| Is this because.... 10:13 - Feb 29 with 51082 views | hampstead_blue |
....a middle aged white, privileged, probably Oxbridge man in a safe job for life cannot accept working for a very determined and strong woman?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51687287
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.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |  |
| Is this because.... on 20:12 - Mar 4 with 3858 views | footers |
| Is this because.... on 20:08 - Mar 4 by vapour_trail |
I think you’re tying yourself up in knots. |
It's a question better suited to the TalkSport forum. |  |
| |
| Is this because.... on 20:13 - Mar 4 with 3854 views | SpruceMoose |
| Is this because.... on 20:12 - Mar 4 by footers |
It's a question better suited to the TalkSport forum. |
I can see Alan Brazil giving the idea a searing and insightful analysis, that's for sure. |  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| Is this because.... on 20:13 - Mar 4 with 3857 views | Trequartista |
| Is this because.... on 20:05 - Mar 4 by footers |
I'll wait for your next decade to start... in 2021.
 |
So you wade in and co-incidentally it goes cold when you've embarrassed yourself, and then instead of an apology, then come back weeks later with a total misprensentation. (The evidence is all there, feel free to go back and browse) What an appalling poster you are. |  |
| |
| Is this because.... on 20:13 - Mar 4 with 3854 views | Trequartista |
| Is this because.... on 20:08 - Mar 4 by vapour_trail |
I think you’re tying yourself up in knots. |
I think i'm quite clear. | |
| |
| Is this because.... on 20:15 - Mar 4 with 3848 views | footers |
| Is this because.... on 20:13 - Mar 4 by Trequartista |
So you wade in and co-incidentally it goes cold when you've embarrassed yourself, and then instead of an apology, then come back weeks later with a total misprensentation. (The evidence is all there, feel free to go back and browse) What an appalling poster you are. |
Yes, awful. I'm very sorry about that. Please don't hesitate to ask for a refund.
Edited for clarity: "f the first ever decade A.D. was 1-10 wouldn't the last decade be 2011-2020?" [Post edited 4 Mar 2020 20:17]
| |
| |
| Is this because.... on 20:49 - Mar 4 with 3804 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Is this because.... on 14:49 - Mar 4 by GlasgowBlue |
So you agree that the immigration status of her parents, of which she had no control over, is irrelevant and therefore shouldn't be used to attack her? |
The bullying issue isn’t about race. I thought that was clear in my first para when I said ‘it isn’t a race issue’.
But as the discussion on here was about race, I was then clumsily trying to say that when considering any race issues that have been mentioned about her, the only one I can think of is her background. i.e. she doesn’t appear to get the full on racial hatred based on her features like Abbott gets.
Should her background come into her thinking around policies? I don’t know. Her views/policies are small-minded and hateful, that’s clear. Should she be more sensitive because of her background? Maybe - I’d like to think I wouldn’t withdraw opportunities from people if I or my family had previously benefitted from them. But race isn’t the central issue, it’s the removal of opportunities. We could equally be talking around affordable access to higher education. People benefitting from an essentially free education system now loading students up with crippling debt. Same principle, and that’s what’s wrong. |  |
| |
| Is this because.... on 21:27 - Mar 4 with 3778 views | Darth_Koont |
| Is this because.... on 18:55 - Mar 4 by GlasgowBlue |
Yeah but getting Priti Patel out of government trumps the Windrush victims init.
I's like "We support the Palestinians"
"OK. What about the 160,000 Palestinian refugees in Yarmouk who were bombed by Assad"?
"No we don't mean those Palestinians"
This thread is full of rank hypocrites who defended/excused/trivialised the bullying of Labour staffers complaining about the leader's interference in the antisemitism process and turned the other way when Bercow's bullying was exposed.
The Windrush victims, like the Palestinians are just pawns in their political games. [Post edited 4 Mar 2020 18:57]
|
You're awful at this.
It won't come as a surprise but I don't like you and the way you play party politics at every opportunity.
Please stop being a c@£#ervative. |  |
| |
| Is this because.... on 22:00 - Mar 4 with 3757 views | Churchman |
| Is this because.... on 10:44 - Feb 29 by Guthrum |
You don't get to the top of the political tree without being tough and determined, not to say ruthless.
Plus determination has to have direction. If you're determined to do something bad or damaging, then that is a negative.
IMO smashing the Civil Service to make them more politically pliable to the government in power is a negative. As is removing checks and balances on the practicality of policy decisions. |
I agree with this, especially the final paragraph re the Civil Service. When the tories rocked in in 2010, they made it perfectly clear what they thought of it. Francis Maud who got the Cabinet Office job in particular left no room for doubt.
But the Civil S implement policy. They don’t create it. The only influence they have on policy is to research a proposal and say it will cost x, take y amount of time etc In that the do provide a check sometimes save ministers from digging their own grave.
In terms of how politicians behave towards Civil Servants, I know for a fact it does vary and that the Home Office dude has gone public is very surprising. Some, like Blair and Thatcher, were I gather meticulous, always courteous CS staff even if they were demanding, which they usually were. Some more recent (not all), completely the opposite.
My view is that in the world of work, challenging and demanding is absolutely fine as is expecting high level commitment from those who work to you. Rudeness, bullying, threatening is totally unacceptable in the workplace. I hope the enquiry is not a ‘snow job’, but sadly I suspect it will be. [Post edited 5 Mar 2020 6:56]
|  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Is this because.... on 23:46 - Mar 4 with 3738 views | HARRY10 |
| Is this because.... on 20:07 - Mar 4 by Trequartista |
No i'm haven't specified any particular group of people, it's just an interesting comparison of two totally different reactions to two similar things. Should we be praising Patel for doing a Ramsay and or should Ramsay be taken off the air for constant bullying? |
Ramsey is not paty of the govenment so he is not accountable to us the electorate
Ramsay is part of a TV programme that has been edited, and doubtlessly requires him to act in such a manner. TV programmes do that, just as wrestling is not absolutely real
Whereas what is real is a fellow rightie started a thread which has horribly backfired, and no matter how much 'whataboutery' you fellow righties try it does little beyond dig yourself deeper.
And it has now moved on to how much Johnson knew of her previous behaviour when he appointed her - as he was either incompetent in not knowing or incompetent for appointing someone clearly not up to the job.
So
Ramsay - not answerable to us
Patel - answerable to us
not that difficilt, even to you righties I would have thought [Post edited 4 Mar 2020 23:48]
|  | | |
| Is this because.... on 00:10 - Mar 5 with 3723 views | Trequartista |
| Is this because.... on 23:46 - Mar 4 by HARRY10 |
Ramsey is not paty of the govenment so he is not accountable to us the electorate
Ramsay is part of a TV programme that has been edited, and doubtlessly requires him to act in such a manner. TV programmes do that, just as wrestling is not absolutely real
Whereas what is real is a fellow rightie started a thread which has horribly backfired, and no matter how much 'whataboutery' you fellow righties try it does little beyond dig yourself deeper.
And it has now moved on to how much Johnson knew of her previous behaviour when he appointed her - as he was either incompetent in not knowing or incompetent for appointing someone clearly not up to the job.
So
Ramsay - not answerable to us
Patel - answerable to us
not that difficilt, even to you righties I would have thought [Post edited 4 Mar 2020 23:48]
|
Where to start here young Harry, well at least you've tried to engage unlike others.
Well you are quite correct Ramsay is not accountable to the electorate. Do actions not accountable to the electorate not constitute bullying when similar actions accountable to the electorate do? Of course not. Therefore it is not relevant. It's not a fictional television programme. Of course it is hugely edited, but the shouting and swearing and tears is real as far as i'm aware.
I am not a "rightie", i am more a leftie, but i do accept certain groups such as Corbynites consider everyone to their right, a "righties". I don't see what politics has to do with it. It is important to hold people you agree with to account as much as people you don't, otherwise it is just tribal. | |
| |
| Is this because.... on 07:06 - Mar 5 with 3680 views | Darth_Koont |
| Is this because.... on 00:10 - Mar 5 by Trequartista |
Where to start here young Harry, well at least you've tried to engage unlike others.
Well you are quite correct Ramsay is not accountable to the electorate. Do actions not accountable to the electorate not constitute bullying when similar actions accountable to the electorate do? Of course not. Therefore it is not relevant. It's not a fictional television programme. Of course it is hugely edited, but the shouting and swearing and tears is real as far as i'm aware.
I am not a "rightie", i am more a leftie, but i do accept certain groups such as Corbynites consider everyone to their right, a "righties". I don't see what politics has to do with it. It is important to hold people you agree with to account as much as people you don't, otherwise it is just tribal. |
Your last point appears reasonable but in reality from the OP on we've had people trying to justify Patel's actions.
The issue here is an elected politician throwing their weight around and continuing to represent the worst qualities as HOME SECRETARY. So I'm not sure why people are so eager to give her a free ride. | |
| |
| Is this because.... on 07:10 - Mar 5 with 3669 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Is this because.... on 21:27 - Mar 4 by Darth_Koont |
You're awful at this.
It won't come as a surprise but I don't like you and the way you play party politics at every opportunity.
Please stop being a c@£#ervative. |
Playing party politics?
In this thread I have said that Priti Patel, the Conservative Home Secretary.........
“should resign whilst an investigation is carried out with regards to the bullying"
"should never have been given another job in cabinet after she was caught having unauthorised meetings with members of a foreign government"
"is a deeply unpleasant woman and she has no place in government"
If I’m playing party politics then I would imagine the Conservative Party aren’t getting value for money from me.
But I find it nauseating to see people like you pontificating on the issue of bullying , after being a cheerleader for those who hounded out Luciana Berger and Louise Ellman from the Labour Party, whilst also suggesting that the Labour staffers who were bullied to the point of contemplating suicide were politically motivated liars.
Edit. Btw It wasn't me who reported your post as abuse. [Post edited 5 Mar 2020 7:16]
|  |
| |
| Is this because.... on 07:39 - Mar 5 with 3636 views | Darth_Koont |
| Is this because.... on 07:10 - Mar 5 by GlasgowBlue |
Playing party politics?
In this thread I have said that Priti Patel, the Conservative Home Secretary.........
“should resign whilst an investigation is carried out with regards to the bullying"
"should never have been given another job in cabinet after she was caught having unauthorised meetings with members of a foreign government"
"is a deeply unpleasant woman and she has no place in government"
If I’m playing party politics then I would imagine the Conservative Party aren’t getting value for money from me.
But I find it nauseating to see people like you pontificating on the issue of bullying , after being a cheerleader for those who hounded out Luciana Berger and Louise Ellman from the Labour Party, whilst also suggesting that the Labour staffers who were bullied to the point of contemplating suicide were politically motivated liars.
Edit. Btw It wasn't me who reported your post as abuse. [Post edited 5 Mar 2020 7:16]
|
Patel's documented behaviour is indefensible and of course it's at this point you say what you've kept quiet about all along. While bringing up your own personal campaign re: Labour antisemitism, which was entirely predictable.
Where have I pontificated on the issue of bullying? And re: Berger and Ellman IIRC I wanted to hear the evidence that they were being bullied and weren't in the middle of a political argument of their own making. You repeated and amplified these accusations as read, but you may want to re-visit that in the light of footers' link you've just dodged. The accusations made by the JC were central to that and they've been forced into a retraction only because someone had the balls and the money to take them to court. Amazing what happens when the evidence isn't studiously ignored, eh?
So you've been quite the bully boy yourself, piling on with every accusation and insinuation without apparent regard for the evidence or the rights of the victim. | |
| |
| Is this because.... on 07:45 - Mar 5 with 3619 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Is this because.... on 07:39 - Mar 5 by Darth_Koont |
Patel's documented behaviour is indefensible and of course it's at this point you say what you've kept quiet about all along. While bringing up your own personal campaign re: Labour antisemitism, which was entirely predictable.
Where have I pontificated on the issue of bullying? And re: Berger and Ellman IIRC I wanted to hear the evidence that they were being bullied and weren't in the middle of a political argument of their own making. You repeated and amplified these accusations as read, but you may want to re-visit that in the light of footers' link you've just dodged. The accusations made by the JC were central to that and they've been forced into a retraction only because someone had the balls and the money to take them to court. Amazing what happens when the evidence isn't studiously ignored, eh?
So you've been quite the bully boy yourself, piling on with every accusation and insinuation without apparent regard for the evidence or the rights of the victim. |
Is this because.... by GlasgowBlue 4 Mar 2020 15:49Let's be honest. If you condemn Tory bullying but trivialise, dismiss or defend Labour bullying then you don't care about bullying. You care about party politics.
| |
| |
| Is this because.... on 07:57 - Mar 5 with 3588 views | GlasgowBlue |
Jeez you are desperate. The JC got it wrong about 1 member. The EHRC may as well stand down now and cancel the investigation eh?
Odd that you and other apologists for antisemitism are putting this up four months later in the same thread. Sharing the same material about? I’d better check my privacy settings again as it looks like the band are getting back together.
None of which changes the fact that you are over Patel like a rash yet trivialise/defend/ dismiss bullying when it comes from your side.
Stop playing party politics and show some consistency. Not much to ask is it?
Off to work now you you can rant at an empty keyboard. I won’t see it. [Post edited 5 Mar 2020 7:59]
| |
| |
| Is this because.... on 08:10 - Mar 5 with 3568 views | Herbivore |
Just an observation guys. It seems to me that Glassers wants to turn threads about goings on in the Tory Party into threads about antisemitism in the Labour Party. We have lots of evidence to back this up. By responding to him, you let this happen. Best to ignore him and remain focused on how awful Priti Patel is. |  |
| |
| Is this because.... on 08:18 - Mar 5 with 3563 views | Darth_Koont |
| Is this because.... on 07:57 - Mar 5 by GlasgowBlue |
Jeez you are desperate. The JC got it wrong about 1 member. The EHRC may as well stand down now and cancel the investigation eh?
Odd that you and other apologists for antisemitism are putting this up four months later in the same thread. Sharing the same material about? I’d better check my privacy settings again as it looks like the band are getting back together.
None of which changes the fact that you are over Patel like a rash yet trivialise/defend/ dismiss bullying when it comes from your side.
Stop playing party politics and show some consistency. Not much to ask is it?
Off to work now you you can rant at an empty keyboard. I won’t see it. [Post edited 5 Mar 2020 7:59]
|
As I said, one member and incident that were central to the allegation of Ellman being bullied at a CLP meeting. And one member who managed to force people to address the evidence.
This is your problem and why you and others have studiously ignored this and other evidence. Because if you address it then you can't make the accusation in the first place or beef it up and repeat it - and that's what really matters in the weaponisation of this issue.
You haven't even been duped. You've been massively involved in twisting and misrepresenting many innocent people's words and deeds like all the other extremists. | |
| |
| Is this because.... on 08:27 - Mar 5 with 3542 views | Darth_Koont |
| Is this because.... on 08:10 - Mar 5 by Herbivore |
Just an observation guys. It seems to me that Glassers wants to turn threads about goings on in the Tory Party into threads about antisemitism in the Labour Party. We have lots of evidence to back this up. By responding to him, you let this happen. Best to ignore him and remain focused on how awful Priti Patel is. |
It's a fair point.
And I always make the mistake of thinking that he can't keep dodging the responses. I'm an utter fool. | |
| |
| Is this because.... on 08:28 - Mar 5 with 3537 views | GaryCooper |
| Is this because.... on 08:10 - Mar 5 by Herbivore |
Just an observation guys. It seems to me that Glassers wants to turn threads about goings on in the Tory Party into threads about antisemitism in the Labour Party. We have lots of evidence to back this up. By responding to him, you let this happen. Best to ignore him and remain focused on how awful Priti Patel is. |
Priti Patel is awful but then to defend Abbott is nonsense. |  | | |
| Is this because.... on 08:32 - Mar 5 with 3527 views | Darth_Koont |
| Is this because.... on 08:28 - Mar 5 by GaryCooper |
Priti Patel is awful but then to defend Abbott is nonsense. |
Of course Abbott or Patel should be defended against racist and misogynistic abuse.
I've also never seen people put as much effort into explaining away Abbot's performance as a politician as I've seen here over Patel. For next-level sh!thousery to boot. | |
| |
| Is this because.... on 08:33 - Mar 5 with 3524 views | Herbivore |
| Is this because.... on 08:28 - Mar 5 by GaryCooper |
Priti Patel is awful but then to defend Abbott is nonsense. |
Who is defending Abbott? And what does that have to do with Priti Patel? This is just pure whataboutery, Gary. Behave yourself. | |
| |
| Is this because.... on 08:38 - Mar 5 with 3511 views | GaryCooper |
| Is this because.... on 08:33 - Mar 5 by Herbivore |
Who is defending Abbott? And what does that have to do with Priti Patel? This is just pure whataboutery, Gary. Behave yourself. |
If Patel was a labour home secretary I am pretty certain that if her competency was questioned the accusation of racism for questioning that competency would follow, yes I suppose it is whataboutery, it is also dogmatic myopia if not expanded. | | | |
| Is this because.... on 08:39 - Mar 5 with 3510 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Is this because.... on 08:10 - Mar 5 by Herbivore |
Just an observation guys. It seems to me that Glassers wants to turn threads about goings on in the Tory Party into threads about antisemitism in the Labour Party. We have lots of evidence to back this up. By responding to him, you let this happen. Best to ignore him and remain focused on how awful Priti Patel is. |
Is this because.... by GlasgowBlue 4 Mar 2020 15:49Let's be honest. If you condemn Tory bullying but trivialise, dismiss or defend Labour bullying then you don't care about bullying. You care about party politics.
Edit. If you actually read what I posted with an open mind then you would see that I haven’t tried to turn this thread into one about antisemtism. The two people who have done that are footers and DK.
I’ve addressed the issue of bullying and the contrast in reactions from those in the left and the right when it is relating to their “side”.
You’ve gone hard on Patel, with good reason, in this thread regarding bullying. Can you provide a link to your contributions to the thread over the Labour staffers being bullied to the extent that they considered suicide? Or did getting a Labour government trump bullying in that instance?
Can you provide a link to your comments regarding Bercow’s bullying! Or did frustrating Brexit trump bullying in that instance?
If you really cared about bullying then you’d be able to link those comments in seconds. If you dint then we can only conclude you don’t care about bullying. You care about about playing party politics [Post edited 5 Mar 2020 9:30]
| |
| |
| Is this because.... on 08:42 - Mar 5 with 3504 views | Herbivore |
| Is this because.... on 08:38 - Mar 5 by GaryCooper |
If Patel was a labour home secretary I am pretty certain that if her competency was questioned the accusation of racism for questioning that competency would follow, yes I suppose it is whataboutery, it is also dogmatic myopia if not expanded. |
That's just more whataboutery, Gary. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
