Join the Labour Party and save your country!

orraloon

I reckon Beancounter666 is feeling the pressure now that his strong and stable dear leader has rediscovered her magic money tree, after all just the neat £100m per DUP muppet. Hence the snippiness.

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

I reckon Beancounter666 is feeling the pressure now that his strong and stable dear leader has rediscovered her magic money tree, after all just the neat £100m per DUP muppet. Hence the snippiness.

Must be national smartarse day today. Actually I had quite a good day today after knocking €11m off our French tax bill. Scoreline: Stevo 1 - Robbing Eurotwats 0

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

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.

Yeah well, i dont think Labour would screw the country.

for starters, if Labour win those byelections, then thats the will of the people lol!

Even if coming from centre right (which appears to your politics?) the tories have added to poverty, debt, done nothing for NHS or education and wrecked our Armed services and Police forces.
Just to cap it all, taken us out of Europe, made worse by having a GE designed to destroy Labour but actually weakened us in any dealings with the EU.... so, by what definition could Labour screw the country anymore?

Yes sure you did stevo.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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.

Yeah well, i dont think Labour would screw the country.

for starters, if Labour win those byelections, then thats the will of the people lol!

Even if coming from centre right (which appears to your politics?) the tories have added to poverty, debt, done nothing for NHS or education and wrecked our Armed services and Police forces.
Just to cap it all, taken us out of Europe, made worse by having a GE designed to destroy Labour but actually weakened us in any dealings with the EU.... so, by what definition could Labour screw the country anymore?

Yes sure you did stevo.

Thank you, it's always good to get recognition for a good result. Tomorrow's board presentation will be a handy time to mention it

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

Sure, Rick's a bit of a smartarse and you can't let any criticism of the Conservatives go without a "Yeah but Labour are worse" reply. It would feel weird if it changed

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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.

Yeah well, i dont think Labour would screw the country.

for starters, if Labour win those byelections, then thats the will of the people lol!

Even if coming from centre right (which appears to your politics?) the tories have added to poverty, debt, done nothing for NHS or education and wrecked our Armed services and Police forces.
Just to cap it all, taken us out of Europe, made worse by having a GE designed to destroy Labour but actually weakened us in any dealings with the EU.... so, by what definition could Labour screw the country anymore?

Yes sure you did stevo.

I'm less worried about the colour of the rosette and more interested in whether they can do a good job. TM is pretty disappointing on that front but I see little sign that changing horses at this stage to another party with unresolved Europe issues.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

How am I wrong?

I can go quoting examples if ya struggling. Here's one for starters:

viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13030866&p=20241347&hilit=labour#p20241347

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Once you go down this "control and protect" sort of thing, you re on your way to dictatorship, such as we are seeing with China right now.

Is that similar to Corbyn and McDonnell wanting to 'control and protect' industries like energy and railways?

orraloon

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

I reckon Beancounter666 is feeling the pressure now that his strong and stable dear leader has rediscovered her magic money tree, after all just the neat £100m per DUP muppet. Hence the snippiness.

Must be national smartarse day today. Actually I had quite a good day today after knocking €11m off our French tax bill. Scoreline: Stevo 1 - Robbing Eurotwats 0

Gosh. A whole 1% of what the strong and stable dear leader pixxed up the wall in just a moment wot wiv 'buying' DUP support, from a DUP who in no possible scenario would support Labour and Corbyn. Prudence, dear prudence.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Sure, Rick's a bit of a smartarse

You always have been a master of understatement

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

How am I wrong?

I can go quoting examples if ya struggling. Here's one for starters:

viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13030866&p=20241347&hilit=labour#p20241347

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Once you go down this "control and protect" sort of thing, you re on your way to dictatorship, such as we are seeing with China right now.

Is that similar to Corbyn and McDonnell wanting to 'control and protect' industries like energy and railways?

One almost relevant example and you've been rooting around looking for that for several hours

Jog on.

rick_chasey

tailwindhome

orraloon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

I reckon Beancounter666 is feeling the pressure now that his strong and stable dear leader has rediscovered her magic money tree, after all just the neat £100m per DUP muppet. Hence the snippiness.

Must be national smartarse day today. Actually I had quite a good day today after knocking €11m off our French tax bill. Scoreline: Stevo 1 - Robbing Eurotwats 0

Gosh. A whole 1% of what the strong and stable dear leader pixxed up the wall in just a moment wot wiv 'buying' DUP support, from a DUP who in no possible scenario would support Labour and Corbyn. Prudence, dear prudence.

To be fair, the Tories haven't actually given the DUP any money.
The cheque would seem to be still 'in the post'

pblakeney

TailWindHome wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

I reckon Beancounter666 is feeling the pressure now that his strong and stable dear leader has rediscovered her magic money tree, after all just the neat £100m per DUP muppet. Hence the snippiness.

Must be national smartarse day today. Actually I had quite a good day today after knocking €11m off our French tax bill. Scoreline: Stevo 1 - Robbing Eurotwats 0

Gosh. A whole 1% of what the strong and stable dear leader pixxed up the wall in just a moment wot wiv 'buying' DUP support, from a DUP who in no possible scenario would support Labour and Corbyn. Prudence, dear prudence.

To be fair, the Tories haven't actually given the DUP any money.
The cheque would seem to be still 'in the post'

Makes you wonder what would happen if the DUP votes were "in the post". :?

ballysmate

With all the revelations of inappropriate behaviour*, the House of Commons Xmas parties will be tame this year. Men in one corner, women in the other.
Situation may be replicated up and down the country.

* Not defined anywhere in law.

rick_chasey

If you find it hard to have a party with mixed genders and not sexually assault or harass people, then it's probably best you stay at home anyway.

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

With all the revelations of inappropriate behaviour*, the House of Commons Xmas parties will be tame this year. Men in one corner, women in the other.
Situation may be replicated up and down the country.

* Not defined anywhere in law.

Working in Engineering, this is nothing new.
Ours have been men one side of the bar, women on the other.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you find it hard to have a party with mixed genders and not sexually assault or harass people, then it's probably best you stay at home anyway.

Ask Santa for a sense of humour.

Mind you, perhaps best if you don't sit on his knee when you visit him.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you find it hard to have a party with mixed genders and not sexually assault or harass people, then it's probably best you stay at home anyway.

Ask Santa for a sense of humour.

Mind you, perhaps best if you don't sit on his knee when you visit him.

I don't think they'd see eye to eye somehow. I mean, anyone who says 'Ho Ho Ho' must be insulting women?

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

With all the revelations of inappropriate behaviour*, the House of Commons Xmas parties will be tame this year. Men in one corner, women in the other.
Situation may be replicated up and down the country.

* Not defined anywhere in law.

You re not taking this seriously are you?

coopster_the_1st

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you find it hard to have a party with mixed genders and not sexually assault or harass people, then it's probably best you stay at home anyway.

Ask Santa for a sense of humour.

Mind you, perhaps best if you don't sit on his knee when you visit him.

I suspect Santa sees enough snowflakes during the year that he doesn't want to have to deal with another one having a childish strop while sat on his knee

tangled_metal

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you find it hard to have a party with mixed genders and not sexually assault or harass people, then it's probably best you stay at home anyway.

Ask Santa for a sense of humour.

Mind you, perhaps best if you don't sit on his knee when you visit him.

I suspect Santa sees enough snowflakes during the year that he doesn't want to have to deal with another one having a childish strop while sat on his knee

@RickChasey - Coopster's criticized you so I guess you made a good point there.

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

With all the revelations of inappropriate behaviour*, the House of Commons Xmas parties will be tame this year. Men in one corner, women in the other.
Situation may be replicated up and down the country.

* Not defined anywhere in law.

There was an accusation of rape from a Labour activist; pretty sure that's defined in law. There's plenty of other stuff that has been passed to the police. Also, a bit naive to think this is only happening to women, both inside and outside Westminster.

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

With all the revelations of inappropriate behaviour*, the House of Commons Xmas parties will be tame this year. Men in one corner, women in the other.
Situation may be replicated up and down the country.

* Not defined anywhere in law.

There was an accusation of rape from a Labour activist; pretty sure that's defined in law. There's plenty of other stuff that has been passed to the police. Also, a bit naive to think this is only happening to women, both inside and outside Westminster.

I also thought it was naive to believe that this is only happening to women.

pblakeney

...

tangled_metal

There was a female tory on R4 this morning talking about an independent body for complainants to go to possibly along the lines of IPSA that's under discussion. She said a few times women and men or men and women when referring to making complaints to the proposed independent body (seemed natural as in the way she thinks but obviously scripted because, hey, she's a politician and they lie).

Cue interview with former head of IPSA about it he said they're missing a trick. The independent body is good but it's a blue light service after the event. They could do with "brigading together" all MPs staff into one body employed directly by the state. Eliminate separate payments to MPs to cover costs and the employees then come under a larger organization with systems and functions to manage them (I think he means human resources or whatever the trendy phrase for that is these days).

Anyway, female tory trying to include males in this abuse scandal. Who'd have thought that? A tory trying to remove gender from the discussions or at least including other gender than just the poor women!

ballysmate

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

With all the revelations of inappropriate behaviour*, the House of Commons Xmas parties will be tame this year. Men in one corner, women in the other.
Situation may be replicated up and down the country.

* Not defined anywhere in law.

There was an accusation of rape from a Labour activist; pretty sure that's defined in law. There's plenty of other stuff that has been passed to the police. Also, a bit naive to think this is only happening to women, both inside and outside Westminster.

Did I mention sexual assault or rape? These allegations should be reported to and investigated by the police.You should not conflate these with reports of 'inapproprite behaviour'.
If you look at the redacted list of inappropriate Tory MPs you can see that some are more serious than others. Some items on that list are nobody elses business.
Whether behaviour is inapproprite is judged solely by the persons on the receiving end. I could say something to person A and it would be fine. If I said the same thing to B they may well take offence. I have to judge the circumstances,act accordingly and take responsibility for my actions.
My post was an attempt to show that there will be a sea change in behaviour and people will be more circumspect and wary in what they say and do. I thought that would be obvious to most thinking people.
But for the benefit of some on here perhaps we could have hetero males in one corner, hetero women in another, gay men in the third and lesbians in the fourth. Bisexuals in the middle.
But wait. We can't have predatory homosexuals together can we ao I suppose I will have to rethink the arrangements to cover every eventuality and satisfy some on here.

tangled_metal

Who cares where they are in the room so long as there's ppl around to witness abuse and some workable way to report it off it can't be prevented. Other than that freely mix in the room as you want.


I really don't get how these work place abuses will necessitate (even in poor humour) segregation. It's an over the top comment.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

With all the revelations of inappropriate behaviour*, the House of Commons Xmas parties will be tame this year. Men in one corner, women in the other.
Situation may be replicated up and down the country.

* Not defined anywhere in law.

There was an accusation of rape from a Labour activist; pretty sure that's defined in law. There's plenty of other stuff that has been passed to the police. Also, a bit naive to think this is only happening to women, both inside and outside Westminster.

Did I mention sexual assault or rape? These allegations should be reported to and investigated by the police.You should not conflate these with reports of 'inapproprite behaviour'.
If you look at the redacted list of inappropriate Tory MPs you can see that some are more serious than others. Some items on that list are nobody elses business.
Whether behaviour is inapproprite is judged solely by the persons on the receiving end. I could say something to person A and it would be fine. If I said the same thing to B they may well take offence. I have to judge the circumstances,act accordingly and take responsibility for my actions.
My post was an attempt to show that there will be a sea change in behaviour and people will be more circumspect and wary in what they say and do. I thought that would be obvious to most thinking people.
But for the benefit of some on here perhaps we could have hetero males in one corner, hetero women in another, gay men in the third and lesbians in the fourth. Bisexuals in the middle.
But wait. We can't have predatory homosexuals together can we ao I suppose I will have to rethink the arrangements to cover every eventuality and satisfy some on here.

The challenge is most people work in places where if you behaved like some of these MPs have you'd get either reprimanded or sacked.

MPs are different because their terms of employment are more complicated (hired by the electorate etc).

So people feel they're being held to a lower standard than they are. And, most people feel, that law makers ought to be held to a higher standard, or at the very least, similar standards.

It also highlights issues plenty of people (often women) face in the workplace, and it's a useful way to highlight the challenges they face every day at work. Legal or not.

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

With all the revelations of inappropriate behaviour*, the House of Commons Xmas parties will be tame this year. Men in one corner, women in the other.
Situation may be replicated up and down the country.

* Not defined anywhere in law.

There was an accusation of rape from a Labour activist; pretty sure that's defined in law. There's plenty of other stuff that has been passed to the police. Also, a bit naive to think this is only happening to women, both inside and outside Westminster.

Did I mention sexual assault or rape? These allegations should be reported to and investigated by the police.You should not conflate these with reports of 'inapproprite behaviour'.
If you look at the redacted list of inappropriate Tory MPs you can see that some are more serious than others. Some items on that list are nobody elses business.
Whether behaviour is inapproprite is judged solely by the persons on the receiving end. I could say something to person A and it would be fine. If I said the same thing to B they may well take offence. I have to judge the circumstances,act accordingly and take responsibility for my actions.
My post was an attempt to show that there will be a sea change in behaviour and people will be more circumspect and wary in what they say and do. I thought that would be obvious to most thinking people.
But for the benefit of some on here perhaps we could have hetero males in one corner, hetero women in another, gay men in the third and lesbians in the fourth. Bisexuals in the middle.
But wait. We can't have predatory homosexuals together can we ao I suppose I will have to rethink the arrangements to cover every eventuality and satisfy some on here.

I read your post as implying it was 'just' inappropriate behaviour, hence my reply was making the point that it's the full spectrum up to and including rape. Whether such behaviour is seen as acceptable - and clearly quite a few men do feel it's acceptable to make a pass at or grope a junior colleague - is largely down to the culture of a particular workplace. If that culture tolerates a background hum of this kind of stuff then the likelihood of something illegal is that much increased.

It's a fair point that without someone setting out what is and isn't acceptable, there are likely to be problems, but it's not at all difficult for any business or organisation to define what they see as acceptable behaviour. Maybe that is something a lot of businesses haven't thought about thus far but then it's about time they did.

Lastly, the key is not actually whether someone finds it offensive or not but whether the other person is abusing their position. In all of these scenarios someone in a position of power is acting in a way that they probably wouldn't try, much less get away with if the balance of power was reversed.

rick_chasey

So May has so little control over her party that the factions are making up their own foreign policy as they go on.