said Burnham won’t accept Israel commits genocide which isn’t that surprising given his Israel donors.

The cynical view is there had to be a token gesture before a certain by election - surely not.
Click to expand...
You don’t accept it commits genocide either and in fact called people racist for pointing it out.
 
Mmmm the Labour way - ok chancellor baby just tax the fuck out of anyone who has worked hard and made an effort to provide for their family and more making decent decisions with their life choices
 
Mcbean said:
Mmmm the Labour way - ok chancellor baby just tax the fuck out of anyone who has worked hard and made an effort to provide for their family and more making decent decisions with their life choices
Click to expand...
I don't recall you posting about the Conservatives increasing VAT to its highest ever level and freezing income tax thresholds, two taxes that have an impact on all working people. Why was that?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
ccfc1292 said:
This is always a difficult topic in I imagine a lot of us has experienced. Genuine end of the road, suffering for some offering relief but opens a gate of manipulation and sinister motives for others. It's a difficult "law" to pass, IMO.
Click to expand...
That's true but the tactics Labour employed to do it have ultimately led to its demise.
 
CCFCSteve said:
Not impressed but typical of our politicians. They couldn’t find a way to deliver something that’s widely supported by the public 🤷‍♂️

Thought they were there to serve the people, guess not
Click to expand...

to be fair a lot of disabled people were opposed to the bill
 
CCFCSteve said:
There’s also around 65-70% of the public who at least want to have the option.

The fact that we simultaneously underfund end of life care and leave it to charities to try to pick up the slack is a national disgrace
Click to expand...
I feel like a good chunk of that 30-35% who are against it have never had a close family member suffering for years at the end of their lives.

Rapidly approaching year 5 with my Dad of "3 months, 6 months absolute maximum", when you say that to people who haven't been in the situation their response is along the lines of how brilliant it is that he is hanging on.

Yet when you go to the care home you will regularly speak with the medical staff who will tell you about families asking, or in some cases, begging, for help to end their loved ones suffering. I've yet to speak with a single family member when at the care home who feels there is any benefit in prolonging their loved ones life and suffering.

Away from that side of the argument what is the actual benefit supposed to be? All family members lives basically get put on hold for years while you're in this strange limbo where you loved one has to all intents and purposes gone. It costs the family thousands (I have an ever increasing mountain of debt paying the costs for my Dad that aren't covered by the NHS or the council), its costs the NHS and the local council thousands.

Who is benefitting here? As far as I can see it's only the companies running the care homes.
 
CCFCSteve said:
Not impressed but typical of our politicians. They couldn’t find a way to deliver something that’s widely supported by the public 🤷‍♂️

Thought they were there to serve the people, guess not
Click to expand...
The main problem with the bill was it'd still be of next to no help for people with all the caveats in it. Whether it was worth passing too open the door is arguable, but I don't have the answer
 
chiefdave said:
I feel like a good chunk of that 30-35% who are against it have never had a close family member suffering for years at the end of their lives.

Rapidly approaching year 5 with my Dad of "3 months, 6 months absolute maximum", when you say that to people who haven't been in the situation their response is along the lines of how brilliant it is that he is hanging on.

Yet when you go to the care home you will regularly speak with the medical staff who will tell you about families asking, or in some cases, begging, for help to end their loved ones suffering. I've yet to speak with a single family member when at the care home who feels there is any benefit in prolonging their loved ones life and suffering.

Away from that side of the argument what is the actual benefit supposed to be? All family members lives basically get put on hold for years while you're in this strange limbo where you loved one has to all intents and purposes gone. It costs the family thousands (I have an ever increasing mountain of debt paying the costs for my Dad that aren't covered by the NHS or the council), its costs the NHS and the local council thousands.

Who is benefitting here? As far as I can see it's only the companies running the care homes.
Click to expand...

people like Liz Carr and Tanni Grey Thompson are among the 35%
 
chiefdave said:
I feel like a good chunk of that 30-35% who are against it have never had a close family member suffering for years at the end of their lives.

Rapidly approaching year 5 with my Dad of "3 months, 6 months absolute maximum", when you say that to people who haven't been in the situation their response is along the lines of how brilliant it is that he is hanging on.

Yet when you go to the care home you will regularly speak with the medical staff who will tell you about families asking, or in some cases, begging, for help to end their loved ones suffering. I've yet to speak with a single family member when at the care home who feels there is any benefit in prolonging their loved ones life and suffering.

Away from that side of the argument what is the actual benefit supposed to be? All family members lives basically get put on hold for years while you're in this strange limbo where you loved one has to all intents and purposes gone. It costs the family thousands (I have an ever increasing mountain of debt paying the costs for my Dad that aren't covered by the NHS or the council), its costs the NHS and the local council thousands.

Who is benefitting here? As far as I can see it's only the companies running the care homes.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with this and I’d vote for it but as @ccfc1292 said above, you are open to it being exploited for personal gain.
 
Last edited:
LarryGrayson said:
The main problem with the bill was it'd still be of next to no help for people with all the caveats in it. Whether it was worth passing too open the door is arguable, but I don't have the answer
Click to expand...

Agreed. Always felt it would’ve at least been a step in the right direction though. Cant believe with all the caveats, safeguards etc it still didn’t get through
 
Sick Boy said:
I agree 100% with this and I’d vote for it but as @ccfc1292 said above, you are open to it being exploited for personal gain.
Click to expand...
there's a lot of safeguards in the bill. It's a poor decision from MPs. Watching a loved one face a slow, inevitable death in a hospital bed—either heavily medicated or them suffering intense mental anguish knowing they are dying often without much dignity—is a form of cruelty we would never tolerate in other areas of life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
The AI thread
5 6 7
Replies
224
Views
8K
Captain Dart
Captain Dart
JulianDarbyFTW
    • Like
Small Wins
Replies
3
Views
389
King Dougs Quiff
King Dougs Quiff
ThatCovPod
Podcast Ep 111 - Tottenham 3-1 Coventry | Sky Blues fail to capitalise on timid Spurs
Replies
0
Views
89
ThatCovPod
ThatCovPod
S
    • Poo
Podcast A Load of Bobbins
Replies
0
Views
138
Sky Blues Extra
S
Bertola
8xbet
Replies
5
Views
811
northstander
northstander

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 52 (members: 0, guests: 52)
Back
Top Bottom