I'm sure a couple of the red-tops will join in too and manage to find a "benefit cheat" which, of course, they'll then use to tar the rest of benefit claimants with.
Surprised too how the general public keep on falling for all this sort of stuff.
Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Surprised too how the general public keep on falling for all this sort of stuff.
Sorry but no way SAF's kids are working class, that is just absurd.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...or-blames-floods-on-gay-marriage-9069245.html
So our recent floods are because.....of gay marriage.
I didn't really realise we had too many nutters like this left to be honest.
Though he did make these comments a while ago so I wonder why they're picking up on it now
So our recent floods are because.....of gay marriage.
I didn't really realise we had too many nutters like this left to be honest.
Though he did make these comments a while ago so I wonder why they're picking up on it now
I clicked on the link expecting the quotes to have been spun for effect slightly to make him look like more of a douche. Noop, actually said the floods were because of gay marriage. Jebus.
So the Lord Rennard saga rumbles on - he has now been suspended by the Lib Dems after refusing to apologise to the women who have claimed he sexually harassed them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25804724
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25804724
Not sure if everybody will agree with me here, but I think the way the Lib Dems have treated Rennard is outrageous.
The police have said that there is no case to answer and the party's own independent inquiry concluded that the evidence against him did not reach the criminal standard of proof as required by the party’s rules in order to take action. Despite this, he's being told to apologise, despite denying any wrongdoing, for something that isn't even clear... just so that the party can appease those within its ranks who are angrily demanding action. And because he won't apologise, the party has decided to suspend him.
Mob justice.
The police have said that there is no case to answer and the party's own independent inquiry concluded that the evidence against him did not reach the criminal standard of proof as required by the party’s rules in order to take action. Despite this, he's being told to apologise, despite denying any wrongdoing, for something that isn't even clear... just so that the party can appease those within its ranks who are angrily demanding action. And because he won't apologise, the party has decided to suspend him.
Mob justice.
Nope, the dirty old fecker has been touching up young women for years - there just isn't enough hard evidence to take it to trial. The party standard should be 'balance of probability'.
Indeed, much like what happened to John Terry. The problem the Lib Dems have is that they'd ignored all the accusations against Rennard for years.
How do you know?
And as far as I'm aware the accusations aren't as you describe them. They are of unwanted advances and invasion of personal space, basically acting like a bit of a letch. It's likely that the women accusers do feel as though they were the subject of unwanted advances, but that doesn't necessarily mean serious wrongdoing on the part of Rennard. Most of the people who are calling for his removal from the party, and worse, aren't even aware of the all the evidence, because it hasn't been released.
'One, Susan Gaszczak, a parliamentary candidate, last week waived her right to anonymity and went public in an interview with the programme. She has described attending a Lib Dem event for future women MPs which Lord Rennard attended, and says that she was touched inappropriately and pursued'. 'Bridget Harris, a former special adviser to Nick Clegg claimed he inappropriately touched her at the Lib Dem Party conference in 2003, describing his behaviour as “furtive and menacing”.'
I think people are losing sense of proportion. I mean, just listen to the kind of language being used - 'waved her right to anonymity'. It draws parallels with recent cases involving sexual abuse and rape. This is nothing of the sort.
Rennard shouldn't have to apologise for 'pursuing' any of the women at party events as long it wasn't done in an inappropriate manner. He claims that it wasn't. Party members get up to all sorts at these party meetups, it happens all the time. The main thing that seems to be counting against Rennard here is that he is overweight and unattractive. Obviously if you bring 'inappropriate touching' into the mix it becomes more serious, but again, Rennard is claiming that he didn't act inappropriately.
Of course it may well be the case that he did act inappropriately, but he has a right to contend the accusation and the idea of forcing him to apologise without him having been found guilty by either a court or the Lib Dem's own inquiry is obviously wrong. He has the right not to be the subject of a lynch mob acting without consideration for the rule of law.
I think if the 'sex' aspect was taken out of the mix here and the accusations were replaced with ones of another (but equally serious) sort, there's no way that we would have seen this farce. It's got well out of hand.
That's just bollocks. If he were guilty (on the balance of probability) of putting his hand in the till rather than up someone's skirt, his feet wouldn't have touched the ground.
Rennard is going to court.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25820928
It just gets worse and worse for the Lib Dems.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25820928
It just gets worse and worse for the Lib Dems.
If Rennard is so keen on legal action I wonder what's stopping him from taking the women to court for defamation?
He needs to know who they are, which is why he wants the court order, I believe. I wonder if Clegg ends up giving evidence and gets Nigella ed.
That shouldn't take long at all.
I was bored rigid by the Nigella court case, but wouldn't any parallel there be Rennard, who would be the accuser in court, getting 'Nigella-ed'?
His barrister is going to call as many Lib Dems into court as possible to taint the internal process/investigation. Who knew what and when and he is already saying that the whole thing was political to have him removed from his position in the party. It is going to be ugly if it goes to court.
Look at it this way, would any politician really want to be under oath and answering broad questions about behaviour at party conferences?
I get that. I still say if he wants to prove his innocence he should be going for the women, not the party. If he doesn't do that then most people will assume the women have told the truth, and he will be damaged (or Nigella-ed as you put it) more than the party.
You might be right.
I don't know how much more damaged his reputation can be than it is now though. They might all get Nigella ed but he has least to lose now.
I don't know how much more damaged his reputation can be than it is now though. They might all get Nigella ed but he has least to lose now.
Am i the only one who feels that the government is escaping its deserved criticism over the floods in Somerset?
I wouldn't be surprised if one or two constituencies in the area forward an Independent candidate during upcoming elections.
I wouldn't be surprised if one or two constituencies in the area forward an Independent candidate during upcoming elections.
Last edited:
Lovely to see some sensible comments about the 50% tax rate from some panellists.
Absolutely awful to see how some people are so dim that they can't see the negative effects though. The politicking from Labour is scandalous.
Absolutely awful to see how some people are so dim that they can't see the negative effects though. The politicking from Labour is scandalous.
You're a genuine moron if you can't see what's happening.
Osborne is laying traps for Labour with the spending figures. Hence why Ed Balls has asked for a zero based review within the treasury, with ons approval preelection, to verify Labour's validity.
In return, Labour are now laying traps for him. It's nonsense economics, but the news sound bites to catch the electorates eye are unreal, proven by the opinion poll figures showing over two thirds support.
A recovery centred on London benefits no one but Labour. You forget outside London how popular banker bashing is and Miliband doesn't announce a policy unless properly researched.
Same way the Times ran a piece midweek misrepresenting everything Balls said, taking a single sentence off a Tory backbencher and attributing it to the ifs. It's dirty. It's shit.
Stop bleating ffs.
As if anybody is not going to strive to earn more because the tax has gone up. Everytime it comes up you get these idiotic 'business chiefs' talking about how it will endanger jobs and stifle peoples ambition, it's rubbish propaganda made to scare monger. A business will employ people when it needs to regardless of whether it senior chiefs are earning less.
So what you're basically saying is that it's perfectly reasonable for Labour to come up with a policy that is nonsense economics, as long as it reels the voters in?
Do you not see how this just adds to the argument that Labour voters are a bit thick? I would say it's a patronising policy for Labour to come out with, but clearly their voters are so dim it works.
How dare you. I'll have you know that I left school with 9 library books & the headmaster's Volvo.
But like, seriously, I really don't get this.
A good mate of mine is a staunch Labour voter and he just feels offended when they come out with these kind of 'fluffy' policies. I'm sure everyone would be a lot happier if we just got the right amount of tax from those who owe it.
I shall leave this thread to people like you who actually know what they're talking about. 
I would never claim to have the slightest clue what I am talking about - a theory backed up by many posters of a similar reputation.
So nobody at the EA feels like accepting responsibility for the Somerset Levels floods and neither does Owen Paterson intend on making them. Prince Charles is showing more genuine interest than government although that should perhaps nto come as any sort of surprise.
RMT strike tomorrow until Thursday. Also one next week which may cause the postponement of the Arsenal v United game.
It's going to be carnage getting to work tomorrow. All this and only 30% of RMT members voted for it. Democracy.
It's going to be carnage getting to work tomorrow. All this and only 30% of RMT members voted for it. Democracy.
23.5% of people voted for the Conservatives in 2010.
There are a lot of reasons why the RMT strike is wrong, but lack of democracy is not one of them. Pick another.
The workers will vote with their feet.
The workers will vote with their feet.
See, I don't even have much of an issue with this strike. I think this whole business has been handled really badly.
21.6% voted Labour in 2005, then. It's just a bit silly to include people who didn't vote.Hence we don't have a purely Conservative government
Besides, they can't be bothered to vote, they'd hardly say no to a couple of days off work!
Commuters should be praying that they don't get flooded.
Can't they just negotiate some extra trains from First Capital Connect as a contingency? Extend the overground line by an hour or two?
Can't they just negotiate some extra trains from First Capital Connect as a contingency? Extend the overground line by an hour or two?
That Bob Crow fella was just on the radio, he is actually a monumental idiot.
No he isn't, he's a pretty smart guy who's spent a lifetime fighting for his members' pay and conditions (which are much better than comparable non-unionised workers). If you're looking for a buffoon don't look past Johnson.