bannedfromHandV Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 18 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Some instances maybe , but labelling people scum for putting an X in a Tory box or supporting the Tory party ..nah that isn't warranted Did I say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 For me the most disgusting thing about last night was Johnson's comments on Prince Andrew/The Monarchy being "beyond reproach". So by accident of birth he's allowed to associate with a prolific peadophile and (allegedly) be a willing participent in his disgusting activities. Where does that end? If the royals are allowed to sexually assault children, is he also allowed to murder as well? When you listen to the reaction to the comments from the audience you could hear a noticable pause before a reluctant applause from some people who would likely have clapped regardless of what the lying filth said. He's lost a lot of women voters there. A lot of men as well you'd hope. The ones who care about decency to other human beings and respect for women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 10 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: Did I say that? Did i say that you did ? However , this whole particualr thread of conversation originated around labelling people scum based on a political view , I thought as you were partaking in the conversation it would have been fairly self-explanatory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 10 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Did i say that you did ? However , this whole particualr thread of conversation originated around labelling people scum based on a political view , I thought as you were partaking in the conversation it would have been fairly self-explanatory So you can't be scum based solely on your political view? Sorry but I've yet to encounter a member of the National Front who I'd deem anything but. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 6 minutes ago, desensitized43 said: For me the most disgusting thing about last night was Johnson's comments on Prince Andrew/The Monarchy being "beyond reproach". So by accident of birth he's allowed to associate with a prolific peadophile and (allegedly) be a willing participent in his disgusting activities. Where does that end? If the royals are allowed to sexually assault children, is he also allowed to murder as well? When you listen to the reaction to the comments from the audience you could hear a noticable pause before a reluctant applause from some people who would likely have clapped regardless of what the lying filth said. He's lost a lot of women voters there. A lot of men as well you'd hope. The ones who care about decency to other human beings and respect for women. That wasn't how I viewed it if I'm honest The question was if " the Royal family was still relevant" .. i took beyond reproach to mean Yes we are a monarchy and that isn't up for discussion v Corbyn's it need improvement , which I believe currently his position is he wouldn't abolish them but would take away the pomp around the Queens speech and it is done away with etc etc the follow up question was then specifically about Andrew , where Corbyn gave an answer that essentially left Johnson with nowhere to go other than kind of being seen to agree with Corbyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: So you can't be scum based solely on your political view? Sorry but I've yet to encounter a member of the National Front who I'd deem anything but. To paraphrase you " Where did I say that ?" I think you need to go back and read my post , I specified Tory party for the exact reason you point out (NF etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, tonyh29 said: To paraphrase you " Where did I say that ?" I think you need to go back and read my post , I specified Tory party for the exact reason you point out (NF etc) I think it depends on how closely related you feel the NF and Tory party are. Honestly, I think there's a pretty thin line between the two these days but that's my opinion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 20, 2019 Moderator Share Posted November 20, 2019 scum (skŭm) n. 1. A filmy or frothy layer of matter that forms on the surface of a liquid or body of water or on a hard surface. 2. The refuse or dross of molten metals. 3. Refuse or worthless matter. 4. Slang One, such as a person or an element of society, that is regarded as despicable or worthless. Am I missing something, why is that word so objectionable compared to somethings that people get called? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 7 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: That wasn't how I viewed it if I'm honest The question was if " the Royal family was still relevant" .. i took beyond reproach to mean Yes we are a monarchy and that isn't up for discussion v Corbyn's it need improvement , which I believe currently his position is he wouldn't abolish them but would take away the pomp around the Queens speech and it is done away with etc etc the follow up question was then specifically about Andrew , where Corbyn gave an answer that essentially left Johnson with nowhere to go other than kind of being seen to agree with Corbyn The question was if it was fit for purpose. It's pretty clear why they were asking that question. Given all that's happened in the last week it was a loaded question that was obviously referring to Prince Andrew. "beyond reproach" literally means above criticism. Perfect in every way. With recent events you've got to admit that Johnson didn't need to go that far. He's allowed to support the institution as many do but to imply that it's wrong to criticise the institution to which Andrew belongs, that's been accused of the most disgusting crimes and was associating with someone who definitely was. Not to mention his alleged use of the 'N' word. That's shaky ground mate. He's said it purely to play to his base without any consideration for the victims. Disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 48 minutes ago, desensitized43 said: He's lost a lot of women voters there. A lot of men as well you'd hope. The ones who care about decency to other human beings and respect for women. These people were never going to vote Tory in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 20, 2019 Moderator Share Posted November 20, 2019 13 minutes ago, desensitized43 said: Corbyn's (opinion)... I believe currently his position is he wouldn't abolish them More proof of his ineptitude. Not left wing enough for me. Deport them to Germany! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, desensitized43 said: The question was if it was fit for purpose. It's pretty clear why they were asking that question. Given all that's happened in the last week it was a loaded question that was obviously referring to Prince Andrew. "beyond reproach" literally means above criticism. Perfect in every way. With recent events you've got to admit that Johnson didn't need to go that far. He's allowed to support the institution as many do but to imply that it's wrong to criticise the institution to which Andrew belongs, that's been accused of the most disgusting crimes and was associating with someone who definitely was. Not to mention his alleged use of the 'N' word. That's shaky ground mate. He's said it purely to play to his base without any consideration for the victims. Disgusting. my bad , i didn't watch the debate and read online the question was about "relevance " .. tbh though fit for purpose still seems to be a generic royalty Q ...you could be right and it was about Andrew , but my immediate thought was the question was in more as a trap for Corbyn , he's a republican and I suspect they thought they could get him to say we should feed them to lions or something Watching the clip now , respectfully I do think you are wrong with your take .. Corbyns answer is with a bit of a smirk and he says "could do with a bit of improvement " ... that's hardly the response for something so serious and disgusting as the Andrew / Epstein thing .. Johnson , also smiling says the institution of the monarchy is beyond reproach .. indeed playing to the crowd , but at that point I think they both were which I think backs up my initial take on the question the follow up Question is then specific about Andrew and then Corbyn becomes serious and specific and gives a good answer ... and one that scored him a clear win that's just my take on it mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: my bad , i didn't watch the debate and read online the question was about "relevance " .. tbh though fit for purpose still seems to be a generic royalty Q ...you could be right and it was about Andrew , but my immediate thought was the question was in more as a trap for Corbyn , he's a republican and I suspect they thought they could get him to say we should feed them to lions or something Watching the clip now , respectfully I do think you are wrong with your take .. Corbyns answer is with a bit of a smirk and he says "could do with a bit of improvement " ... that's hardly the response for something so serious and disgusting as the Andrew / Epstein thing .. Johnson , also smiling says the institution of the monarchy is beyond reproach .. indeed playing to the crowd , but at that point I think they both were which I think backs up my initial take on the question the follow up Question is then specific about Andrew and then Corbyn becomes serious and specific and gives a good answer ... and one that scored him a clear win that's just my take on it mind ITV were being mischeivous with the question on a number of levels tbf. Corbyn's smirk was acknowledgement of that. Corbyn is a republican, but it's a perfectly legitimate point of view (one I share). He's been on record many times criticising the institution, so his reponse shouldn't come as a great surprise to anyone. The media do like to portray everyone who thinks that way as some sort of raving lunatic/communist though Corbyn may be at least one of those things. The point is though, if you can't criticise an institution that is sheltering someone accused of raping a child, is that a country you want to live in? I took the whole thing to be a serious indicator of Johnson's lack of a moral compass. At the very least he wasn't clever enough to understand the implication of what he was being asked. Edited November 20, 2019 by desensitized43 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 I'm more surprised that Johnson didn't link the Monarchy to Brexit tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 54 minutes ago, bickster said: scum (skŭm) n. 1. A filmy or frothy layer of matter that forms on the surface of a liquid or body of water or on a hard surface. 2. The refuse or dross of molten metals. 3. Refuse or worthless matter. 4. Slang One, such as a person or an element of society, that is regarded as despicable or worthless. Am I missing something, why is that word so objectionable compared to somethings that people get called? Because, in essence, it's dehumanising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: Some instances maybe , but labelling people scum for putting an X in a Tory box or supporting the Tory party ..nah that isn't warranted You misunderstand what I meant. I said people - not 'people who vote Tory'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 20, 2019 Moderator Share Posted November 20, 2019 23 minutes ago, snowychap said: Because, in essence, it's dehumanising. Seems apt then for those that have driven up foodbank use, created a homelessness crisis, increased NHS waiting times... I could add plenty more to the list but you get the gist 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) I didn't think I'd cause such a ruckus, it's one of the nicer things I usually call them. The effect these **** have had on the lives of those most in need of social services in the last decade? **** them. I won't sugar coat what I think of them, and that includes everyone who puts a cross in that box. There's no point feigning politeness and civil discourse when the other point of view is "**** society, I've got mine". Edited November 20, 2019 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) I think if you stick an X in the box next to a Tory candidate then unless you are thick as pig shit, which is quite possible of course, then you know that under the Tories the most vulnerable amongst us, be they disabled, poor, sick are far more likely to get a good kicking rather than the help they need. You'd also know that public services be it NHS, adult/child social care, Police, fire service etc are likely to be underfunded/under staffed/under performing. You can also be sure that there will continue to be a lack of social or affordable housing and that landlords will continue to be able to charge extortionate rents for in some cases pretty much inhabitable homes. Be sure that young adults will be leaving higher education with tens of thousands of pounds of debt even when trying to gain qualifications to allow them to move into the work place with skills we are crying out for such as nurses. Be sure sure that children living in poverty will continue to rise, in work poverty will continue to rise, homelessness won't be tackled and also be sure that we will continue to have a divided nation with a government determined to point the finger at everyone else for any woes, be that immigrants, benefit claimants, disabled etc, to divert the finger from being pointed at them,. I haven't really even scratched the surface above but I think it is clear it takes a special kind of person to vote Tory and some of them would warrant being labelled scum. Edited November 20, 2019 by markavfc40 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts