By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
She has clearly taken away his power base and he does not like it one bit.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
Is this because.... on 14:10 - Feb 29 by Darth_Koont
Because Abbott has suffered more racist abuse than anyone else. People talking about her incompetence need to show that they apply the same to others which invariably they don't.
But that's by the by as this is a situation where a high-level civil servant is calling her out as a "hateful k%€&" but in politer terms. So it's a bit more specific. However, I'm equally comfortable calling Raab a hateful k"#& too if you need to see some balance.
It wasn't about racist abuse. It was about non-racist abuse (e.g. people continually calling her out as absolutely hopeless) being racist because she is a black woman.
Is this because.... on 14:18 - Feb 29 by Trequartista
It wasn't about racist abuse. It was about non-racist abuse (e.g. people continually calling her out as absolutely hopeless) being racist because she is a black woman.
There’s a dossier thicker than some of the arguments on this thread of the racist abuse Abbott has received (however inept she is or isn’t). Not that that’s got anything to do with bullying accusations against the current hapless home sec.
On many occasions you have posted things that are not accurate, or simply stated without any evidence.
So, if you can post in accurate information more than once, then anything you post should be taken with a degree of skepticism.
So you see, even in using the word “utter” you have posted somewhat of an exaggeration. Which doesn’t really help your case.
As an example Sprucey used the word seldom, which is likely to be more accurate, since it concedes that sometimes you could post something accurate, rather than your unequivocal “utter codswallop”, based on evidence.
How on earth can you think anyone on here can offer the type of 'def info evidence' people demand?
If we had access to that level of evidence we'd be world class detectives.
Some do need to be realistic and accept judgement and thought. Simply asking for 100% proof is a base reply.
Utter codswallop is my opinion of the post to which it related too.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
I had hoped you may see this in the context from which it was posted.
Powerful woman runs one of the great offices of state, she is not white. Butts heads with man, as described, he resigns claiming constructive dismissal....
If that had been Dianne what you you then say?
Take the red/blue out of it. PP is shaking the tree and I like it.
Id thought you'd like it. You have the same moral compass as dear little Priti.
0
Is this because.... on 18:17 - Feb 29 with 4044 views
Is this because.... on 12:39 - Feb 29 by bazgammon
Disgusting comment. People have been banned for using such language on here. Interesting that 'identity politics' is a one way street for the left like Herbivore. Pathetic.
Funny how being a snowflake is a one way street for a lot of people on the right
Is this because.... on 12:49 - Feb 29 by bazgammon
You are a hypocrite. You have reported and were 'offended' by the likes of Benters and others on this forum in the past for 'abusive' language, (well anybody who differs from your hard left politics!) yet you feel YOU can call somebody you don't even know a ***t on here. You need to show some respect just because someone doesn't share your politics what gives you the right to call them that? Yes, I have reported that post as abuse because it is.
Ah yes, the classic “ anyone who disagrees with me is hard left” tactic
Is this because.... on 12:49 - Feb 29 by bazgammon
You are a hypocrite. You have reported and were 'offended' by the likes of Benters and others on this forum in the past for 'abusive' language, (well anybody who differs from your hard left politics!) yet you feel YOU can call somebody you don't even know a ***t on here. You need to show some respect just because someone doesn't share your politics what gives you the right to call them that? Yes, I have reported that post as abuse because it is.
I never reported Benters for abuse, despite many of his posts being abusive and/or offensive. Dry your eyes.
It appears it's not as the O[ would have us believe.
To take this to a tribunal would suggest that Rutman is telling the truth. Why risk everything when there is evidence to disprove his claim. More so when the onus will be on him to prove his case.
The fact that he was offered a 'payoff' further adds to that suggestion. .Something that smacks of wantingnto hush things up as it would have doubtlessly included a confidentiality clause.
This does also point towards this being used as a test case - and a chance for the executive to be held accountable. That won't sit well with brexiteers as they have long held that the lawful democratic process is there to serve their needs not the interest of the whole populace.
It should prove an interesting insight into the workings of number 10 as it seeks to function on the basis of 'speak out and we will sack you'. Not the best way to run a government, as two very prominent resignations give evidence to.
3
Is this because.... on 14:23 - Mar 1 with 3886 views
Is this because.... on 20:02 - Feb 29 by Herbivore
I never reported Benters for abuse, despite many of his posts being abusive and/or offensive. Dry your eyes.
[Post edited 1 Mar 2020 17:04]
Pot and kettle.
Don't forget your own vile posts which had to be removed.......
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
In this context, you simply wait for the tribunal process to conclude.
Otherwise you are just posting “mindless speculation”.
Sprucey seemed to be referring to the entirety of your posting, you’re still not doing a good job of proving his assertion wrong.
Not sure it's 'mindless'...it is normal for one to wonder what happens in such scenarios.
At the gym today I was handed the Sunday Mail....I know, I had asked for the other paper they had.... Anyhow, why not I thought, let's see who's coming over the hills to attack us..
There was a double page spread on this. Apparently this chap has form. His track record, according to the Daily Mail, is one of much failure swept away by his effortless skill to throw juniors under whatever bus was required.
He was at the HO when Windrush happened, Amber Rudd asked for data, over and over again....He ignored.......two weeks after she was fired he then released it!
Now don't all shoot.....I'm telling you what the Daily Mail had to say.
If you take a pinch of salt, and try and objective, this chap is a highly paid, £170k I think I read, career civil servant who is used to getting his own way.
I'm more leaning toward the likelihood that he went toe to toe with Ms P and lost. Not used to losing he simply didn't know what to do....credibility lost...Weakened position. 33 years final salary pension.....why not leave and slam the door by going to a tribunal....
Ok, you can all fire away now. But don't forget if it had been your darling Dianne you'd melt the board...
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
Not sure it's 'mindless'...it is normal for one to wonder what happens in such scenarios.
At the gym today I was handed the Sunday Mail....I know, I had asked for the other paper they had.... Anyhow, why not I thought, let's see who's coming over the hills to attack us..
There was a double page spread on this. Apparently this chap has form. His track record, according to the Daily Mail, is one of much failure swept away by his effortless skill to throw juniors under whatever bus was required.
He was at the HO when Windrush happened, Amber Rudd asked for data, over and over again....He ignored.......two weeks after she was fired he then released it!
Now don't all shoot.....I'm telling you what the Daily Mail had to say.
If you take a pinch of salt, and try and objective, this chap is a highly paid, £170k I think I read, career civil servant who is used to getting his own way.
I'm more leaning toward the likelihood that he went toe to toe with Ms P and lost. Not used to losing he simply didn't know what to do....credibility lost...Weakened position. 33 years final salary pension.....why not leave and slam the door by going to a tribunal....
Ok, you can all fire away now. But don't forget if it had been your darling Dianne you'd melt the board...
Not sure it's 'mindless'...it is normal for one to wonder what happens in such scenarios.
At the gym today I was handed the Sunday Mail....I know, I had asked for the other paper they had.... Anyhow, why not I thought, let's see who's coming over the hills to attack us..
There was a double page spread on this. Apparently this chap has form. His track record, according to the Daily Mail, is one of much failure swept away by his effortless skill to throw juniors under whatever bus was required.
He was at the HO when Windrush happened, Amber Rudd asked for data, over and over again....He ignored.......two weeks after she was fired he then released it!
Now don't all shoot.....I'm telling you what the Daily Mail had to say.
If you take a pinch of salt, and try and objective, this chap is a highly paid, £170k I think I read, career civil servant who is used to getting his own way.
I'm more leaning toward the likelihood that he went toe to toe with Ms P and lost. Not used to losing he simply didn't know what to do....credibility lost...Weakened position. 33 years final salary pension.....why not leave and slam the door by going to a tribunal....
Ok, you can all fire away now. But don't forget if it had been your darling Dianne you'd melt the board...
..my Dianne Abbott? What a weird notion.
Did you manage to post any evidence of her poor record as a constituency MP?
“... over the hills to attack us...”
Oh dear boy, what have they got you believing.
2
Is this because.... on 18:37 - Mar 1 with 3736 views
Not sure it's 'mindless'...it is normal for one to wonder what happens in such scenarios.
At the gym today I was handed the Sunday Mail....I know, I had asked for the other paper they had.... Anyhow, why not I thought, let's see who's coming over the hills to attack us..
There was a double page spread on this. Apparently this chap has form. His track record, according to the Daily Mail, is one of much failure swept away by his effortless skill to throw juniors under whatever bus was required.
He was at the HO when Windrush happened, Amber Rudd asked for data, over and over again....He ignored.......two weeks after she was fired he then released it!
Now don't all shoot.....I'm telling you what the Daily Mail had to say.
If you take a pinch of salt, and try and objective, this chap is a highly paid, £170k I think I read, career civil servant who is used to getting his own way.
I'm more leaning toward the likelihood that he went toe to toe with Ms P and lost. Not used to losing he simply didn't know what to do....credibility lost...Weakened position. 33 years final salary pension.....why not leave and slam the door by going to a tribunal....
Ok, you can all fire away now. But don't forget if it had been your darling Dianne you'd melt the board...
The difference between Abbott and Patel is quite clear. They're both incompetent at their jobs, and it's fair that they're both criticised, but how much racist abuse has Patel received on the back of her behaviour compared to Abbott? Sure there are probably a few idiots who have used race against Patel, and they're as bad as the people who've done so against Abbott, but I'd wager the volume of incidents is different. The problem isn't the criticism of Abbott, it's the nature of it.
And I'll spin the question around... if Abbott had been giving interviews talking about " counter terrorism offences" like Patel did, do you honestly think the media would be so forgiving? Or if Abbott had held secret meetings with a foreign government's aides?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
