Join the Labour Party and save your country!

orraloon

On reflection, was it not Damian Green lawyering up this morning? He'll be next. Not for the Maltby nonsense, he fleetingly touched my knee then, after I published look at me look at me corset photos, he said he'd looked at me, there'll be another one along shortly.

When does de Pfeffel get blown?

pblakeney

orraloon wrote:

When does de Pfeffel get blown?

Is that part of the allegations?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

good on Fallon, just a few more to go and we ll have another GE.

He stepped down as defence secretary, not stepped down as an MP...

Let's see how many 'tactile' lefties there are in parliament as well. Wonder if Jezza's episode of 'porking the payroll' counts as improper behaviour?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

good on Fallon, just a few more to go and we ll have another GE.

He stepped down as defence secretary, not stepped down as an MP...

Let's see how many 'tactile' lefties there are in parliament as well. Wonder if Jezza's episode of 'porking the payroll' counts as improper behaviour?

Mays cabinet is a bit of a juggling act, a few more changes and the Gov could collapse, be a shame.

Its the Tories who are in power, their behaviour at such a crucial time is what matters.

Interesting that Fallon thinks that what was acceptable 10 years ago isnt now, is he in some sort of parallel universe? thats 2007 not 1957

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Its the Tories who are in power

Startling admission for you

If Labour want to be in anything other than opposition then they measure up to required standards. And therein lies the problem...

tangled_metal

Tories are in power so we only look at improper behaviour by them? BS! All MPs should have their improper behaviour highlighted. If you think being in opposition is a let off you're in cloud cuckoo land.

So you think Weinstein should be investigated but not his assistants? It's a similar kind of thing I reckon. Go after the big fish / government but don't forget to clear up the small fry too. If not then who's to say they won't become big fish later.

ballysmate

Think I may be in a minority here, but unless something else comes out, this is a crazy over reaction.
Man touches woman, woman not offended. 15 years later other people offended on woman's behalf. Man resigns job. :?

briantrumpet

Ballysmate wrote:

Think I may be in a minority here, but unless something else comes out, this is a crazy over reaction.
Man touches woman, woman not offended. 15 years later other people offended on woman's behalf. Man resigns job. :?

My guess would be that there's more behind that than we know about. A quick resignation hoping that nothing else comes out, as it were.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Its the Tories who are in power

Startling admission for you

If Labour want to be in anything other than opposition then they measure up to required standards. And therein lies the problem...

just another of your diversions when your beloved tory party is in the wrong, there isnt an election any time soon, its the Gov that is governing or not!

They caused the mess that is brexit, then drastically weakened the UK with a stupid GE and now they are engulfed in a sexual harassment scandal, its not the first time either, they ve history with this sort of thing going back to the 1960s

I really dont know what the xxxx fallon is on about, the standards of the mid 2000s are absolutely no different than now, uninvited intimate touching has always been wrong.

TM you mis understand what i m saying, which is in the context of Fallon and his position.

Personally, i d like to see any MP forced to leave Parliament, if guilty of sexual harassment (or any other serious mis conduct), same as any of us, instance dismissal.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Its the Tories who are in power

Startling admission for you

If Labour want to be in anything other than opposition then they measure up to required standards. And therein lies the problem...

just another of your diversions when your beloved tory party is in the wrong, there isnt an election any time soon, its the Gov that is governing or not!

They caused the mess that is brexit, then drastically weakened the UK with a stupid GE and now they are engulfed in a sexual harassment scandal, its not the first time either, they ve history with this sort of thing going back to the 1960s

I really dont know what the xxxx fallon is on about, the standards of the mid 2000s are absolutely no different than now, uninvited intimate touching has always been wrong.

TM you mis understand what i m saying, which is in the context of Fallon and his position.

Personally, i d like to see any MP forced to leave Parliament, if guilty of sexual harassment (or any other serious mis conduct), same as any of us, instance dismissal.

No, just making sure we don't end up with a bunch of leftie hypocrites...and as we all know, leftie hypocrisy is such a rich seam to be mined (assuming Corbyn pays tens of billions to reopen loads of unviable mines)

rick_chasey

Stevo, have you heard the term whatsboutism?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2] [3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Think I may be in a minority here, but unless something else comes out, this is a crazy over reaction.
Man touches woman, woman not offended. 15 years later other people offended on woman's behalf. Man resigns job. :?

You think he’s only done it the once?

What’s odd is by staying as an MP he draws a line between MP behaviour and Minisrer behaviour, as if one is to be held to a higher standard.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Think I may be in a minority here, but unless something else comes out, this is a crazy over reaction.
Man touches woman, woman not offended. 15 years later other people offended on woman's behalf. Man resigns job. :?

You think he’s only done it the once?

What’s odd is by staying as an MP he draws a line between MP behaviour and Minisrer behaviour, as if one is to be held to a higher standard.

Have no idea, but it is the only instance being reported. Please also note the bit I've highlighted. This may well be an incentive for the press to dig into Fallon's past. I'm sure any acquaintance of his can expect to be asked he he ever behaved inappropriately.
The way it has been reported is quite bizarre and detracts somewhat from the stories out there of people of both sexes being abused and suffering real harm. The woman concerned wasn't offended but we are now in a world where people get offended on behalf of others.

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Think I may be in a minority here, but unless something else comes out, this is a crazy over reaction.
Man touches woman, woman not offended. 15 years later other people offended on woman's behalf. Man resigns job. :?

You think he’s only done it the once?

What’s odd is by staying as an MP he draws a line between MP behaviour and Minisrer behaviour, as if one is to be held to a higher standard.

Have no idea, but it is the only instance being reported. Please also note the bit I've highlighted. This may well be an incentive for the press to dig into Fallon's past. I'm sure any acquaintance of his can expect to be asked he he ever behaved inappropriately.
The way it has been reported is quite bizarre and detracts somewhat from the stories out there of people of both sexes being abused and suffering real harm. The woman concerned wasn't offended but we are now in a world where people get offended on behalf of others.

Agreed. Clearly he's not just resigning over touching someone's knee 15 years ago. The reason for his resignation is yet to be revealed. As to why he hasn't stepped down as an MP over whatever it is, I'd imagine he's taken the view that triggering a by-election is the last thing we need.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Think I may be in a minority here, but unless something else comes out, this is a crazy over reaction.
Man touches woman, woman not offended. 15 years later other people offended on woman's behalf. Man resigns job. :?

You think he’s only done it the once?

What’s odd is by staying as an MP he draws a line between MP behaviour and Minisrer behaviour, as if one is to be held to a higher standard.

Have no idea, but it is the only instance being reported. Please also note the bit I've highlighted. This may well be an incentive for the press to dig into Fallon's past. I'm sure any acquaintance of his can expect to be asked he he ever behaved inappropriately.
The way it has been reported is quite bizarre and detracts somewhat from the stories out there of people of both sexes being abused and suffering real harm. The woman concerned wasn't offended but we are now in a world where people get offended on behalf of others.

Agreed. Clearly he's not just resigning over touching someone's knee 15 years ago. The reason for his resignation is yet to be revealed. As to why he hasn't stepped down as an MP over whatever it is, I'd imagine he's taken the view that triggering a by-election is the last thing we need.

He says his behaviour has fallen below the standards set by our Armed forces... a high bar indeed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 24506.html

I d have thought that a by-election is exactly what we need, infact why stop there? as i said earlier, Fallon aside, in any other walk of life, sexual harassment is instant dismissal but an MP gets to decide mmmmmmm

tailwindhome

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ ... 1102138412

“By good fortune, my misbehaviour falls into that exact grey area between ‘falling on my sword as a distraction’ and ‘losing our tiny parliamentary majority’.

tangled_metal

I doubt it's instant dismissal. Employers have a responsibility to protect all employees. So I guess dismissal only happens after an investigation and the accusations are sufficiently proven that any action after dismissal by the accused wouldn't result in successful tribunal or other action. Basically I think most employers will act in the company's interests which isn't an instant dismissal.

Pedantic perhaps but employment law I believe is there to protect employees. If it was at easy as accusation received = instant dismissal then it could be abused.

One last thing, he's not been found guilty of anything just yet I believe. Easy to call for instant action based on hearsay and wishful thinking. If evidence comes out I will of course wish for his removal from public office.

BTW I've been away, is the labour official thing not a bit more serious with it being an accusation of an actual offence by the victim? What's happening there? Are labour holding an investigation? Can I recommend dame Chakrabatty? She always does a good report for them.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Think I may be in a minority here, but unless something else comes out, this is a crazy over reaction.
Man touches woman, woman not offended. 15 years later other people offended on woman's behalf. Man resigns job. :?

You think he’s only done it the once?

What’s odd is by staying as an MP he draws a line between MP behaviour and Minisrer behaviour, as if one is to be held to a higher standard.

Have no idea, but it is the only instance being reported. Please also note the bit I've highlighted. This may well be an incentive for the press to dig into Fallon's past. I'm sure any acquaintance of his can expect to be asked he he ever behaved inappropriately.
The way it has been reported is quite bizarre and detracts somewhat from the stories out there of people of both sexes being abused and suffering real harm. The woman concerned wasn't offended but we are now in a world where people get offended on behalf of others.

Agreed. Clearly he's not just resigning over touching someone's knee 15 years ago. The reason for his resignation is yet to be revealed. As to why he hasn't stepped down as an MP over whatever it is, I'd imagine he's taken the view that triggering a by-election is the last thing we need.

He says his behaviour has fallen below the standards set by our Armed forces... a high bar indeed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 24506.html

I d have thought that a by-election is exactly what we need, infact why stop there? as i said earlier, Fallon aside, in any other walk of life, sexual harassment is instant dismissal but an MP gets to decide mmmmmmm

If an election is to be fought, let's have it fought on policy or government performance. Any election now would just raise the curtain on a campaign run on salacious gossip fuelled by newspaper sales. Do you think it would just be Tory candidates that would have their lives raked over?
Any other time, the opposition would be all over the government at the publication of a list of government MPs alleged wrong doings but they are not are they? In an election campaign, the spotlight would fall equally on them, as the opposition they can sit and hope the glare stays on the governing party.
After such an election, we may land up with insufficient MPs to fill the chamber.

kingstonian

briantrumpet wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Think I may be in a minority here, but unless something else comes out, this is a crazy over reaction.
Man touches woman, woman not offended. 15 years later other people offended on woman's behalf. Man resigns job. :?

My guess would be that there's more behind that than we know about. A quick resignation hoping that nothing else comes out, as it were.

There may have been a completely unrelated event that he knows will come out and he resigned because of that, but the specific event that has come out was said by the lady involved that it really wasn’t something he should have remotely considered resigning over.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo, have you heard the term whatsboutism?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2] [3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world

Nope, and I don't give a stuff either.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo, have you heard the term whatsboutism?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2] [3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world

Maybe not what Stevo was alluding to, but Mamba is way off if he thinks that spreadsheet is purely a Tory problem. Labour (or any other party) really would be hypocritical if they tried to claim some moral superiority on this issue. And to be fair they haven't.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo, have you heard the term whatsboutism?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2] [3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world

Nope, and I don't give a stuff either.

You ought to given it’s often your main line of argument on this thread.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo, have you heard the term whatsboutism?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2] [3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world

Maybe not what Stevo was alluding to, but Mamba is way off if he thinks that spreadsheet is purely a Tory problem. Labour (or any other party) really would be hypocritical if they tried to claim some moral superiority on this issue. And to be fair they haven't.

what on earth are you on about?

You also need to realise the Tories are in pwr, not libs nor Lab, what thsoe parties get up to is gossip, what the Tories do, can effect us all big time.

Quite shocking the BBC2 programe the super rich and us.

tangled_metal

TBH it's not about political power and who's running the country. Abuse is wrong whoever carries it out. The fact an abuser is a member of parliament should deserve investigation and action. Being part of the party in power or not doesn't matter so much as the abuse has happened. It should be the same action surely.

Are you really advocating that we ignore any wrong doing from politicians unless they're in the party of government Mambo? I'm seriously having trouble understanding your reasoning here. I believe some Tories were investigated and resigned when in opposition for wrongdoing. Should they have kept their jobs? Jeffrey archer was an MP I believe when he got investigated and later jailed. Should he have had immunity of in opposition but no immunity of in power? It sounds like that's the kind of response you're proposing. I think most will disagree with you if that's your real view. It's a terribly partisan view IMHO and I think it says a lot about your brand of politics.

mamba80

As i said up thread, ALL MPs should be dismissed subject to due process for sexual harassment, However, Labour MP for Boll0ckshire north, cant do anything that can screw up the country, however Fallon or Boris can and thats my point.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo, have you heard the term whatsboutism?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2] [3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world

Nope, and I don't give a stuff either.

You ought to given it’s often your main line of argument on this thread.

I'm not interested in your obscure theoretical bollocks, apart from the fact that you're wrong.

tangled_metal

That's got nothing to do with abuse has it? Sexual abuse doesn't screw up the nation only causes emotional damage to the victim.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo, have you heard the term whatsboutism?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2] [3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world

Nope, and I don't give a stuff either.

You ought to given it’s often your main line of argument on this thread.

I'm not interested in your obscure theoretical ****, apart from the fact that you're wrong.

No need to get so snippy. Just because you've not heard of it, doesn't mean it's obscure or theoretical. Call it diversion if you prefer.

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

As i said up thread, ALL MPs should be dismissed subject to due process for sexual harassment, However, Labour MP for Boll0ckshire north, cant do anything that can screw up the country, however Fallon or Boris can and thats my point.

You were arguing for a by-election earlier. A couple more of those and Labour could well be in a position where they can screw up the country. The government can only pass legislation with a majority.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo, have you heard the term whatsboutism?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2] [3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world

Nope, and I don't give a stuff either.

You ought to given it’s often your main line of argument on this thread.

I'm not interested in your obscure theoretical ****, apart from the fact that you're wrong.

No need to get so snippy. Just because you've not heard of it, doesn't mean it's obscure or theoretical. Call it diversion if you prefer.

More the point that he's wrong and being a smartarse. I'm pretty consistent in my approach to people who are like that on here.