The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[tonyh29]

Have to seriously doubt the judgement of someone who would have an affair with Diane Abbot

 

and the 2015 VT Award for 'best mis-timed comment' goes to...

 

Richards comment is based on a well known fact  with evidence

the Ashcroft accusation is at present completely unfounded even though the internet has already decided it's true

 

true your point was about timing  but the timing of a currently baseless fact doesn't make Richards point any less valid

 

 

Edit - having read the rest of the thread now I see that has already been said

Edited September 21, 2015 by tonyh29

[bickster]

BTW as hilarious as this all is, we mustn't forget that a **** General threatened a coup if Corbyn won.

Cannae trust the military.

Quite so, they're all wrong 'uns. I'd much rather entrust Corbyn and his eminently competent acolytes with the future security of the UK and my family.

Still, as the Conservatives have actually gone up in the polls since 'that' election, I think this can filed with contingencies like 'how to defeat an alien invasion' and 'actions on in the zombie apocalypse'. 

Labour may have lost its collective marbles but I doubt the country at large wishes to follow them off a cliff.

Its no ones place in the military to comment on politics. We have a General in the Army who potentially has traitorous intent. He should be found and sacked in the most public of manners. The excuse that there are over a hundred generals really doesn't wash as an excuse. GCHQ listen to everything, they really could find out who this was if they wanted to but apparently they don't want to and that is even more of a disgrace

[Davkaus]

Sacked at least. If it isn't criminal for a senior figure in the armed forces to make those kind of comments, it should be.

[bickster]

Sacked at least. If it isn't criminal for a senior figure in the armed forces to make those kind of comments, it should be.

No evidence or suggestion that the General in question has actually actioned any thing. You'd be jailing someone for a thought crime imo and I think that is wrong too. He's done something which isn't compatible with his military status but thats about it at this stage I think

[chrisp65]

Have to seriously doubt the judgement of someone who would have an affair with Diane Abbot

 

and the 2015 VT Award for 'best mis-timed comment' goes to...

 

Richards comment is based on a well known fact  with evidence

the Ashcroft accusation is at present completely unfounded even though the internet has already decided it's true

true your point was about timing  but the timing of a currently baseless fact doesn't make Richards point any less valid

Edit - having read the rest of the thread now I see that has already been said

I've already said it, but I'm happy to say it again. There is no such award. I made it up.

It's not that Richard alone hasn't won it. Nobody has won it.

I made it up.

I hope that has cleared up the confusion.

Made it up. 

[darrenm]

The last 2 pages have really made my night. Thanks guys.

ChrisP - are you actually Sean Locke?

[HanoiVillan]

Have to seriously doubt the judgement of someone who would have an affair with Diane Abbot

 

and the 2015 VT Award for 'best mis-timed comment' goes to...

 

Richards comment is based on a well known fact  with evidence

the Ashcroft accusation is at present completely unfounded even though the internet has already decided it's true

 

true your point was about timing  but the timing of a currently baseless fact doesn't make Richards point any less valid

 

 

Edit - having read the rest of the thread now I see that has already been said

Hang on - what's the difference in evidence again? I'm pretty sure the claim that Corbyn diddled Abbott four decades ago comes from an article in the Daily Mail, which, funnily enough, is exactly the paper serialising Lord Ashcroft's book.

What is it they say in Yes Minister? 'Why is that your statistics are facts, whereas my facts are merely statistics'

[HanoiVillan]

 

Why mistimed? Dont you question his judgement? I do.

If you want to question someone else's judgement for an allegation that's up to you really but it doesn't make my comment mistimed.

 

So you're sticking with this 'I question his judgement today because he slept with someone I don't like 40 years ago' argument? I've got to tell you, it was stupid yesterday and it hasn't improved in the intervening 24 hours.

It's okay. You don't like Corbyn. That's fine! But I think, on mature reflection, you're going to come to the conclusion that **** someone forty years ago as a man in his mid-20's is a pretty poor reason not to like him in his mid-60's.

Firstly I'm not sure how I can like or dislike Corbyn having never actually met him.  I tend to reserve those feelings for those Ive actually met. So it's not a question of disliking him as you suggest.  I very much disagree with his policies I think the majority of the country will too and in that respect he will harm labour's electoral chances.  So in many respects as I want their chances harmed,  using your analogy I should actually be more inclined to like him.  But neither is true.

Secondly on your first para,  yes I question his judgement.  Not only did he have an affair while married ,  which I find questionable ,  but then he gave his former lover a high profile role in the Shadow Cabinet a decision I would then asked on what was that based because quite frankly Diane Abbot is one of the least impressive politicans I have come across.  So yes I question his judgement but the quote you use against me is wrong.  I have not said 'I question his judgement today because he slept with someone I don't like 40 years ago' (again I neither like or dislike Abbot) but that is putting words in my mouth,  incorrect words at that.

 

Just so we can have this on record for four years time when Boris is standing for the leadership, you believe that having an affair should prevent you from leading a political party? Or it's just the cause of mournful tut-tutting, which you'll repeat for Boris of course, but doesn't really matter?

This bit is incredible:

then he gave his former lover a high profile role in the Shadow Cabinet a decision I would then asked on what was that based

First of all, it's not a high profile role - International Development? But I love the insinuation here! Dirty tricks! Corruption! What could it possibly have been based on? Well, you seem to be implying that it's related to the fact that he put his willy inside her half a century ago. That seems logical. 'Maybe one day dear I'll stand for Parliament, and so will you, and then maybe, many decades hence, one of us will become leader and then that one can make the other one Shadow Secretary of State for International Development'. You know as well as I do that the boring, prosaic reality is that he appointed her because she's on the same side of the party, she didn't rule herself out, and he'd promised a shadow cabinet with more women than ever before. Of course, that's a lot less exciting than insinuating some kind of foul play.

[Marka Ragnos]

Sacked at least. If it isn't criminal for a senior figure in the armed forces to make those kind of comments, it should be.

Sacked at least. If it isn't criminal for a senior figure in the armed forces to make those kind of comments, it should be.

No evidence or suggestion that the General in question has actually actioned any thing. You'd be jailing someone for a thought crime imo and I think that is wrong too. He's done something which isn't compatible with his military status but thats about it at this stage I think

I keep seeing "General Branson" in my head. 

[Awol]

BTW as hilarious as this all is, we mustn't forget that a **** General threatened a coup if Corbyn won.

Cannae trust the military.

Quite so, they're all wrong 'uns. I'd much rather entrust Corbyn and his eminently competent acolytes with the future security of the UK and my family.

Still, as the Conservatives have actually gone up in the polls since 'that' election, I think this can filed with contingencies like 'how to defeat an alien invasion' and 'actions on in the zombie apocalypse'. 

Labour may have lost its collective marbles but I doubt the country at large wishes to follow them off a cliff.

Its no ones place in the military to comment on politics. We have a General in the Army who potentially has traitorous intent. He should be found and sacked in the most public of manners. The excuse that there are over a hundred generals really doesn't wash as an excuse. GCHQ listen to everything, they really could find out who this was if they wanted to but apparently they don't want to and that is even more of a disgrace

There is an argument to be made about Corbyn's treasonous intent and whether in fact taking action to counter that would be treason or protection of the nation, but that's all hypotheticals about an event that will never occur anyway - hence file with the bizarre contingencies the MoD needs to have but will never need.  

That aside the General who felt that banging his chops to the media was a good idea has displayed the strategic and political acumen of a rock and should be sacked, both for saying what he did in public and for a lack of judgement that his soldiers deserve to be protected from.     

[OutByEaster?]

BTW as hilarious as this all is, we mustn't forget that a **** General threatened a coup if Corbyn won.

Cannae trust the military.

Quite so, they're all wrong 'uns. I'd much rather entrust Corbyn and his eminently competent acolytes with the future security of the UK and my family.

Still, as the Conservatives have actually gone up in the polls since 'that' election, I think this can filed with contingencies like 'how to defeat an alien invasion' and 'actions on in the zombie apocalypse'. 

Labour may have lost its collective marbles but I doubt the country at large wishes to follow them off a cliff.

Its no ones place in the military to comment on politics. We have a General in the Army who potentially has traitorous intent. He should be found and sacked in the most public of manners. The excuse that there are over a hundred generals really doesn't wash as an excuse. GCHQ listen to everything, they really could find out who this was if they wanted to but apparently they don't want to and that is even more of a disgrace

There is an argument to be made about Corbyn's treasonous intent and whether in fact taking action to counter that would be treason or protection of the nation, but that's all hypotheticals about an event that will never occur anyway - hence file with the bizarre contingencies the MoD needs to have but will never need.  

That aside the General who felt that banging his chops to the media was a good idea has displayed the strategic and political acumen of a rock and should be sacked, both for saying what he did in public and for a lack of judgement that his soldiers deserve to be protected from.     

There's an argument to be made about Corbyn's treasonous intent? Really?

Fire away.

 

 

[Jon]

 

There is an argument to be made about Corbyn's treasonous intent      

[bickster]

BTW as hilarious as this all is, we mustn't forget that a **** General threatened a coup if Corbyn won.

Cannae trust the military.

Quite so, they're all wrong 'uns. I'd much rather entrust Corbyn and his eminently competent acolytes with the future security of the UK and my family.

Still, as the Conservatives have actually gone up in the polls since 'that' election, I think this can filed with contingencies like 'how to defeat an alien invasion' and 'actions on in the zombie apocalypse'. 

Labour may have lost its collective marbles but I doubt the country at large wishes to follow them off a cliff.

Its no ones place in the military to comment on politics. We have a General in the Army who potentially has traitorous intent. He should be found and sacked in the most public of manners. The excuse that there are over a hundred generals really doesn't wash as an excuse. GCHQ listen to everything, they really could find out who this was if they wanted to but apparently they don't want to and that is even more of a disgrace

There is an argument to be made about Corbyn's treasonous intent and whether in fact taking action to counter that would be treason or protection of the nation, but that's all hypotheticals about an event that will never occur anyway - hence file with the bizarre contingencies the MoD needs to have but will never need.  

That aside the General who felt that banging his chops to the media was a good idea has displayed the strategic and political acumen of a rock and should be sacked, both for saying what he did in public and for a lack of judgement that his soldiers deserve to be protected from.     

The is no argument, not a logical one based on democratic principals, I'm yet to hear it from you or any other source

[chrisp65]

Treason?

Start of the week you didn't like his tie, that escalated!

Wow. 

[tonyh29]

 

Why mistimed? Dont you question his judgement? I do.

If you want to question someone else's judgement for an allegation that's up to you really but it doesn't make my comment mistimed.

 

So you're sticking with this 'I question his judgement today because he slept with someone I don't like 40 years ago' argument? I've got to tell you, it was stupid yesterday and it hasn't improved in the intervening 24 hours.

It's okay. You don't like Corbyn. That's fine! But I think, on mature reflection, you're going to come to the conclusion that **** someone forty years ago as a man in his mid-20's is a pretty poor reason not to like him in his mid-60's.

Firstly I'm not sure how I can like or dislike Corbyn having never actually met him.  I tend to reserve those feelings for those Ive actually met. So it's not a question of disliking him as you suggest.  I very much disagree with his policies I think the majority of the country will too and in that respect he will harm labour's electoral chances.  So in many respects as I want their chances harmed,  using your analogy I should actually be more inclined to like him.  But neither is true.

Secondly on your first para,  yes I question his judgement.  Not only did he have an affair while married ,  which I find questionable ,  but then he gave his former lover a high profile role in the Shadow Cabinet a decision I would then asked on what was that based because quite frankly Diane Abbot is one of the least impressive politicans I have come across.  So yes I question his judgement but the quote you use against me is wrong.  I have not said 'I question his judgement today because he slept with someone I don't like 40 years ago' (again I neither like or dislike Abbot) but that is putting words in my mouth,  incorrect words at that.

 

Just so we can have this on record for four years time when Boris is standing for the leadership, you believe that having an affair should prevent you from leading a political party? Or it's just the cause of mournful tut-tutting, which you'll repeat for Boris of course, but doesn't really matter?

 

I believe this is known as the " ahh but " defence and was ruled inadmissible as evidence  in 2014

 

[tonyh29]

 

ChrisP - are you actually Sean Locke?

way to insult someone  , you should apologise to Sean immediately

[snowychap]

Just so we can have this on record for four years time when Boris is standing for the leadership, you believe that having an affair should prevent you from leading a political party? Or it's just the cause of mournful tut-tutting, which you'll repeat for Boris of course, but doesn't really matter?

 

I believe this is known as the " ahh but " defence and was ruled inadmissible as evidence  in 2014

I think it is more appropriately called the 'for balance' reply.

[tonyh29]

Just so we can have this on record for four years time when Boris is standing for the leadership, you believe that having an affair should prevent you from leading a political party? Or it's just the cause of mournful tut-tutting, which you'll repeat for Boris of course, but doesn't really matter?

 

I believe this is known as the " ahh but " defence and was ruled inadmissible as evidence  in 2014

I think it is more appropriately called the 'for balance' reply.

how about  I update the Bolitics for dummies handbook to read   .....  balanced when attacking Tory hypocrisy , but ahh but if used against labour hypocrisy  ?

[snowychap]

how about  I update the Bolitics for dummies handbook to read   .....  balanced when attacking Tory hypocrisy , but ahh but if used against labour hypocrisy  ?

One man's terrorist...

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Treason...