Anyone still like Labour?

[Yournamehere]

1 hour ago, Johnsond said:

Reeves reveals plan to rip up banking regulations brought in after financial crash

APPLE.NEWS

---

Chancellor indicates she wants to hand market freedoms it had almost two decades ago, before major...

What could possibly go wrong 🤷‍♂️

Odd. From your usual posting style, I would have thought that you would have been in favour of this; you usually seem to be in favour of less government regulation and 'interference' in daily life. And more so because this was a set of regulations introduced by a Labour government, I see two reasons why I would have thought you would be celebrating. What's changed?

 

[Johnsond]

43 minutes ago, sime42 said:

 

That's a no then. Fair enough. You can fill your boots with this lot, to bring you up to speed. You'll have to bear with me, until I can find a more easily digestible LinxedIn screenshot.

 

Google Search

WWW.GOOGLE.COM

 

 

In a nutshell;- Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperature and weather patterns, primarily caused by human activities like burning fossil fuels. Biodiversity collapse, on the other hand, is the decline or disappearance of biological diversity, encompassing genetic, species, and ecosystem levels.

 

Context is everything. You're asking questions about one issue, in the context of another issue. Theres no answer for that. You need to be more specific. Do you want solutions for Climate Change or solutions for Biodiversity Collapse? You're conflating the two. I think you want to talk exclusively about Ed Miliband and the Net Zero agenda, ok but that's mainly solutions for the former issue. Although it'll help with the latter. If I could sketch on here I'd knock up a little Venn diagram for ya.

 

And the AFL, what or who is that exactly? It seems to be a cabal with an ever increasing membership. Context again; if you keep using an obscure term you need to provide the context in which it's meant to be taken.

 

 

 

 

So basically more waffle 

Wouldn’t it be easier just to answer the questions, the few historical facts I threw in were neither here nor there. That’s both you and 42 now whom have replied with long winded empty posts, if you have the solutions and the reasons why this biodiversity collapses is occurring then enlighten us all 👍

Edited Friday at 09:05 by Johnsond

[Yournamehere]

19 hours ago, GarethM said:

They bloody well are not local super trawlers.

 

‘Hoovered’ up from the deep: 33,000 hours of seabed trawling revealed in protected UK waters | Marine life | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Analysis shows alarming prevalence of harmful fishing methods thought to ‘destroy whole ecosystems’

 

 

Gareth! Shame on you! The very idea! 

I cannot believe that you are quoting that lefty bastion of bias & bs, The Guardian, as an authority.

Truly the world has turned

[Johnsond]

4 minutes ago, Yournamehere said:

Odd. From your usual posting style, I would have thought that you would have been in favour of this; you usually seem to be in favour of less government regulation and 'interference' in daily life. And more so because this was a set of regulations introduced by a Labour government, I see two reasons why I would have thought you would be celebrating. What's changed?

 

You seem to be going down the mistake assumption route that your anonymous team mate has stuck with for years. 

[Yournamehere]

1 minute ago, Johnsond said:

You seem to be going down the mistake assumption route that your anonymous team mate has stuck with for years. 

Which is what?

And why do you think the removal of these regs is a bad idea.

You know, tell us more, it is a forum after all.

[Johnsond]

6 minutes ago, Yournamehere said:

Which is what?

And why do you think the removal of these regs is a bad idea.

You know, tell us more, it is a forum after all.

Why were they put in place 🤷‍♂️

You are just making yourself look stupid now. I’ll leave it to anyone who remembers the banking crash to explain to you.

You are obviously bored this morning, once you have actually answered the questions regarding the supposed biodiversity collapse, you can do some research into what the banking collapse cost uk taxpayers 👍

Edited Friday at 09:11 by Johnsond

[GarethM]

7 minutes ago, Yournamehere said:

Gareth! Shame on you! The very idea! 

I cannot believe that you are quoting that lefty bastion of bias & bs, The Guardian, as an authority.

Truly the world has turned

Whilst I hate the publication and most of its "writer's" with a passion, using their own links against them is somewhere between holding back a smile whilst throwing up a little.

[Johnsond]

15 minutes ago, Yournamehere said:

Which is what?

And why do you think the removal of these regs is a bad idea.

You know, tell us more, it is a forum after all.

 . 

[GarethM]

4 minutes ago, Johnsond said:

 . 

And the American subprime mortgages, banks giving mortgages then selling off the paperwork to anyone thinking it would earn a fortune and then banks going oh f we have a worthless piece of paper.

[Yournamehere]

18 minutes ago, Johnsond said:

Why were they put in place 🤷‍♂️

You are just making yourself look stupid now. I’ll leave it to anyone who remembers the banking crash to explain to you.

You are obviously bored this morning, once you have actually answered the questions regarding the supposed biodiversity collapse, you can do some research into what the banking collapse cost uk taxpayers 👍

I know why they were put in place, I was there, same as you, same as pretty much everyone else; I know the cost to the economy of the collapse. That wasn't what I was talking about, that can be taken as read. I was curious as to why you don't welcome the removal of government regulation in this case as you give the impression you are usually against such government interference.

Again, after putting this up for discussion, you turn straight away to heaping personal abuse upon anyone who comes back to discuss it with you.

 

There are no outstanding questions regarding biodiversity collapse: every study has verified every earlier study yet you dismiss the evidence as bs without presenting any evidence to the contrary.