Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus: Profiteering scumbags, scams, c*nts and more

Imagine how bad these dismal fucks would have been if we had locked down earlier and avoided a chunk of the deaths.

I suppose it was always inevitable that this pandemic would provide a vivid demonstration of how ignorance and self-interest can hideously distort a persons worldview. That it still happens to this extent despite the grotesque level of death serving as something of an anchor to reality speaks volumes.
 
Imagine how bad these dismal fucks would have been if we had locked down earlier and avoided a chunk of the deaths.

I suppose it was always inevitable that this pandemic would provide a vivid demonstration of how ignorance and self-interest can hideously distort a persons worldview. That it still happens to this extent despite the grotesque level of death serving as something of an anchor to reality speaks volumes.

I suspect the more reality there is going on, the greater the impetus to weave a protective coccoon of magical nonsense. The fact that most of these theories go against the basic principles of causality and logic is a feature, not a bug.
 
So I think this lists some companies that are certainly making excess profits. :mad:

EiTfIWmXgAIzejv
 
Whilst there maybe some truth in that, there doesn't appear to be any evidence to back it up, according to Full Fact.

Regardless of whether they have been fulfilled or not, why have these companies been awarded anything? A company with assets of £145 getting a £116 million pound contract FFS.
 
Regardless of whether they have been fulfilled or not, why have these companies been awarded anything? A company with assets of £145 getting a £116 million pound contract FFS.

That image quotes P14 Medical Supplies having assets of only £145, but according to companies house they have total assets of £342,721, the £145 figure is listed as 'cash at bank or in hand', which as many businesses run on overdrafts is irrelevant. They have been trading for a few years, and are members of a couple of trade associations.

Whilst there maybe some truth, somewhere, in that post, I am always wary of social media posts making claims, if there's no creditable link to back them up.
 
I am worried about £1 billion contracts being awarded without any tender process.

Same here, there's a group of lawyers, the group's name escapes me ATM, that is looking into that sort of thing, and their investigations & actions will be interesting when available.

Not sure about 'without any tender process' in these cases, because the 'Full Fact' link mentions that some of those companies were the only bidders for several contracts, which implies there's been some tender process in at least some of those awarded contracts.
 
Same here, there's a group of lawyers, the group's name escapes me ATM, that is looking into that sort of thing, and their investigations & actions will be interesting when available.

Not sure about 'without any tender process' in these cases, because the 'Full Fact' link mentions that some of those companies were the only bidders for several contracts, which implies there's been some tender process in at least some of those awarded contracts.
The Good Law Project I think - they've launched JR proceedings for the dodgy contracts which didn't involve going out to tender.
 
Pelosi now qualifies for this thread, in the Dominic Cummings Hypocricy Award category.


I'm not sure it's true, though. Hair salons in California were allowed to operate indoors from August 28th and this happened a couple of days later.

In the UK customers at hairdressers aren't expected to wear masks while their hair's being cut for the simple reason that they or the hairdresser would probably have to touch them in order not to cut through them, and touching the mask reduces the mask's efficiency anyway. Hairdressers and their customers face away from each, so that reduces aerosol transmission too.

(Source for the 28th date: California Hair Salons Can Reopen For Indoor Service Per New Guidelines | Hollywood Reporter)

It looks like she was following the rules.
 
I'm not sure it's true, though. Hair salons in California were allowed to operate indoors from August 28th and this happened a couple of days later.

In the UK customers at hairdressers aren't expected to wear masks while their hair's being cut for the simple reason that they or the hairdresser would probably have to touch them in order not to cut through them, and touching the mask reduces the mask's efficiency anyway. Hairdressers and their customers face away from each, so that reduces aerosol transmission too.

(Source for the 28th date: California Hair Salons Can Reopen For Indoor Service Per New Guidelines | Hollywood Reporter)

It looks like she was following the rules.

Nope. Firstly the 28th was the date that California announce the new rules, it was not the date they took effect.

Secondly the hair salon was in San Francisco and their new rules for the start of September involved some hair salons and barber shops being able to open for business outside.

 
Nope. Firstly the 28th was the date that California announce the new rules, it was not the date they took effect.

Secondly the hair salon was in San Francisco and their new rules for the start of September involved some hair salons and barber shops being able to open for business outside.


Yep, I was thinking that maybe San Fran had stricter rules, but I think that the 28th date was when the state-wide rules took effect.

It was also not actually a dangerous thing to do.

The hairdresser invited Pelosi inside and then reported her for going inside. The hairdresser shouldn't even have had an inside salon at all, but she did. It was a set-up.
 
Plus the reason for my stance is pretty simple.

When people in the public eye break public health rules during a nasty pandemic, I consider that dangerous. Because people seeing that we are not all in it together and that some privileged people behave as if some of the rules dont apply to them is bad. This is amplified when people make excuses for them.

A for the setup, it probably had multiple motives, there is the obvious political motive and there is also the agenda to undermine the rules that some business owners object to. Excusing Pelosi to protect her from the political setup plays into the other agenda. Politics is a dirty business and she has enough experience to look after herself in that realm, and indeed seems to have survived just fine. Public health measures on the other hand are quite fragile in this pandemic and could use some help, rather than being undermined to protect a few reputations. And so I refuse to diminish her rule-breaking.
 
Telegraph/Spectator crowd have been pushing that line all along, and downplaying deaths (which were still high despite a ‘lockdown’). This is how this sort of stuff permeates into politics, one taken by a lot of Tory MPs and probably shaping Johnson’s attitude too since he is of that crowd. Blood on their hands.
 
Back
Top Bottom