COP 26 Summit

[JamesWales]

Who the hell is Greta Thunberg anyway?

Croesys next girlfriend I think.

[MOZZER2]

Who the hell is Greta Thunberg anyway?

here we go stan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHvyWACMnnU

blau, blau ,blau ...

[Eric Cartman]

Excuse me? Of course she should face scrutiny. If everything she advocated kicked in tomorrow millions would lose their jobs. I am very pro greening our economy but it needs to be done whilst taking account of numerous factors. No issue with campaigning but if you put someone up to make political statements, they should be allowed to be criticised. Otherwise they are a religious leader in a theocracy. Nothing wrong with it, but people are allowed to question what she says. That's creepy otherwise.

I don't think anybody in this thread or beyond is actually questioning what she says though. Their current plan seems to be primarily to make insinuations about her motives without a shred of evidence and then occasionally go all 'bleeding heart' and pretend to care about her mental wellbeing (intertwined with some casual thinly veiled insults).

[Eric Cartman]

Just because you want someone to be corrupt doesn't make it so. If you know otherwise about this MP you should report it to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. I suspect you won't be doing that.

That is a very naive take on the state of British politics and I think you know that. It isn't against the rules to take money from somebody and vote in their favour, it would be impossible to police but that definitely doesn't mean that it isn't corruption.

[lardy]

What political statements does Greta make?

[JamesWales]

I don't think anybody in this thread or beyond is actually questioning what she says though. Their current plan seems to be primarily to make insinuations about her motives without a shred of evidence and then occasionally go all 'bleeding heart' and pretend to care about her mental wellbeing (intertwined with some casual thinly veiled insults).

Indeed, but the point is that people are allowed to scrutinize what she says, debate her points, hold her to account etc. There is nothing wrong with that and it's an important part of political discourse

[JamesWales]

That is a very naive take on the state of British politics and I think you know that. It isn't against the rules to take money from somebody and vote in their favour, it would be impossible to police but that definitely doesn't mean that it isn't corruption.

It's in reference to a thread on the politics post and someone saying someone is corrupt for that scenario. My point is that it isn't necessarily so.

You may not agree with them, but it doesn't mean they are corrupt, which is s strong word.

[the other bob wilson]

It's hardly a neutral source, so was Johnson's speech really as bad as this suggests?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-chance-saloon

This story just seems so UK 2021 to me;-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59128618

India promises to be carbon neutral by 2070 - is it worth them bothering?

[Jordi Culé]

Excuse me? Of course she should face scrutiny. If everything she advocated kicked in tomorrow millions would lose their jobs. I am very pro greening our economy but it needs to be done whilst taking account of numerous factors. No issue with campaigning but if you put someone up to make political statements, they should be allowed to be criticised. Otherwise they are a religious leader in a theocracy. Nothing wrong with it, but people are allowed to question what she says. That's creepy otherwise.

And I have explained why someone who gets paid for something and votes a way may not be corrupt. It happens all the time, and as explained, MPs get paid by trade unions all the time and vote for pro trade union policies. It doesn't mean they are corrupt. Either way, politicians are scrutinized and elected so it's all fine. It's a totally different scenario.

Just because you want someone to be corrupt doesn't make it so. If you know otherwise about this MP you should report it to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. I suspect you won't be doing that.

Fair play, you're duller than I thought.

This reply is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and shouting "it's not happening..." repeatedly.

Questions, who is scrutinising Greta Thunberg and why?

Have they found anything improper yet?

[Jordi Culé]

It's in reference to a thread on the politics post and someone saying someone is corrupt for that scenario. My point is that it isn't necessarily so.

You may not agree with them, but it doesn't mean they are corrupt, which is s strong word.

Wouldn't you say for instance, accepting money from a fossil fuels company and then consistently voting against 'green' measures which would reduce the use of said fossil fuels looks slightly suspect and deserves a lot more scrutiny and investigation than a 16 year old kid whose got on her high horse over the fact she doesn't want to see Cardiff underwater in the next century?

Asking for a friend.

[lardy]

Wouldn't you say for instance, accepting money from a fossil fuels company and then consistently voting against 'green' measures which would reduce the use of said fossil fuels looks slightly suspect and deserves a lot more scrutiny and investigation than a 16 year old kid whose got on her high horse over the fact she doesn't want to see Cardiff underwater in the next century?

Asking for a friend.

But but but Greta flies on a plane sometimes!

[JamesWales]

Wouldn't you say for instance, accepting money from a fossil fuels company and then consistently voting against 'green' measures which would reduce the use of said fossil fuels looks slightly suspect and deserves a lot more scrutiny and investigation than a 16 year old kid whose got on her high horse over the fact she doesn't want to see Cardiff underwater in the next century?

Asking for a friend.

You are talking about two entirely different topics from two entirely different threads that have nothing to do with eachother on a football message board.

And you call me dull.

Everyone should be scrutinized.
Someone having a belief in something doesn't necessarily mean they are corrupt.

These aren't difficult concepts to understand. I've explained it already so go and read that.

Now stop picking fights!

[Jordi Culé]

You are talking about two entirely different topics from two entirely different threads that have nothing to do with eachother on a football message board.

And you call me dull.

Everyone should be scrutinized.
Someone having a belief in something doesn't necessarily mean they are corrupt.

These aren't difficult concepts to understand. I've explained it already so go and read that.

Now stop picking fights!

Hang on handsome. I didn't bring the two topics together, you did!

I've just asked a question, rhetorically and with more than a hint of sarcasm.

Not spoiling for a fight either. This whole conversation is akin to stabbing a kitten with a knitting needle.

[JamesWales]

Hang on handsome. I didn't bring the two topics together, you did!

I've just asked a question, rhetorically and with more than a hint of sarcasm.

Not spoiling for a fight either. This whole conversation is akin to stabbing a kitten with a knitting needle.

No I didn't..Croesy did. And maybe he's not being entirely honest.

You're right though, I shall put the knitting needle down now. 👍

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Indeed, but the point is that people are allowed to scrutinize what she says, debate her points, hold her to account etc. There is nothing wrong with that and it's an important part of political discourse

I think increasingly what ever the zeitgeist says, it's accepted in the mainstream/media/political classes without the scrutiny or critique that there would have been perhaps a decade ago. A simple example would be the origins of Covid 19. Dare utter the view that it came out of a lab. in China, and you'd have been derided. You would have found it hard to read anything on Google to that effect as Google had conveniently pushed them downwards, yet today the US has pretty much said that's where it came from.
Anyway, we're going to have 2 weeks of nauseating fawning over a little girl, who'll be annoyingly even smuggier by the end.

[Jordi Culé]

No I didn't..Croesy did. And maybe he's not being entirely honest.

You're right though, I shall put the knitting needle down now. 👍

You're winning here, we can all see that?

[WJ99mobile]

Fantastic, we're going to spend taxes on green initiatives to hit somewhat grandstanding targets instead of going to where it's desperately needed in our country to offset what the rest of the world is doing.

What a few years it is for the younger generation who have also got the luxury of spiralling house prices and a decade of low wages from the 2008 financial crash.

Great timing.

[JamesWales]

You're winning here, we can all see that?

I think so yeah. I'm sure most agree that everyone who puts themselves in the public discourse should be able to be scrutinized.

And equally a politician who receives payment for an area of expertise isn't necessarily corrupt.

These are pretty uncontroversial statements so glad to see you coming round to them.

[JamesWales]

It's hardly a neutral source, so was Johnson's speech really as bad as this suggests?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-chance-saloon

This story just seems so UK 2021 to me;-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59128618

India promises to be carbon neutral by 2070 - is it worth them bothering?

The guardian is a pretty poor source nowadays, especially in terms of the opinion pieces. John Crace is a fairly light-hearted columnist I guess but it's actually one of the most click-baity papers there is now IMO.

The story about wheelchair access is absolutely unbelievable.

Agree on India. I am sympathetic to the view that it may curtail their development after the west has been allowed to develop but I'd say that is subservient to the wider picture. The future has to be in solar and wind in countries like India.

[Rjk]

I think increasingly what ever the zeitgeist says, it's accepted in the mainstream/media/political classes without the scrutiny or critique that there would have been perhaps a decade ago. A simple example would be the origins of Covid 19. Dare utter the view that it came out of a lab. in China, and you'd have been derided. You would have found it hard to read anything on Google to that effect as Google had conveniently pushed them downwards, yet today the US has pretty much said that's where it came from.
Anyway, we're going to have 2 weeks of nauseating fawning over a little girl, who'll be annoyingly even smuggier by the end.

the US have not pretty much said that it came from a lab in China at all

[Jordi Culé]

I think so yeah. I'm sure most agree that everyone who puts themselves in the public discourse should be able to be scrutinized.

And equally a politician who receives payment for an area of expertise isn't necessarily corrupt.

These are pretty uncontroversial statements so glad to see you coming round to them.

I didn't actually say Thunberg shouldn't be scrutinised?

Nor did I say, the MP was corrupt?

I asked a question about what you thought should be the priority or perhaps level of scrutiny?

Carry on though, you're amusing me. I like the way your fitting your narrative to your self delusion. It's a gift really.

It's scrutinised not scrutinized by the way old bean. Bloody American dictionary.

[the other bob wilson]

The guardian is a pretty poor source nowadays, especially in terms of the opinion pieces. John Crace is a fairly light-hearted columnist I guess but it's actually one of the most click-baity papers there is now IMO.

The story about wheelchair access is absolutely unbelievable.

Agree on India. I am sympathetic to the view that it may curtail their development after the west has been allowed to develop but I'd say that is subservient to the wider picture. The future has to be in solar and wind in countries like India.

That’s why I asked if Johnson’s speech was as bad as reported in that paper - I can definitely believe it was mind.

[Croesy Blue]

It's in reference to a thread on the politics post and someone saying someone is corrupt for that scenario. My point is that it isn't necessarily so.

You may not agree with them, but it doesn't mean they are corrupt, which is s strong word.

Taking money from a donor that has a certain way they want you to vote Is corrupt. It’s the ****ing definition of it. Where I work we aren’t allowed to accept anything over £20 because it classes as corruption.

So an MP taking a payment of £150k is corruption.

[JamesWales]

I didn't actually say Thunberg shouldn't be scrutinised?

Nor did I say, the MP was corrupt?

I asked a question about what you thought should be the priority or perhaps level of scrutiny?

Carry on though, you're amusing me. I like the way your fitting your narrative to your self delusion. It's a gift really.

It's scrutinised not scrutinized by the way old bean. Bloody American dictionary.

In which case we agree.

Although, actually you said "Dull as phucking dog shit" in reply to Croesy.

This all works better if you read the posts before replying, saving us all time and saving you the effort of filling the board with insults.

[Croesy Blue]

No I didn't..Croesy did. And maybe he's not being entirely honest.

You're right though, I shall put the knitting needle down now. 👍

Again your reading comprehension is very poor.

I didn’t bring the 2 topics together I was just using it to highlight your hypocrisy.