[Politics] Safeguards on food standards have been removed.

[dingodan]

Then why do it. Why spend time on a bill like this when we are wracked by the COVID crisis.

We have a government which is hellbent on taking back power so that laws against tax havens will not apply in the UK and they will sell out the 'common man' to get there. The lying comes from the right wing press and the right wing power brokers behind the government who seek to increase their wealth.

To score political points, grandstand, and no doubt in some cases, because they wrongly believe it's neccessary. It will prove to have not been neccessary, but of course this will all be forgotten by then won't it.

 

[daveinplzen]

To score political points, grandstand, and no doubt in some cases, because they wrongly believe it's neccessary. It will prove to have not been neccessary, but of course this will all be forgotten by then won't it.

Your trust in serial, demonstrably proven liars, is commendable.

 

[dingodan]

This is not true, It is an indicator, standards may well be lowered and the Conservative governement has consistently been proven to lie.

you are just making statements and assumptions and accusing us of all being stupid when you don't know any of us.

I'm saying, wait until they lower standards before you accuse them of wanting to lower standards. They haven't, yet this is being touted as proof that their commitment not to is a lie.

So much twisting of reality on here it's unreal. They rejected the amendment. They still contend that standards will not be lowered. They rejected the amendment not because they want to lower standards. Unless you are so simple as to believe that if they were committed to not lowering standards they would have accepted the amendment, and the only reason not to is that they do want to lower standards. That's simply not true, as I have already pointed out.

This isn't difficult to understand, unless of course you don't want to.

 

[WATFORD zero]

You are twisting my words. They aren't trying to prove they don't need to be forced. The amendment is trying to imply that they do need to be forced.

Twisting your words ? I QUOTED you

And with that I have reached my idiocy quota for the day

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'm saying, wait until they lower standards before you accuse them of wanting to lower standards. They haven't, yet this is being touted as proof that their commitment not to is a lie.

So much twisting of reality on here it's unreal. They rejected the amendment. They still contend that standards will not be lowered. They rejected the amendment not because they want to lower standards. Unless you are so simple as to believe that if they were committed to not lowering standards they would have accepted the amendment, and the only reason not to is that they do want to lower standards. That's simply not true, as I have already pointed out.

This isn't difficult to understand, unless of course you don't want to.

 

[Wardy's twin]

I'm saying, wait until they lower standards before you accuse them of wanting to lower standards. They haven't, yet this is being touted as proof that their commitment not to is a lie.

So much twisting of reality on here it's unreal. They rejected the amendment. They still contend that standards will not be lowered. They rejected the amendment not because they want to lower standards. Unless you are so simple as to believe that if they were committed to not lowering standards they would have accepted the amendment, and the only reason not to is that they do want to lower standards. That's simply not true, as I have already pointed out.

This isn't difficult to understand, unless of course you don't want to.

so its ok if i shoot a gun at a crowd of people as long as I miss ? surely the question is why am I shooting at a crowd of people rather than i am a crap shot and missed.

I know you are only on here trolling/fishing as no one could be so naive .

P.S. I am biting cause I have nothing better to do.

 

[Peteinblack]

That is exactly what I am saying, yes. Look at the original post in this thread: "I was of the impression this would never happen" He was under the impression that food standards wouldn't be lowered. They haven't been. The thread just continues in that vein.

This thread is evidence that people are ignorant of the detail, and the pronouncements of outraged opposition politicians serve to prove that they are willing to take advantage of that ignorance, because they know that the status of our food standards has not changed as a result of this amendment falling, but they would have you believe something else.

This amendment falling is not an indicator of anything, as I have already explained pretty exhaustively. Food standards won't be lowered, but the damage (intentional) has been done. This will serve to add to the "evidence" that the government "lies".

You are being lied to. But not by the government, actually.

How, and why, are you so sure? The Government is desperate to secure post-Brexit trade deals with the US, and will surely accept US demands that we accept lower standards by diluting food safety regulations. The US will insist that we do so as the price of securing those deals.

Far from 'taking back control', we'll surrender it to the Americans.

You want us to believe that we can trust this government - in spite of Boris Johnson's life-long career as an inveterate liar (according to former colleagues of his - who you can't dismiss as Lefties) and serial shagger (he doesn't even know how many kids he's fathered), the cock-ups over COVID, and the £ billions of tax-payers money spaffed every week on contracts awarded to companies which fund the Conservative Party (no competitive tendering anymore to ensure the firms are competent, and will deliver value-for-money).

You want us to believe that the government voted against a parliamentary amendment to guarantee food standards because … it intends to guarantee food standards?

Nah, it's not us who's being lied to or brainwashed

 

[vegster]

Now THERE'S a challenge.

Would he let me talk, or speak right over me?

He can be quite understanding really.......

 

[WATFORD zero]

Now THERE'S a challenge.

Would he let me talk, or speak right over me?

I wouldn't worry too much, from what I've seen, he does seem to be quite gentle with genuine idiots

Ooops I think I've overdosed

 

[dingodan]

This place is pretty toxic at times isn't it.

Sorry I don't agree with your political hatred.

I've just been trying to point out that protections exist, they have not been removed, despite the title of this thread. There is, so far, no indication that they will be removed

There was only the argument made against Brexit, the U.S will have us over a barrel etc, but that was motivated by a desire to discourage Brexit. I don't believe the U.S. will turn down a large scale trade deal over poultry or beef. We will see, but so far the UK position has not changed.

The government have committed to maintaining food standards, and are preparing to fight any appeal against them at the WTO, which I think shows their intentions quite clearly.

The toxicity here is more than I am willing to soak up any more though.

Again, I'm sorry I don't agree with all your politics and hatred for this government.

I feel like no longer discussing political issues on this board, which I guess will please a lot of you, since you don't seem to like hearing opposing views anyway.

Don't mistake the fact that there are ever less and less people who seem to disagree with you for evidence that there is widespread agreement. Most people just don't want to deal with the toxicity of political discussion on this board, and who can blame them.

I wish I hadn't bothered, and yes, I know. So do you.

Very good.

 

[Guinness Boy]

This place is pretty toxic at times isn't it.

Sorry I don't agree with your political hatred.

I've just been trying to point out that protections exist, they have not been removed, despite the title of this thread. There is, so far, no indication that they will be removed

There was only the argument made against Brexit, the U.S will have us over a barrel etc, but that was motivated by a desire to discourage Brexit. I don't believe the U.S. will turn down a large scale trade deal over poultry or beef. We will see, but so far the UK position has not changed.

The government have committed to maintaining food standards, and are preparing to fight any appeal against them at the WTO, which I think shows their intentions quite clearly.

The toxicity here is more than I am willing to soak up any more though.

Again, I'm sorry I don't agree with all your politics and hatred for this government.

I feel like no longer discussing political issues on this board, which I guess will please a lot of you, since you don't seem to like hearing opposing views anyway.

Don't mistake the fact that there are ever less and less people who seem to disagree with you for evidence that there is widespread agreement. Most people just don't want to deal with the toxicity of political discussion on this board, and who can blame them.

I wish I hadn't bothered, and yes, I know. So do you.

Very good.

One of the only posts you haven't replied to is mine stating that

Chlorine washed chicken and hormone-treated beef will continue to be banned in the UK.

is factually incorrect because you have no idea what is going to happen in the future. People have pointed this out again, adding that the current government are less than trustworthy. Here's a clue why.

Boris calls for UK to stay in EU

That seems to be all that has hapened

 

[Is it PotG?]

I wouldn't worry too much, from what I've seen, he does seem to be quite gentle with genuine idiots

Ooops I think I've overdosed

I LIKE you.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I LIKE you.

No, no you don't.

But you will never enter a debate on anything meaningful, because you know I'm way way smarter than you. (And before you get carried away, it is the very definition of damning with faint praise ).

I'm off to watch some football, but I'm sure the next time I'm on here you will be hanging around, like a dodgy smell that won't go away. Have a good evening

 

[Is it PotG?]

No, no you don't.

But you will never enter a debate on anything meaningful, because you know I'm way way smarter than you. (And before you get carried away, it is the very definition of damning with faint praise ).

I'm off to watch some football, but I'm sure the next time I'm on here you will be hanging around, like a dodgy smell that won't go away. Have a good evening

Bit harsh

 

[zefarelly]

This place is pretty toxic at times isn't it.

Sorry I don't agree with your political hatred.

I've just been trying to point out that protections exist, they have not been removed, despite the title of this thread. There is, so far, no indication that they will be removed

There was only the argument made against Brexit, the U.S will have us over a barrel etc, but that was motivated by a desire to discourage Brexit. I don't believe the U.S. will turn down a large scale trade deal over poultry or beef. We will see, but so far the UK position has not changed.

The government have committed to maintaining food standards, and are preparing to fight any appeal against them at the WTO, which I think shows their intentions quite clearly.

The toxicity here is more than I am willing to soak up any more though.

Again, I'm sorry I don't agree with all your politics and hatred for this government.

I feel like no longer discussing political issues on this board, which I guess will please a lot of you, since you don't seem to like hearing opposing views anyway.

Don't mistake the fact that there are ever less and less people who seem to disagree with you for evidence that there is widespread agreement. Most people just don't want to deal with the toxicity of political discussion on this board, and who can blame them.

I wish I hadn't bothered, and yes, I know. So do you.

Very good.

Whilst you've made a few good and correct points on the way, the fact remains you vehemently believe in a bunch of liars and most of us don't. What actually happens remains to be seen.

The fact this thread remains on the main board, confirms we're a reasoned civil bunch, on the whole. The debate has been civil, more civil and respectful than some of your favoured representatives behave in the house.

You're resignation suggest you have no further argument with which to debate.

 

[ManOfSussex]

This place is pretty toxic at times isn't it.

Sorry I don't agree with your political hatred.

I've just been trying to point out that protections exist, they have not been removed, despite the title of this thread. There is, so far, no indication that they will be removed

There was only the argument made against Brexit, the U.S will have us over a barrel etc, but that was motivated by a desire to discourage Brexit. I don't believe the U.S. will turn down a large scale trade deal over poultry or beef. We will see, but so far the UK position has not changed.

The government have committed to maintaining food standards, and are preparing to fight any appeal against them at the WTO, which I think shows their intentions quite clearly.

The toxicity here is more than I am willing to soak up any more though.

Again, I'm sorry I don't agree with all your politics and hatred for this government.

I feel like no longer discussing political issues on this board, which I guess will please a lot of you, since you don't seem to like hearing opposing views anyway.

Don't mistake the fact that there are ever less and less people who seem to disagree with you for evidence that there is widespread agreement. Most people just don't want to deal with the toxicity of political discussion on this board, and who can blame them.

I wish I hadn't bothered, and yes, I know. So do you.

Very good.

Terribly sorry to interrupt, so do accept my most sincere and humble apologies good sir, but help me out here mate - which English public school did you go to?

Thanks.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

You are twisting my words. They aren't trying to prove they don't need to be forced. The amendment is trying to imply that they do need to be forced.

Even when I disagree with them, I have often admired the way you have constructed your arguments. But this is completely haywire.

 

[dingodan]

Even when I disagree with them, I have often admired the way you have constructed your arguments. But this is completely haywire.

Rejecting the implication that you need to be forced to do something, is not the same as trying to prove that you don't.

 

[dingodan]

Terribly sorry to interrupt, so do accept my most sincere and humble apologies good sir, but help me out here mate - which English public school did you go to?

Thanks.

Nice example of what I was talking about.

Everyone on here is determined to play the man and not the ball.

There is no difference between mocking someone because they went to public school and mocking someone because they didn't. You are no better than the people you would criticize. Kids go to school, and where that happens to be isn't usually up to them.

 

[dingodan]

Whilst you've made a few good and correct points on the way, the fact remains you vehemently believe in a bunch of liars and most of us don't. What actually happens remains to be seen.

The fact this thread remains on the main board, confirms we're a reasoned civil bunch, on the whole. The debate has been civil, more civil and respectful than some of your favoured representatives behave in the house.

You're resignation suggest you have no further argument with which to debate.

This thread hasn't been much of a discussion, it's been everyone agreeing how evil the government is for "removing safeguards", which they haven't, attacking anyone who points out that they haven't, and continuing to ignore the fact that they haven't.