What the actual F? I think NOT having said a few stupid things as a youth in another decade entirely on a niche forum of the type devoted to flippant chat should be a greater bar to office, as that would be very suspicious indeed
This sorry episode really is bringing out the worst of the unholy, wretched Stasi-esque alliance between the Jess Phillipses and Guido Fawkeses of this world.
Beyond satire.
Yeah, much as I liked Jess Phillips at first, she's making herself look rather moronic of late.
I do sometimes wonder with people who develop reputations as blunt speakers not afraid to offend people, if they become trapped by such a reputation and cannot help escalating or doing it even when it is not a good idea. Like being a political pundit and carving out a niche as the 'Ed M is crap' guy, to the point of being unable to do anything else.
I see Guido has been going after the Sheffield Hallam MP today, not for the first time. Anyone know why, particularly? Sounds like the guy has been a real bell-end in the past, but its not as though that is something so unusual to be worthy of such attention.
He was one of the reasons I voted Lib Dem for the first team.
He’s like a student politician cum troll with the defence I have cerebral palsy, so I can’t possibly be discriminatory.
Seriously? The voters of Sheffield replaced Nick Clegg with this guy?
Shitty replacements are all the rage.
Cf replacing David Cameron with the pound shop Gordon Brown and Len Goodman with Shirley Ballas
Ballas is fucking miles better than Goodman. Miles better.
I'll pretend you didn't type that.
Having a judge who actually explains what is going on rather than delivering stilted 'spontaneous' lines is a bit of a novelty I suppose that may be jarring.
Her marking is all over the shop
Re. Strictly: Just listen to what the divine Darcey has to say, and you can safely ignore the other three.
The guy is a potty mouthwd twat, but we have loads of twats in this country and they need representation too.
For Gods sake, we have a Foreign Secretary who refers to picanninies with watermelon smiles!
One of the problems with snap elections is that there is little time to vet candidates, and that may be part of the problem!
Re Boris, I thought him and what he said when I saw what Nadine Dorris had tweeted.
It's why he was always an unwise pick for first Mayor of London - although that was the choice of London voters - and then Foreign Secretary, for which May has nobody to blame but herself.
His ability to say things beyond the norm, for good and ill, made him a good fit for Mayor of London IMO. The kind of flexibility and individualism that, as a negative, comes with the tendency to put one's foot in mouth as well, worked for the role.
I have to say though that while Boris may have said some racist, stupid and unpleasant things, I have never yet heard any suggestion that he advocated violence against women or gays. That's what rather sets this apart.
Ah, Ive just clocked why Mike is so sore and bonkers over this - sorry, being slow. The chap had the indecency to kick out the vile Lib Dem golden boy Nick Clegg, responsible for enabling one of the most pernicious and damaging governments ever.
So pernicious and damaging unemployment is now under half the amount Labour left in 2010 and borrowing is now at its lowest level since 2007.
And here's HYFUD with the latest tractor production statistics, like clockwork. Never change, H.
The guy is a potty mouthwd twat, but we have loads of twats in this country and they need representation too.
For Gods sake, we have a Foreign Secretary who refers to picanninies with watermelon smiles!
One of the problems with snap elections is that there is little time to vet candidates, and that may be part of the problem!
Re Boris, I thought him and what he said when I saw what Nadine Dorris had tweeted.
It's why he was always an unwise pick for first Mayor of London - although that was the choice of London voters - and then Foreign Secretary, for which May has nobody to blame but herself.
His ability to say things beyond the norm, for good and ill, made him a good fit for Mayor of London IMO. The kind of flexibility and individualism that, as a negative, comes with the tendency to put one's foot in mouth as well, worked for the role.
I have to say though that while Boris may have said some racist, stupid and unpleasant things, I have never yet heard any suggestion that he advocated violence against women or gays. That's what rather sets this apart.
If Jared O'Mara were in UKIP, he wouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt when he says that his views have radically changed.
True enough. Is there an accepted standard for how much time must pass between offensive view X and the present before one accepts those comments are unfortunate but no longer relevant, ranked on a party scale?
In an ideal world, the acceptable time would be zero minutes. If someone has had a genuine change of heart, why dwell in the past?
The hard part is knowing whether the change in heart is genuine or simply opportunistic because the perp has been caught ...
Either way, a rush to judgment is unwise, and unfair.
Ah, Ive just clocked why Mike is so sore and bonkers over this - sorry, being slow. The chap had the indecency to kick out the vile Lib Dem golden boy Nick Clegg, responsible for enabling one of the most pernicious and damaging governments ever.
So pernicious and damaging unemployment is now under half the amount Labour left in 2010 and borrowing is now at its lowest level since 2007.
And here's HYFUD with the latest tractor production statistics, like clockwork. Never change, H.
Ah, Ive just clocked why Mike is so sore and bonkers over this - sorry, being slow. The chap had the indecency to kick out the vile Lib Dem golden boy Nick Clegg, responsible for enabling one of the most pernicious and damaging governments ever.
Used to have a very good friend, who incidentally was a dyed-in-the-wool LibDem until Clegg went into coalition with the Tories. Cut up his membership card and posted it back to LDHQ. I got full briefings on how (and who helped) Clegg become Leader, and it wasn't very nice. Not the image that the party tried to project. And quite possibly a lot of supporters in the constituency remembered.....
The guy is a potty mouthwd twat, but we have loads of twats in this country and they need representation too.
For Gods sake, we have a Foreign Secretary who refers to picanninies with watermelon smiles!
One of the problems with snap elections is that there is little time to vet candidates, and that may be part of the problem!
Re Boris, I thought him and what he said when I saw what Nadine Dorris had tweeted.
It's why he was always an unwise pick for first Mayor of London - although that was the choice of London voters - and then Foreign Secretary, for which May has nobody to blame but herself.
His ability to say things beyond the norm, for good and ill, made him a good fit for Mayor of London IMO. The kind of flexibility and individualism that, as a negative, comes with the tendency to put one's foot in mouth as well, worked for the role.
I have to say though that while Boris may have said some racist, stupid and unpleasant things, I have never yet heard any suggestion that he advocated violence against women or gays. That's what rather sets this apart.
Guido pays social misfit wingnut interns to trawl the flotsam and jetsam of the web archives endlessly for out of context indiscretions made by anyone vaguely left of centre. Some could say it's a tragic waste of a person's one short precious life, but who am I to say?
The guy is a potty mouthwd twat, but we have loads of twats in this country and they need representation too.
For Gods sake, we have a Foreign Secretary who refers to picanninies with watermelon smiles!
One of the problems with snap elections is that there is little time to vet candidates, and that may be part of the problem!
Re Boris, I thought him and what he said when I saw what Nadine Dorris had tweeted.
It's why he was always an unwise pick for first Mayor of London - although that was the choice of London voters - and then Foreign Secretary, for which May has nobody to blame but herself.
His ability to say things beyond the norm, for good and ill, made him a good fit for Mayor of London IMO. The kind of flexibility and individualism that, as a negative, comes with the tendency to put one's foot in mouth as well, worked for the role.
I have to say though that while Boris may have said some racist, stupid and unpleasant things, I have never yet heard any suggestion that he advocated violence against women or gays. That's what rather sets this apart.
Only journalists, huh?
I didn't know that. Do you have an example?
You don't recall the Darius Guppy incident?
No. I will confess that although I have a good memory, that hasn't lingered in it. What happened?
The guy is a potty mouthwd twat, but we have loads of twats in this country and they need representation too.
For Gods sake, we have a Foreign Secretary who refers to picanninies with watermelon smiles!
One of the problems with snap elections is that there is little time to vet candidates, and that may be part of the problem!
Re Boris, I thought him and what he said when I saw what Nadine Dorris had tweeted.
It's why he was always an unwise pick for first Mayor of London - although that was the choice of London voters - and then Foreign Secretary, for which May has nobody to blame but herself.
His ability to say things beyond the norm, for good and ill, made him a good fit for Mayor of London IMO. The kind of flexibility and individualism that, as a negative, comes with the tendency to put one's foot in mouth as well, worked for the role.
I have to say though that while Boris may have said some racist, stupid and unpleasant things, I have never yet heard any suggestion that he advocated violence against women or gays. That's what rather sets this apart.
Guido pays social misfit wingnut interns to trawl the flotsam and jetsam of the web archives endlessly for out of context indiscretions made by anyone vaguely left of centre. Some could say it's a tragic waste of a person's one short precious life, but who am I to say?
A job is a job. As has been correctly pointed out, if the situation were reversed there would be no shortage of people piling in to a member of UKIP or the Tories. The problem is not the trawling for old comments, it's that the parties respond so harshly to childish indiscretions online (if it was more recent there is more justification to act, particularly if someone is in a position of responsibility) and that they do so because we the public, by and large, overreact to these things when it comes to light.
Guido pays social misfit wingnut interns to trawl the flotsam and jetsam of the web archives endlessly for out of context indiscretions made by anyone vaguely left of centre. Some could say it's a tragic waste of a person's one short precious life, but who am I to say?
A job is a job. As has been correctly pointed out, if the situation were reversed there would be no shortage of people piling in to a member of UKIP or the Tories. The problem is not the trawling for old comments, it's that the parties respond so harshly to childish indiscretions online (if it was more recent there is more justification to act, particularly if someone is in a position of responsibility) and that they do so because we the public, by and large, overreact to these things when it comes to light.
Do we though? I cant imagine 95% of the population gives a tin shiite.
The guy is a potty mouthwd twat, but we have loads of twats in this country and they need representation too.
For Gods sake, we have a Foreign Secretary who refers to picanninies with watermelon smiles!
One of the problems with snap elections is that there is little time to vet candidates, and that may be part of the problem!
Re Boris, I thought him and what he said when I saw what Nadine Dorris had tweeted.
It's why he was always an unwise pick for first Mayor of London - although that was the choice of London voters - and then Foreign Secretary, for which May has nobody to blame but herself.
His ability to say things beyond the norm, for good and ill, made him a good fit for Mayor of London IMO. The kind of flexibility and individualism that, as a negative, comes with the tendency to put one's foot in mouth as well, worked for the role.
I have to say though that while Boris may have said some racist, stupid and unpleasant things, I have never yet heard any suggestion that he advocated violence against women or gays. That's what rather sets this apart.
Those remarks are definitely stupid and should undoubtedly have ruled him out of the Foreign Office. As should his comments on Papua New Guinea, or his comments on race, or his behaviour trying to cover up that affair with a Staggers journalist. However can I please point out that he's not personally suggesting any violence and seems to be stalling on handing over any information that might lead to it? While he should have said he should not help, instead of hinting he would as long as he couldn't be implicated, I think O'Mara's comments are more serious.
Edit - that said, O'Mara has of course now resigned. And Boris hasn't as far as I know. So there is that difference too.
Guido pays social misfit wingnut interns to trawl the flotsam and jetsam of the web archives endlessly for out of context indiscretions made by anyone vaguely left of centre. Some could say it's a tragic waste of a person's one short precious life, but who am I to say?
A job is a job. As has been correctly pointed out, if the situation were reversed there would be no shortage of people piling in to a member of UKIP or the Tories. The problem is not the trawling for old comments, it's that the parties respond so harshly to childish indiscretions online (if it was more recent there is more justification to act, particularly if someone is in a position of responsibility) and that they do so because we the public, by and large, overreact to these things when it comes to light.
Do we though? I cant imagine 95% of the population gives a tin shiite.
Enough of us do, clearly, or the politicians and media would not react this way.
Wayback machine is one possibility. Or screen shots by somebody who was disgusted by them, being posted again years later.
I've often wondered how many teenagers/tweenagers blogs from ten years ago are fully archived on somebody's computer - the likes of Caroline Hunt, or the Bevanite Ellie person whose name I always forget - just waiting to embarrass them if they go into politics full time.
Well, at least Staines can consider a job well done today then.
Indeed. Guido got his man.
It seems likely he has a lot more lined up, to dribble out over the rest of the week if Labour/O'Mara did not do something, so the latter decided to fall on his sword quickly.
The guy is a potty mouthwd twat, but we have loads of twats in this country and they need representation too.
For Gods sake, we have a Foreign Secretary who refers to picanninies with watermelon smiles!
One of the problems with snap elections is that there is little time to vet candidates, and that may be part of the problem!
Re Boris, I thought him and what he said when I saw what Nadine Dorris had tweeted.
It's why he was always an unwise pick for first Mayor of London - although that was the choice of London voters - and then Foreign Secretary, for which May has nobody to blame but herself.
His ability to say things beyond the norm, for good and ill, made him a good fit for Mayor of London IMO. The kind of flexibility and individualism that, as a negative, comes with the tendency to put one's foot in mouth as well, worked for the role.
I have to say though that while Boris may have said some racist, stupid and unpleasant things, I have never yet heard any suggestion that he advocated violence against women or gays. That's what rather sets this apart.
Those remarks are definitely stupid and should undoubtedly have ruled him out of the Foreign Office. As should his comments on Papua New Guinea, or his comments on race, or his behaviour trying to cover up that affair with a Staggers journalist. However can I please point out that he's not personally suggesting any violence and seems to be stalling on handing over any information that might lead to it? While he should have said he should not help, instead of hinting he would as long as he couldn't be implicated, I think O'Mara's comments are more serious.
Edit - that said, O'Mara has of course now resigned. And Boris hasn't as far as I know. So there is that difference too.
Johnson is Johnson, and isn't going to change; this other guy, the jury is still apparently out.
The guy is a potty mouthwd twat, but we have loads of twats in this country and they need representation too.
For Gods sake, we have a Foreign Secretary who refers to picanninies with watermelon smiles!
One of the problems with snap elections is that there is little time to vet candidates, and that may be part of the problem!
Re Boris, I thought him and what he said when I saw what Nadine Dorris had tweeted.
It's why he was always an unwise pick for first Mayor of London - although that was the choice of London voters - and then Foreign Secretary, for which May has nobody to blame but herself.
His ability to say things beyond the norm, for good and ill, made him a good fit for Mayor of London IMO. The kind of flexibility and individualism that, as a negative, comes with the tendency to put one's foot in mouth as well, worked for the role.
I have to say though that while Boris may have said some racist, stupid and unpleasant things, I have never yet heard any suggestion that he advocated violence against women or gays. That's what rather sets this apart.
Those remarks are definitely stupid and should undoubtedly have ruled him out of the Foreign Office. As should his comments on Papua New Guinea, or his comments on race, or his behaviour trying to cover up that affair with a Staggers journalist. However can I please point out that he's not personally suggesting any violence and seems to be stalling on handing over any information that might lead to it? While he should have said he should not help, instead of hinting he would as long as he couldn't be implicated, I think O'Mara's comments are more serious.
Edit - that said, O'Mara has of course now resigned. And Boris hasn't as far as I know. So there is that difference too.
Part of the tape of Boris Johnson talking to Darius Guppy is online:
What the actual F? I think NOT having said a few stupid things as a youth in another decade entirely on a niche forum of the type devoted to flippant chat should be a greater bar to office, as that would be very suspicious indeed
This sorry episode really is bringing out the worst of the unholy, wretched Stasi-esque alliance between the Jess Phillipses and Guido Fawkeses of this world.
Beyond satire.
Er, the Labour Party and the left in general live and breathe the social justice warrior creed. Pointing out their gross hypocrisy is valuable precisely because it exposes what an anti-human plague that creed is.
The other point is -- if a teacher had made these remarks, or a policeman, or a University lecturer -- would they not now be facing disciplinary action?
As we saw with misogynistic Owen Smith's remarks about Leanne Wood, Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May, Labour supporters are very keen to exonerate their own.
The way this works is that Guido would have likely been given a tip-off by someone who knew the guy a decade ago and was probably posting on the same forum at the time - and is shocked to discover he’s now an MP.
The actual digging through the Internet to find the quotes is relatively easy if one knows where to look, there’s even a site called the wayback machine that archives old webpages.
Boris should probably have been discarded after falsifying that quote early in his career. After all that showed what sort of person he is. That is also the offence Hari was destroyed for (OK, I know that was on an industrial scale and involved other things including that nasty smear campaign against his critics as well).
I've sometimes wondered how he does get away with these things. I can only assume it's because people like him and make allowances on that basis (rather like John Prescott after he punched that protestor who egged him, starting a fight live on TV). He shouldn't though.
Of course, whatever O'Mara says rather pales by comparison with what Corbyn and Macdonnell have actually done. So in resigning he really is behaving out of the norm with modern politics.
The guy is a potty mouthwd twat, but we have loads of twats in this country and they need representation too.
For Gods sake, we have a Foreign Secretary who refers to picanninies with watermelon smiles!
One of the problems with snap elections is that there is little time to vet candidates, and that may be part of the problem!
Re Boris, I thought him and what he said when I saw what Nadine Dorris had tweeted.
It's why he was always an unwise pick for first Mayor of London - although that was the choice of London voters - and then Foreign Secretary, for which May has nobody to blame but herself.
His ability to say things beyond the norm, for good and ill, made him a good fit for Mayor of London IMO. The kind of flexibility and individualism that, as a negative, comes with the tendency to put one's foot in mouth as well, worked for the role.
I have to say though that while Boris may have said some racist, stupid and unpleasant things, I have never yet heard any suggestion that he advocated violence against women or gays. That's what rather sets this apart.
The other point is -- if a teacher had made these remarks, or a policeman, or a University lecturer -- would they not now be facing disciplinary action?
As we saw with misogynistic Owen Smith's remarks about Leanne Wood, Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May, Labour supporters are very keen to exonerate their own.
A university lecturer probably not. The other two yes as we have codes of conduct that we have to conform to.
Guido pays social misfit wingnut interns to trawl the flotsam and jetsam of the web archives endlessly for out of context indiscretions made by anyone vaguely left of centre. Some could say it's a tragic waste of a person's one short precious life, but who am I to say?
A job is a job. As has been correctly pointed out, if the situation were reversed there would be no shortage of people piling in to a member of UKIP or the Tories. The problem is not the trawling for old comments, it's that the parties respond so harshly to childish indiscretions online (if it was more recent there is more justification to act, particularly if someone is in a position of responsibility) and that they do so because we the public, by and large, overreact to these things when it comes to light.
Do we though? I cant imagine 95% of the population gives a tin shiite.
Enough of us do, clearly, or the politicians and media would not react this way.
Yes, because if we've learnt anything over the last few years it is that the opinion of politicians and the press are 100% in tune with the rest of the population.
Well, at least Staines can consider a job well done today then.
Indeed. Guido got his man.
It seems likely he has a lot more lined up, to dribble out over the rest of the week if Labour/O'Mara did not do something, so the latter decided to fall on his sword quickly.
Even for Guido it was unusual to see half a dozen stories about someone in one day. As you say it suggests that O’Mara knows there’s loads more coming from the same place, so better to fall on sword quickly than become a much bigger story later. I suspect he’ll be quietly deselected.
The guy is a potty mouthwd twat, but we have loads of twats in this country and they need representation too.
For Gods sake, we have a Foreign Secretary who refers to picanninies with watermelon smiles!
One of the problems with snap elections is that there is little time to vet candidates, and that may be part of the problem!
Re Boris, I thought him and what he said when I saw what Nadine Dorris had tweeted.
It's why he was always an unwise pick for first Mayor of London - although that was the choice of London voters - and then Foreign Secretary, for which May has nobody to blame but herself.
His ability to say things beyond the norm, for good and ill, made him a good fit for Mayor of London IMO. The kind of flexibility and individualism that, as a negative, comes with the tendency to put one's foot in mouth as well, worked for the role.
I have to say though that while Boris may have said some racist, stupid and unpleasant things, I have never yet heard any suggestion that he advocated violence against women or gays. That's what rather sets this apart.
Well, at least Staines can consider a job well done today then.
Indeed. Guido got his man.
It seems likely he has a lot more lined up, to dribble out over the rest of the week if Labour/O'Mara did not do something, so the latter decided to fall on his sword quickly.
Even for Guido it was unusual to see half a dozen stories about someone in one day. As you say it suggests that O’Mara knows there’s loads more coming from the same place, so better to fall on sword quickly than become a much bigger story later.
If he's got more to come O'Mara resigning won't stop them, although it might draw some of the political sting.
The other point is -- if a teacher had made these remarks, or a policeman, or a University lecturer -- would they not now be facing disciplinary action?
You think anyone in the above roles should be made to answer disciplinary proceedings for something they said in a relatively private sphere half a lifetime ago, long before they were employed there? That a pretty terrifying view of the world you have there, and I want no part of it!
Well, at least Staines can consider a job well done today then.
Indeed. Guido got his man.
It seems likely he has a lot more lined up, to dribble out over the rest of the week if Labour/O'Mara did not do something, so the latter decided to fall on his sword quickly.
Even for Guido it was unusual to see half a dozen stories about someone in one day. As you say it suggests that O’Mara knows there’s loads more coming from the same place, so better to fall on sword quickly than become a much bigger story later.
If he's got more to come O'Mara resigning won't stop them, although it might draw some of the political sting.
I can imagine the ludicrous and obvious witch-hunt is likely to do him very little harm indeed, except in the now irrelevant court of westminster bubble opinion.
What the actual F? I think NOT having said a few stupid things as a youth in another decade entirely on a niche forum of the type devoted to flippant chat should be a greater bar to office, as that would be very suspicious indeed
This sorry episode really is bringing out the worst of the unholy, wretched Stasi-esque alliance between the Jess Phillipses and Guido Fawkeses of this world.
Beyond satire.
Er, the Labour Party and the left in general live and breathe the social justice warrior creed. Pointing out their gross hypocrisy is valuable precisely because it exposes what an anti-human plague that creed is.
Somehow, I don’t think this O’Mara thing is going to change minds in terms of political affiliation and voting intention.
Particularly when many people still see the Conservatives as problematic on issues like these as well (such as their ongoing issues with ethnic minorities not voting Conservative in significant/large numbers).
Guido pays social misfit wingnut interns to trawl the flotsam and jetsam of the web archives endlessly for out of context indiscretions made by anyone vaguely left of centre. Some could say it's a tragic waste of a person's one short precious life, but who am I to say?
A job is a job. As has been correctly pointed out, if the situation were reversed there would be no shortage of people piling in to a member of UKIP or the Tories. The problem is not the trawling for old comments, it's that the parties respond so harshly to childish indiscretions online (if it was more recent there is more justification to act, particularly if someone is in a position of responsibility) and that they do so because we the public, by and large, overreact to these things when it comes to light.
Do we though? I cant imagine 95% of the population gives a tin shiite.
Enough of us do, clearly, or the politicians and media would not react this way.
Yes, because if we've learnt anything over the last few years it is that the opinion of politicians and the press are 100% in tune with the rest of the population.
You really aren't making yourself sound great; what underlies every post of yours is the assumption that nobody really minds a bit of misogynistic and gaybashing banter. Actually they do, and if they didn't, they should do. If there is more to come, as seems likely, you are going to end up looking very silly.
Guido pays social misfit wingnut interns to trawl the flotsam and jetsam of the web archives endlessly for out of context indiscretions made by anyone vaguely left of centre. Some could say it's a tragic waste of a person's one short precious life, but who am I to say?
I don't think Guido cares if his targets are left or right, so long as they exhibit hypocrisy and increase his site traffic. He's not doing it for free after all.
The other point is -- if a teacher had made these remarks, or a policeman, or a University lecturer -- would they not now be facing disciplinary action?
You think anyone in the above roles should be made to answer disciplinary proceedings for something they said in a relatively private sphere half a lifetime ago, long before they were employed there? That a pretty terrifying view of the world you have there, and I want no part of it!
I am saying that if a policeman or a teacher or a university lecturer were found to have made those remarks, they would be facing disciplinary action.
I am stating what would happen, that is all. Neither agreeing, nor disagreeing, just stating.
If you or Jared think the web is a "relatively private sphere", then you are guilty of nuclear-grade stupidity. There is no known cure.
Guido pays social misfit wingnut interns to trawl the flotsam and jetsam of the web archives endlessly for out of context indiscretions made by anyone vaguely left of centre. Some could say it's a tragic waste of a person's one short precious life, but who am I to say?
A job is a job. As has been correctly pointed out, if the situation were reversed there would be no shortage of people piling in to a member of UKIP or the Tories. The problem is not the trawling for old comments, it's that the parties respond so harshly to childish indiscretions online (if it was more recent there is more justification to act, particularly if someone is in a position of responsibility) and that they do so because we the public, by and large, overreact to these things when it comes to light.
Do we though? I cant imagine 95% of the population gives a tin shiite.
Enough of us do, clearly, or the politicians and media would not react this way.
Yes, because if we've learnt anything over the last few years it is that the opinion of politicians and the press are 100% in tune with the rest of the population.
You really aren't making yourself sound great; what underlies every post of yours is the assumption that nobody really minds a bit of misogynistic and gaybashing banter. Actually they do, and if they didn't, they should do. If there is more to come, as seems likely, you are going to end up looking very silly.
The other point is -- if a teacher had made these remarks, or a policeman, or a University lecturer -- would they not now be facing disciplinary action?
You think anyone in the above roles should be made to answer disciplinary proceedings for something they said in a relatively private sphere half a lifetime ago, long before they were employed there? That a pretty terrifying view of the world you have there, and I want no part of it!
A rare example where I have sympathy with a comment of yours. I do think the line between public and private is getting blurred and I don't think society is the better for it.
However, since the 1990s teachers and police officers have had codes of conduct, one aspect of which is that we agree not to behave in a way that brings our employers or our profession into disrepute. Gove added 'British values' to that list for teachers (although I have to say I don't think he had the least clue what that meant - they come across as a series of meaningless cliches) and if we breach them we can be brought before a tribunal.
I have to say however I would be quite uneasy as well about somebody who had made violent remarks like that standing in front of a class. And that's also where these move beyond being silly to being actually nasty, especially as they are also linked to allegations of actual violence.
He's resigned from the Equalities Committee. That seems appropriate. I don't think that here should be any further action against him for these remarks unless it is proved he did something similar recently.
Guido pays social misfit wingnut interns to trawl the flotsam and jetsam of the web archives endlessly for out of context indiscretions made by anyone vaguely left of centre. Some could say it's a tragic waste of a person's one short precious life, but who am I to say?
A job is a job. As has been correctly pointed out, if the situation were reversed there would be no shortage of people piling in to a member of UKIP or the Tories. The problem is not the trawling for old comments, it's that the parties respond so harshly to childish indiscretions online (if it was more recent there is more justification to act, particularly if someone is in a position of responsibility) and that they do so because we the public, by and large, overreact to these things when it comes to light.
Do we though? I cant imagine 95% of the population gives a tin shiite.
Enough of us do, clearly, or the politicians and media would not react this way.
Yes, because if we've learnt anything over the last few years it is that the opinion of politicians and the press are 100% in tune with the rest of the population.
You really aren't making yourself sound great; what underlies every post of yours is the assumption that nobody really minds a bit of misogynistic and gaybashing banter. Actually they do, and if they didn't, they should do. If there is more to come, as seems likely, you are going to end up looking very silly.
I think most people - who arent bonkers - will see immediately what an utterly pitiful attempt to distract from the ongoing disintegration of this bad joke of a government, and the damage they are inflicting on the country, this is.
What the actual F? I think NOT having said a few stupid things as a youth in another decade entirely on a niche forum of the type devoted to flippant chat should be a greater bar to office, as that would be very suspicious indeed
This sorry episode really is bringing out the worst of the unholy, wretched Stasi-esque alliance between the Jess Phillipses and Guido Fawkeses of this world.
Beyond satire.
Er, the Labour Party and the left in general live and breathe the social justice warrior creed. Pointing out their gross hypocrisy is valuable precisely because it exposes what an anti-human plague that creed is.
Somehow, I don’t think this O’Mara thing is going to change minds in terms of political affiliation and voting intention.
Particularly when many people still see the Conservatives as problematic on issues like these as well (such as their ongoing issues with ethnic minorities not voting Conservative in significant/large numbers).
And they aren’t ‘social justice warriors’.
The difference is that the Conservatives aren't hypocrites - everyone knows we're for freedom of speech, not its suppression. Labour and the left are the exact opposite.
But of course it won't move a single vote, since no one cares about the hypocrisy of people on their own side.
The other point is -- if a teacher had made these remarks, or a policeman, or a University lecturer -- would they not now be facing disciplinary action?
You think anyone in the above roles should be made to answer disciplinary proceedings for something they said in a relatively private sphere half a lifetime ago, long before they were employed there? That a pretty terrifying view of the world you have there, and I want no part of it!
'The difference is that the Conservatives aren't hypocrites' hahahahaha. Yes, that's the first concept that comes to mind when someone says the word 'Tories' - 'Not hypocrites'. Hahahahahahaha
Guido pays social misfit wingnut interns to trawl the flotsam and jetsam of the web archives endlessly for out of context indiscretions made by anyone vaguely left of centre. Some could say it's a tragic waste of a person's one short precious life, but who am I to say?
A job is a job. As has been correctly pointed out, if the situation were reversed there would be no shortage of people piling in to a member of UKIP or the Tories. The problem is not the trawling for old comments, it's that the parties respond so harshly to childish indiscretions online (if it was more recent there is more justification to act, particularly if someone is in a position of responsibility) and that they do so because we the public, by and large, overreact to these things when it comes to light.
Do we though? I cant imagine 95% of the population gives a tin shiite.
Enough of us do, clearly, or the politicians and media would not react this way.
Yes, because if we've learnt anything over the last few years it is that the opinion of politicians and the press are 100% in tune with the rest of the population.
You really aren't making yourself sound great; what underlies every post of yours is the assumption that nobody really minds a bit of misogynistic and gaybashing banter. Actually they do, and if they didn't, they should do. If there is more to come, as seems likely, you are going to end up looking very silly.
I think most people - who arent bonkers - will see immediately what an utterly pitiful attempt to distract from the ongoing disintegration of this bad joke of a government, and the damage they are inflicting on the country, this is.
Guido pays social misfit wingnut interns to trawl the flotsam and jetsam of the web archives endlessly for out of context indiscretions made by anyone vaguely left of centre. Some could say it's a tragic waste of a person's one short precious life, but who am I to say?
A job is a job. As has been correctly pointed out, if the situation were reversed there would be no shortage of people piling in to a member of UKIP or the Tories. The problem is not the trawling for old comments, it's that the parties respond so harshly to childish indiscretions online (if it was more recent there is more justification to act, particularly if someone is in a position of responsibility) and that they do so because we the public, by and large, overreact to these things when it comes to light.
Do we though? I cant imagine 95% of the population gives a tin shiite.
Enough of us do, clearly, or the politicians and media would not react this way.
Yes, because if we've learnt anything over the last few years it is that the opinion of politicians and the press are 100% in tune with the rest of the population.
I didn't say 100%. I very deliberately say 'enough of us do'. To believe otherwise would be to believe our entire political and media class is irrational. Wrong on many things, perhaps, but they aren't irrational.
The guy is a potty mouthwd twat, but we have loads of twats in this country and they need representation too.
For Gods sake, we have a Foreign Secretary who refers to picanninies with watermelon smiles!
One of the problems with snap elections is that there is little time to vet candidates, and that may be part of the problem!
Re Boris, I thought him and what he said when I saw what Nadine Dorris had tweeted.
It's why he was always an unwise pick for first Mayor of London - although that was the choice of London voters - and then Foreign Secretary, for which May has nobody to blame but herself.
His ability to say things beyond the norm, for good and ill, made him a good fit for Mayor of London IMO. The kind of flexibility and individualism that, as a negative, comes with the tendency to put one's foot in mouth as well, worked for the role.
I have to say though that while Boris may have said some racist, stupid and unpleasant things, I have never yet heard any suggestion that he advocated violence against women or gays. That's what rather sets this apart.
Guido pays social misfit wingnut interns to trawl the flotsam and jetsam of the web archives endlessly for out of context indiscretions made by anyone vaguely left of centre. Some could say it's a tragic waste of a person's one short precious life, but who am I to say?
A job is a job. As has been correctly pointed out, if the situation were reversed there would be no shortage of people piling in to a member of UKIP or the Tories. The problem is not the trawling for old comments, it's that the parties respond so harshly to childish indiscretions online (if it was more recent there is more justification to act, particularly if someone is in a position of responsibility) and that they do so because we the public, by and large, overreact to these things when it comes to light.
Do we though? I cant imagine 95% of the population gives a tin shiite.
Enough of us do, clearly, or the politicians and media would not react this way.
Yes, because if we've learnt anything over the last few years it is that the opinion of politicians and the press are 100% in tune with the rest of the population.
I didn't say 100%. I very deliberately say 'enough of us do'. To believe otherwise would be to believe our entire political and media class is irrational. Wrong on many things, perhaps, but they aren't irrational.
Ok, question, do you think this will move the barometer of public opinion on anything by any measurable amount?
'The difference is that the Conservatives aren't hypocrites' hahahahaha. Yes, that's the first concept that comes to mind when someone says the word 'Tories' - 'Not hypocrites'. Hahahahahahaha
I hope you enjoy the destruction of free speech and personal liberty under Comrade Corbyn - it'll make the Soviet repression of the kulaks look like tea for two at Claridge's!
The Conservative Party aren’t hypocrites, really? Have you ever read about the Conservative Party in the 90s with Back to Basics and what happened next?
How is this a freedom of speech issue? Most of the lefties on Twitter want him gone, from what I’ve seen. Don’t know if you see that as suppressing his freedom of speech.
The Conservative Party aren’t hypocrites, really? Have you ever read about the Conservative Party in the 90s with Back to Basics and what happened next?
How is this a freedom of speech issue? Most of the lefties on Twitter want him gone, from what I’ve seen. Don’t know if you see that as suppressing his freedom of speech.
That did however spawn the finest ever Sun front page - Steven Norris holding a rugby ball, with his mouth wide open. The caption was 'Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes Minister!'
'The difference is that the Conservatives aren't hypocrites' hahahahaha. Yes, that's the first concept that comes to mind when someone says the word 'Tories' - 'Not hypocrites'. Hahahahahahaha
I hope you enjoy the destruction of free speech and personal liberty under Comrade Corbyn - it'll make the Soviet repression of the kulaks look like tea for two at Claridge's!
You believe Corbyn’s government will be worse than Soviet repression of the kulaks? Seriously?
'The difference is that the Conservatives aren't hypocrites' hahahahaha. Yes, that's the first concept that comes to mind when someone says the word 'Tories' - 'Not hypocrites'. Hahahahahahaha
I hope you enjoy the destruction of free speech and personal liberty under Comrade Corbyn - it'll make the Soviet repression of the kulaks look like tea for two at Claridge's!
You believe Corbyn’s government will be worse than Soviet repression of the kulaks? Seriously?
Maybe the slightest touch of hyperbole there. It'll still be a horror beyond words, though.
'The difference is that the Conservatives aren't hypocrites' hahahahaha. Yes, that's the first concept that comes to mind when someone says the word 'Tories' - 'Not hypocrites'. Hahahahahahaha
I hope you enjoy the destruction of free speech and personal liberty under Comrade Corbyn - it'll make the Soviet repression of the kulaks look like tea for two at Claridge's!
You believe Corbyn’s government will be worse than Soviet repression of the kulaks? Seriously?
Can I please point out - with my pedant's hat on - that there were almost no kulaks by 1928? Most of them had been killed in the Civil War. It was the middle-ranking peasantry that Stalin clobbered.
It seems unlikely that a Corbyn government would starve 5% of the population to death as a deliberate act of policy. It does seem possible that they would cause food prices to rise and shortages of some imported foodstuffs due to adverse economic conditions.
'The difference is that the Conservatives aren't hypocrites' hahahahaha. Yes, that's the first concept that comes to mind when someone says the word 'Tories' - 'Not hypocrites'. Hahahahahahaha
I hope you enjoy the destruction of free speech and personal liberty under Comrade Corbyn - it'll make the Soviet repression of the kulaks look like tea for two at Claridge's!
You believe Corbyn’s government will be worse than Soviet repression of the kulaks? Seriously?
Guido pays social misfit wingnut interns to trawl the flotsam and jetsam of the web archives endlessly for out of context indiscretions made by anyone vaguely left of centre. Some could say it's a tragic waste of a person's one short precious life, but who am I to say?
A job is a job. As has been correctly pointed out, if the situation were reversed there would be no shortage of people piling in to a member of UKIP or the Tories. The problem is not the trawling for old comments, it's that the parties respond so harshly to childish indiscretions online (if it was more recent there is more justification to act, particularly if someone is in a position of responsibility) and that they do so because we the public, by and large, overreact to these things when it comes to light.
Do we though? I cant imagine 95% of the population gives a tin shiite.
Enough of us do, clearly, or the politicians and media would not react this way.
Yes, because if we've learnt anything over the last few years it is that the opinion of politicians and the press are 100% in tune with the rest of the population.
I didn't say 100%. I very deliberately say 'enough of us do'. To believe otherwise would be to believe our entire political and media class is irrational. Wrong on many things, perhaps, but they aren't irrational.
Ok, question, do you think this will move the barometer of public opinion on anything by any measurable amount?
No I don't - but the parties clearly think public opinion is already at the place where enough people will care if he hadn't resigned, even if most wouldn't care. That was my point - those that will care are enough to get the parties to act, as it is not worth their trouble to take a stand over youthful comments.
It doesn't have to move the barometer of public opinion. We're already there.
The fact that UKIP booted people out for dumb insensitive remarks is a major reason why they struggled to build up a mass membership.And maybe Labour are smart to avoid copying UKIP too much Lots of people are fed up with the totalitarian manner that the metropolitan academic/media & political elites believe in sacking people for off the cuff dumb insensitive remarks instead of just stating that people like O`Mara etc are simply saying a lot about themselves rather than anybody else. Realising that was a major factor in Trumps ability to get 65 million votes
The other point is -- if a teacher had made these remarks, or a policeman, or a University lecturer -- would they not now be facing disciplinary action?
You think anyone in the above roles should be made to answer disciplinary proceedings for something they said in a relatively private sphere half a lifetime ago, long before they were employed there? That a pretty terrifying view of the world you have there, and I want no part of it!
I am saying that if a policeman or a teacher or a university lecturer were found to have made those remarks, they would be facing disciplinary action.
I am stating what would happen, that is all. Neither agreeing, nor disagreeing, just stating.
If you or Jared think the web is a "relatively private sphere", then you are guilty of nuclear-grade stupidity. There is no known cure.
Had they made such remarks before they were either teachers or policemen, how could they possibly be facing disciplinary action - unless they had lied on application for the job ?
I don't take the view that time heals everything - but equally *if* it's an isolated youthful mistake, subsequently regretted, then it ought not to condemn someone forever.
'The difference is that the Conservatives aren't hypocrites' hahahahaha. Yes, that's the first concept that comes to mind when someone says the word 'Tories' - 'Not hypocrites'. Hahahahahahaha
I hope you enjoy the destruction of free speech and personal liberty under Comrade Corbyn - it'll make the Soviet repression of the kulaks look like tea for two at Claridge's!
You believe Corbyn’s government will be worse than Soviet repression of the kulaks? Seriously?
Can I please point out - with my pedant's hat on - that there were almost no kulaks by 1928? Most of them had been killed in the Civil War. It was the middle-ranking peasantry that Stalin clobbered.
It seems unlikely that a Corbyn government would starve 5% of the population to death as a deliberate act of policy. It does seem possible that they would cause food prices to rise and shortages of some imported foodstuffs due to adverse economic conditions.
Except the Tories will have beaten them to the empty shelves routine by delivering us all an ultra-hard WTO Brexit.
Guido pays social misfit wingnut interns to trawl the flotsam and jetsam of the web archives endlessly for out of context indiscretions made by anyone vaguely left of centre. Some could say it's a tragic waste of a person's one short precious life, but who am I to say?
A job is a job. As has been correctly pointed out, if the situation were reversed there would be no shortage of people piling in to a member of UKIP or the Tories. The problem is not the trawling for old comments, it's that the parties respond so harshly to childish indiscretions online (if it was more recent there is more justification to act, particularly if someone is in a position of responsibility) and that they do so because we the public, by and large, overreact to these things when it comes to light.
Do we though? I cant imagine 95% of the population gives a tin shiite.
Enough of us do, clearly, or the politicians and media would not react this way.
Yes, because if we've learnt anything over the last few years it is that the opinion of politicians and the press are 100% in tune with the rest of the population.
You really aren't making yourself sound great; what underlies every post of yours is the assumption that nobody really minds a bit of misogynistic and gaybashing banter. Actually they do, and if they didn't, they should do. If there is more to come, as seems likely, you are going to end up looking very silly.
I think most people - who arent bonkers - will see immediately what an utterly pitiful attempt to distract from the ongoing disintegration of this bad joke of a government, and the damage they are inflicting on the country, this is.
I don't think the government made O'Mara say any of that stuff.
'The difference is that the Conservatives aren't hypocrites' hahahahaha. Yes, that's the first concept that comes to mind when someone says the word 'Tories' - 'Not hypocrites'. Hahahahahahaha
I hope you enjoy the destruction of free speech and personal liberty under Comrade Corbyn - it'll make the Soviet repression of the kulaks look like tea for two at Claridge's!
You believe Corbyn’s government will be worse than Soviet repression of the kulaks? Seriously?
Can I please point out - with my pedant's hat on - that there were almost no kulaks by 1928? Most of them had been killed in the Civil War. It was the middle-ranking peasantry that Stalin clobbered.
It seems unlikely that a Corbyn government would starve 5% of the population to death as a deliberate act of policy. It does seem possible that they would cause food prices to rise and shortages of some imported foodstuffs due to adverse economic conditions.
Wasn't the term widened to include lower ranking peasants?
What the actual F? I think NOT having said a few stupid things as a youth in another decade entirely on a niche forum of the type devoted to flippant chat should be a greater bar to office, as that would be very suspicious indeed
This sorry episode really is bringing out the worst of the unholy, wretched Stasi-esque alliance between the Jess Phillipses and Guido Fawkeses of this world.
Beyond satire.
Er, the Labour Party and the left in general live and breathe the social justice warrior creed. Pointing out their gross hypocrisy is valuable precisely because it exposes what an anti-human plague that creed is.
Somehow, I don’t think this O’Mara thing is going to change minds in terms of political affiliation and voting intention.
Particularly when many people still see the Conservatives as problematic on issues like these as well (such as their ongoing issues with ethnic minorities not voting Conservative in significant/large numbers).
And they aren’t ‘social justice warriors’.
I was under the iumpression that - the Islamic vote apart - there is no longer any massive imbalance in the ethnic minority vote? Certainly I think most or all non-Muslim ethnic minorities voted Conservative over Labour in 2015. Not sure about 2017. To the extent that there is an imbalance, it can be explained by age - that is, the age profile of the white population is older, and hence tends to be more strongly Conservative. The Islamic vote is strongly Labour, but the Islamic vote <> the ethnic minority vote.
Yep, and it’s not going to go away. O’Mara is going to be the first of many.
The thread that follows is quite interesting. Couple of people thanking god they didn't use the Internet too much at 20, and someone pointing out that Jarad 'Girls Aloud' O'Mara was 23 when Facebook launched, so a bit old for the totally digital generation.
One company will own the vast majority of this stuff in a few years time, unless the flight of the young to Snapchat continues apace.
The other point is -- if a teacher had made these remarks, or a policeman, or a University lecturer -- would they not now be facing disciplinary action?
You think anyone in the above roles should be made to answer disciplinary proceedings for something they said in a relatively private sphere half a lifetime ago, long before they were employed there? That a pretty terrifying view of the world you have there, and I want no part of it!
I am saying that if a policeman or a teacher or a university lecturer were found to have made those remarks, they would be facing disciplinary action.
I am stating what would happen, that is all. Neither agreeing, nor disagreeing, just stating.
If you or Jared think the web is a "relatively private sphere", then you are guilty of nuclear-grade stupidity. There is no known cure.
Had they made such remarks before they were either teachers or policemen, how could they possibly be facing disciplinary action - unless they had lied on application for the job ?
I don't take the view that time heals everything - but equally *if* it's an isolated youthful mistake, subsequently regretted, then it ought not to condemn someone forever.
I think it is likely that a teacher or policeman or university lecturer would be facing disciplinary action.
If the remarks were made before they were in the job, the disciplinary action would probably take that into account & demand evidence of change of heart, or recommend attending suitable courses.
Look at it the other way. If a policeman, or teacher, carried out homophobic bullying in their job, and there was history on the web of this before they were appointed, the institution would face an shit-avalanche along the lines ... "You knew he was a homophobe, there is material on the web, you did nothing about it and X was able to continue with this activity as a teacher .."
What the actual F? I think NOT having said a few stupid things as a youth in another decade entirely on a niche forum of the type devoted to flippant chat should be a greater bar to office, as that would be very suspicious indeed
This sorry episode really is bringing out the worst of the unholy, wretched Stasi-esque alliance between the Jess Phillipses and Guido Fawkeses of this world.
Beyond satire.
Er, the Labour Party and the left in general live and breathe the social justice warrior creed. Pointing out their gross hypocrisy is valuable precisely because it exposes what an anti-human plague that creed is.
Somehow, I don’t think this O’Mara thing is going to change minds in terms of political affiliation and voting intention.
Particularly when many people still see the Conservatives as problematic on issues like these as well (such as their ongoing issues with ethnic minorities not voting Conservative in significant/large numbers).
And they aren’t ‘social justice warriors’.
I was under the iumpression that - the Islamic vote apart - there is no longer any massive imbalance in the ethnic minority vote? Certainly I think most or all non-Muslim ethnic minorities voted Conservative over Labour in 2015. Not sure about 2017. To the extent that there is an imbalance, it can be explained by age - that is, the age profile of the white population is older, and hence tends to be more strongly Conservative. The Islamic vote is strongly Labour, but the Islamic vote <> the ethnic minority vote.
Yep, and it’s not going to go away. O’Mara is going to be the first of many.
The thread that follows is quite interesting. Couple of people thanking god they didn't use the Internet too much at 20, and someone pointing out that Jarad 'Girls Aloud' O'Mara was 23 when Facebook launched, so a bit old for the totally digital generation.
One company will own the vast majority of this stuff in a few years time, unless the flight of the young to Snapchat continues apace.
I work in IT, and spend a lot of time explaining to teenagers that, no matter what they might think, there isn’t a delete button on the internet. Today’s example is just another case study to add to my list.
I’m seriously expecting to see a huge rise in people changing their name at graduation, purely to get away from what’s gone before online. Even that’s really difficult if you become an MP a decade later though, when the whole town now knows you. There will always be outlets like Guido, who’s an equal opportunities politician-hater, for those with dirt on someone to get it aired in public.
So are we all going to ignore that all these comments were made around 15 years ago, when the individual was in his early 20s?
Can everyone on their high horse about this swear blind that they never made similarly stupid comments at that age?
I can honestly say I have never punched a woman in the face just because she tried to stop me messing about with her coat.
Edit - or for any other reason, for that matter.
I have never advocated that a public figure be sodomised to death.
We must be prudes.
Certainly not with a piano. I mean, you should always sodomise with an organ.
A 32 footer, non?
Don't be silly.
Anything over 16 foot except on the pedals for a full climax lacks class.
Edit - on mature reflection, an eight foot flute coupled to full swell would work.
Good, but not up to your accustomed Sunday morning filth.
I hadn't the time or the inclination to work in the eight foot horn on this one after yesterday's disaster!
Could you not find an energetic assistant for the hand pumping ?
It wasn't that, I coupled it up at the wrong moment and had a seriously premature climax in what was meant to be a soft and tender moment.
And boy was I cross with myself.
Do you know what's almost worse? None of them actually noticed my brilliant word painting!
Dickens possibly felt a similar disappointment for his sadly uncelebrated gem in Martin Chuzzlewit... "She touched his organ, and from that bright epoch even it, the old companion of his happiest hours, incapable as he had thought of elevation, began a new and deified existence...”
Toms's insult-you-like. Fill in the blanks according to taste: (blank) "string 'em up" "stand 'em up against a wall" "hanging's too good for 'em" "I wouldn't piss in his ear if his brain was on fire" "ummmm. errrrr"
'The difference is that the Conservatives aren't hypocrites' hahahahaha. Yes, that's the first concept that comes to mind when someone says the word 'Tories' - 'Not hypocrites'. Hahahahahahaha
I hope you enjoy the destruction of free speech and personal liberty under Comrade Corbyn - it'll make the Soviet repression of the kulaks look like tea for two at Claridge's!
You believe Corbyn’s government will be worse than Soviet repression of the kulaks? Seriously?
Can I please point out - with my pedant's hat on - that there were almost no kulaks by 1928? Most of them had been killed in the Civil War. It was the middle-ranking peasantry that Stalin clobbered.
It seems unlikely that a Corbyn government would starve 5% of the population to death as a deliberate act of policy. It does seem possible that they would cause food prices to rise and shortages of some imported foodstuffs due to adverse economic conditions.
Wasn't the term widened to include lower ranking peasants?
The term was rejigged so it could be applied essentially to any peasant who actively opposed collectivisation. That was most of them. It was a convenient way of removing anyone influential (as designated kulaks were not allowed to join the collective farms) and terrifying the rest into remaining onside.
So are we all going to ignore that all these comments were made around 15 years ago, when the individual was in his early 20s?
Can everyone on their high horse about this swear blind that they never made similarly stupid comments at that age?
I can honestly say I have never punched a woman in the face just because she tried to stop me messing about with her coat.
Edit - or for any other reason, for that matter.
I have never advocated that a public figure be sodomised to death.
We must be prudes.
Certainly not with a piano. I mean, you should always sodomise with an organ.
A 32 footer, non?
Don't be silly.
Anything over 16 foot except on the pedals for a full climax lacks class.
Edit - on mature reflection, an eight foot flute coupled to full swell would work.
Good, but not up to your accustomed Sunday morning filth.
I hadn't the time or the inclination to work in the eight foot horn on this one after yesterday's disaster!
Could you not find an energetic assistant for the hand pumping ?
It wasn't that, I coupled it up at the wrong moment and had a seriously premature climax in what was meant to be a soft and tender moment.
And boy was I cross with myself.
Do you know what's almost worse? None of them actually noticed my brilliant word painting!
Dickens possibly felt a similar disappointment for his sadly uncelebrated gem in Martin Chuzzlewit... "She touched his organ, and from that bright epoch even it, the old companion of his happiest hours, incapable as he had thought of elevation, began a new and deified existence...”
Guido pays social misfit wingnut interns to trawl the flotsam and jetsam of the web archives endlessly for out of context indiscretions made by anyone vaguely left of centre. Some could say it's a tragic waste of a person's one short precious life, but who am I to say?
A job is a job. As has been correctly pointed out, if the situation were reversed there would be no shortage of people piling in to a member of UKIP or the Tories. The problem is not the trawling for old comments, it's that the parties respond so harshly to childish indiscretions online (if it was more recent there is more justification to act, particularly if someone is in a position of responsibility) and that they do so because we the public, by and large, overreact to these things when it comes to light.
Do we though? I cant imagine 95% of the population gives a tin shiite.
Enough of us do, clearly, or the politicians and media would not react this way.
Yes, because if we've learnt anything over the last few years it is that the opinion of politicians and the press are 100% in tune with the rest of the population.
You really aren't making yourself sound great; what underlies every post of yours is the assumption that nobody really minds a bit of misogynistic and gaybashing banter. Actually they do, and if they didn't, they should do. If there is more to come, as seems likely, you are going to end up looking very silly.
I think most people - who arent bonkers - will see immediately what an utterly pitiful attempt to distract from the ongoing disintegration of this bad joke of a government, and the damage they are inflicting on the country, this is.
I don't think the government made O'Mara say any of that stuff.
And Guido may be right wing, but he doesn't miss an opportunity to attack any politician if if presents itself.
What the actual F? I think NOT having said a few stupid things as a youth in another decade entirely on a niche forum of the type devoted to flippant chat should be a greater bar to office, as that would be very suspicious indeed
This sorry episode really is bringing out the worst of the unholy, wretched Stasi-esque alliance between the Jess Phillipses and Guido Fawkeses of this world.
Beyond satire.
Er, the Labour Party and the left in general live and breathe the social justice warrior creed. Pointing out their gross hypocrisy is valuable precisely because it exposes what an anti-human plague that creed is.
Somehow, I don’t think this O’Mara thing is going to change minds in terms of political affiliation and voting intention.
Particularly when many people still see the Conservatives as problematic on issues like these as well (such as their ongoing issues with ethnic minorities not voting Conservative in significant/large numbers).
And they aren’t ‘social justice warriors’.
I was under the iumpression that - the Islamic vote apart - there is no longer any massive imbalance in the ethnic minority vote? Certainly I think most or all non-Muslim ethnic minorities voted Conservative over Labour in 2015. Not sure about 2017. To the extent that there is an imbalance, it can be explained by age - that is, the age profile of the white population is older, and hence tends to be more strongly Conservative. The Islamic vote is strongly Labour, but the Islamic vote <> the ethnic minority vote.
I don’t think age explains it either. There is little evidence that hordes of older minorities vote Conservative over Labour.
Theresa May’s "citizen of nowhere" speech in October 2006 effectively killed off large sections of the CON BME vote. The New Statesman's Stephen Bush had some good analysis of this.
The other point is -- if a teacher had made these remarks, or a policeman, or a University lecturer -- would they not now be facing disciplinary action?
You think anyone in the above roles should be made to answer disciplinary proceedings for something they said in a relatively private sphere half a lifetime ago, long before they were employed there? That a pretty terrifying view of the world you have there, and I want no part of it!
I am saying that if a policeman or a teacher or a university lecturer were found to have made those remarks, they would be facing disciplinary action.
I am stating what would happen, that is all. Neither agreeing, nor disagreeing, just stating.
If you or Jared think the web is a "relatively private sphere", then you are guilty of nuclear-grade stupidity. There is no known cure.
Had they made such remarks before they were either teachers or policemen, how could they possibly be facing disciplinary action - unless they had lied on application for the job ?
I don't take the view that time heals everything - but equally *if* it's an isolated youthful mistake, subsequently regretted, then it ought not to condemn someone forever.
I think it is likely that a teacher or policeman or university lecturer would be facing disciplinary action.
If the remarks were made before they were in the job, the disciplinary action would probably take that into account & demand evidence of change of heart, or recommend attending suitable courses.
Look at it the other way. If a policeman, or teacher, carried out homophobic bullying in their job, and there was history on the web of this before they were appointed, the institution would face an shit-avalanche along the lines ... "You knew he was a homophobe, there is material on the web, you did nothing about it and X was able to continue with this activity as a teacher .."
Then the responsibility would surely be on the employer to conduct better pre-employment screening - which might include social media ? AFAIK, absent any criminal conviction, there is no obligation on a prospective employee to disclose indiscretions of this nature - unless specifically requested to do so.
Guido Fawkes isnt an equal opportunities hater. Staines is very well documented explaining how extreme his right wing views are. That he has somehow forged an unholy alliance with right wingers in Labour is much to the latter's discredit. His cosy symbiosis with the feral westminster media is less shocking.
What the actual F? I think NOT having said a few stupid things as a youth in another decade entirely on a niche forum of the type devoted to flippant chat should be a greater bar to office, as that would be very suspicious indeed
This sorry episode really is bringing out the worst of the unholy, wretched Stasi-esque alliance between the Jess Phillipses and Guido Fawkeses of this world.
Beyond satire.
Er, the Labour Party and the left in general live and breathe the social justice warrior creed. Pointing out their gross hypocrisy is valuable precisely because it exposes what an anti-human plague that creed is.
Somehow, I don’t think this O’Mara thing is going to change minds in terms of political affiliation and voting intention.
Particularly when many people still see the Conservatives as problematic on issues like these as well (such as their ongoing issues with ethnic minorities not voting Conservative in significant/large numbers).
And they aren’t ‘social justice warriors’.
I was under the iumpression that - the Islamic vote apart - there is no longer any massive imbalance in the ethnic minority vote? Certainly I think most or all non-Muslim ethnic minorities voted Conservative over Labour in 2015. Not sure about 2017. To the extent that there is an imbalance, it can be explained by age - that is, the age profile of the white population is older, and hence tends to be more strongly Conservative. The Islamic vote is strongly Labour, but the Islamic vote <> the ethnic minority vote.
I don’t think age explains it either. There is little evidence that hordes of older minorities vote Conservative over Labour.
Theresa May’s "citizen of nowhere" speech in October 2006 effectively killed off large sections of the CON BME vote. The New Statesman's Stephen Bush had some good analysis of this.
Guido Fawkes isnt an equal opportunities hater. Staines is very well documented explaining how extreme his right wing views are. That he has somehow forged an unholy alliance with right wingers in Labour is much to the latter's discredit. His cosy symbiosis with the feral westminster media is less shocking.
No one disputes he is right wing. But he does and has criticised Tories and UKIP on many occasions. Not as much as Labour, true, but it isn't the case that he is some reliable pro-Tory attack dog.
The other point is -- if a teacher had made these remarks, or a policeman, or a University lecturer -- would they not now be facing disciplinary action?
You think anyone in the above roles should be made to answer disciplinary proceedings for something they said in a relatively private sphere half a lifetime ago, long before they were employed there? That a pretty terrifying view of the world you have there, and I want no part of it!
I am saying that if a policeman or a teacher or a university lecturer were found to have made those remarks, they would be facing disciplinary action.
I am stating what would happen, that is all. Neither agreeing, nor disagreeing, just stating.
If you or Jared think the web is a "relatively private sphere", then you are guilty of nuclear-grade stupidity. There is no known cure.
Had they made such remarks before they were either teachers or policemen, how could they possibly be facing disciplinary action - unless they had lied on application for the job ?
I don't take the view that time heals everything - but equally *if* it's an isolated youthful mistake, subsequently regretted, then it ought not to condemn someone forever.
I think it is likely that a teacher or policeman or university lecturer would be facing disciplinary action.
If the remarks were made before they were in the job, the disciplinary action would probably take that into account & demand evidence of change of heart, or recommend attending suitable courses.
Look at it the other way. If a policeman, or teacher, carried out homophobic bullying in their job, and there was history on the web of this before they were appointed, the institution would face an shit-avalanche along the lines ... "You knew he was a homophobe, there is material on the web, you did nothing about it and X was able to continue with this activity as a teacher .."
Then the responsibility would surely be on the employer to conduct better pre-employment screening - which might include social media ? AFAIK, absent any criminal conviction, there is no obligation on a prospective employee to disclose indiscretions of this nature - unless specifically requested to do so.
If information comes to light after a teacher has been employed that she or he had made sexist/homophobic remarks, then the institution would be in dereliction of its duty of care to students if they did not investigate.
What the actual F? I think NOT having said a few stupid things as a youth in another decade entirely on a niche forum of the type devoted to flippant chat should be a greater bar to office, as that would be very suspicious indeed
This sorry episode really is bringing out the worst of the unholy, wretched Stasi-esque alliance between the Jess Phillipses and Guido Fawkeses of this world.
Beyond satire.
Er, the Labour Party and the left in general live and breathe the social justice warrior creed. Pointing out their gross hypocrisy is valuable precisely because it exposes what an anti-human plague that creed is.
Somehow, I don’t think this O’Mara thing is going to change minds in terms of political affiliation and voting intention.
Particularly when many people still see the Conservatives as problematic on issues like these as well (such as their ongoing issues with ethnic minorities not voting Conservative in significant/large numbers).
And they aren’t ‘social justice warriors’.
I was under the iumpression that - the Islamic vote apart - there is no longer any massive imbalance in the ethnic minority vote? Certainly I think most or all non-Muslim ethnic minorities voted Conservative over Labour in 2015. Not sure about 2017. To the extent that there is an imbalance, it can be explained by age - that is, the age profile of the white population is older, and hence tends to be more strongly Conservative. The Islamic vote is strongly Labour, but the Islamic vote <> the ethnic minority vote.
The Conservativesd did quite well among middle class Hindus in 2015 but pretty dreadfully among Sikhs and Black voters.
A quick look at the constituency results in 2015 clearly shows that the talk of big Conservatives gains among non-white voters was bollox.
Guido Fawkes isnt an equal opportunities hater. Staines is very well documented explaining how extreme his right wing views are. That he has somehow forged an unholy alliance with right wingers in Labour is much to the latter's discredit. His cosy symbiosis with the feral westminster media is less shocking.
No one disputes he is right wing. But he does and has criticised Tories and UKIP on many occasions. Not as much as Labour, true, but it isn't the case that he is some reliable pro-Tory attack dog.
He attacks the right a fraction of the time he attacks the left.
His sociopathic attraction to any form of power, no matter how lowly and debased, means this doesn't preclude a few pops at individuals supposedly on his side.
The overall effect is clear though - he is a pathetic peddler of sub-tabloid tittle-tattle of which the absolute vast majority is aimed at left wingers, in an attempt to debase the debate and distract from any sensible discussion of potentially popular left-leaning policies and the dIsintegration of Thatcherism.
Guido Fawkes isnt an equal opportunities hater. Staines is very well documented explaining how extreme his right wing views are. That he has somehow forged an unholy alliance with right wingers in Labour is much to the latter's discredit. His cosy symbiosis with the feral westminster media is less shocking.
No one disputes he is right wing. But he does and has criticised Tories and UKIP on many occasions. Not as much as Labour, true, but it isn't the case that he is some reliable pro-Tory attack dog.
He attacks the right a fraction of the time he attacks the left.
His sociopathic attraction to any form of power, no matter how lowly and debased, means this doesn't preclude a few pops at individuals supposedly on his side.
The overall effect is clear though - he is a pathetic peddler of sub-tabloid tittle-tattle of which the absolute vast majority is aimed at left wingers, in an attempt to debase the debate and distract from any sensible discussion of potentially popular left-leaning policies and the dIsintegration of Thatcherism.
Well, obviously any tactic is justified if it helps keep the crazy commies from gaining ground. Duh!
Guido Fawkes isnt an equal opportunities hater. Staines is very well documented explaining how extreme his right wing views are. That he has somehow forged an unholy alliance with right wingers in Labour is much to the latter's discredit. His cosy symbiosis with the feral westminster media is less shocking.
No one disputes he is right wing. But he does and has criticised Tories and UKIP on many occasions. Not as much as Labour, true, but it isn't the case that he is some reliable pro-Tory attack dog.
He attacks the right a fraction of the time he attacks the left.
His sociopathic attraction to any form of power, no matter how lowly and debased, means this doesn't preclude a few pops at individuals supposedly on his side.
The overall effect is clear though - he is a pathetic peddler of sub-tabloid tittle-tattle of which the absolute vast majority is aimed at left wingers, in an attempt to debase the debate and distract from any sensible discussion of potentially popular left-leaning policies and the dIsintegration of Thatcherism.
Well, obviously any tactic is justified if it helps keep the crazy commies from gaining ground. Duh!
Which reminds me - the Vietnam series has been absolutely brilliant!
Comments
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wDe60CbIagg
Those remarks are definitely stupid and should undoubtedly have ruled him out of the Foreign Office. As should his comments on Papua New Guinea, or his comments on race, or his behaviour trying to cover up that affair with a Staggers journalist. However can I please point out that he's not personally suggesting any violence and seems to be stalling on handing over any information that might lead to it? While he should have said he should not help, instead of hinting he would as long as he couldn't be implicated, I think O'Mara's comments are more serious.
Edit - that said, O'Mara has of course now resigned. And Boris hasn't as far as I know. So there is that difference too.
I've often wondered how many teenagers/tweenagers blogs from ten years ago are fully archived on somebody's computer - the likes of Caroline Hunt, or the Bevanite Ellie person whose name I always forget - just waiting to embarrass them if they go into politics full time.
Good evening, everyone.
https://soundcloud.com/bloggerheads/boris-johnson-and-darius
As we saw with misogynistic Owen Smith's remarks about Leanne Wood, Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May, Labour supporters are very keen to exonerate their own.
The actual digging through the Internet to find the quotes is relatively easy if one knows where to look, there’s even a site called the wayback machine that archives old webpages.
I've sometimes wondered how he does get away with these things. I can only assume it's because people like him and make allowances on that basis (rather like John Prescott after he punched that protestor who egged him, starting a fight live on TV). He shouldn't though.
Of course, whatever O'Mara says rather pales by comparison with what Corbyn and Macdonnell have actually done. So in resigning he really is behaving out of the norm with modern politics.
Particularly when many people still see the Conservatives as problematic on issues like these as well (such as their ongoing issues with ethnic minorities not voting Conservative in significant/large numbers).
And they aren’t ‘social justice warriors’.
I am stating what would happen, that is all. Neither agreeing, nor disagreeing, just stating.
If you or Jared think the web is a "relatively private sphere", then you are guilty of nuclear-grade stupidity. There is no known cure.
However, since the 1990s teachers and police officers have had codes of conduct, one aspect of which is that we agree not to behave in a way that brings our employers or our profession into disrepute. Gove added 'British values' to that list for teachers (although I have to say I don't think he had the least clue what that meant - they come across as a series of meaningless cliches) and if we breach them we can be brought before a tribunal.
I have to say however I would be quite uneasy as well about somebody who had made violent remarks like that standing in front of a class. And that's also where these move beyond being silly to being actually nasty, especially as they are also linked to allegations of actual violence.
He's resigned from the Equalities Committee. That seems appropriate. I don't think that here should be any further action against him for these remarks unless it is proved he did something similar recently.
But of course it won't move a single vote, since no one cares about the hypocrisy of people on their own side.
The guy is a shit.
The Conservative Party aren’t hypocrites, really? Have you ever read about the Conservative Party in the 90s with Back to Basics and what happened next?
How is this a freedom of speech issue? Most of the lefties on Twitter want him gone, from what I’ve seen. Don’t know if you see that as suppressing his freedom of speech.
https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/922500033064390656
It seems unlikely that a Corbyn government would starve 5% of the population to death as a deliberate act of policy. It does seem possible that they would cause food prices to rise and shortages of some imported foodstuffs due to adverse economic conditions.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/23/2018-fundraising-democrats-house-races-244044
It doesn't have to move the barometer of public opinion. We're already there.
Lots of people are fed up with the totalitarian manner that the metropolitan academic/media & political elites believe in sacking people for off the cuff dumb insensitive remarks instead of just stating that people like O`Mara etc are simply saying a lot about themselves rather than anybody else.
Realising that was a major factor in Trumps ability to get 65 million votes
I don't take the view that time heals everything - but equally *if* it's an isolated youthful mistake, subsequently regretted, then it ought not to condemn someone forever.
One company will own the vast majority of this stuff in a few years time, unless the flight of the young to Snapchat continues apace.
If the remarks were made before they were in the job, the disciplinary action would probably take that into account & demand evidence of change of heart, or recommend attending suitable courses.
Look at it the other way. If a policeman, or teacher, carried out homophobic bullying in their job, and there was history on the web of this before they were appointed, the institution would face an shit-avalanche along the lines ... "You knew he was a homophobe, there is material on the web, you did nothing about it and X was able to continue with this activity as a teacher .."
With those numbers, they can’t only be doing badly with Muslim voters.
Also this from 2015 doesn’t support most non-Muslim voters voting Conservative over Labour:
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/12/are-conservatives-really-breaking-through-ethnic-m/
I don’t think age explains it either. There is little evidence that hordes of older minorities vote Conservative over Labour.
I’m seriously expecting to see a huge rise in people changing their name at graduation, purely to get away from what’s gone before online. Even that’s really difficult if you become an MP a decade later though, when the whole town now knows you. There will always be outlets like Guido, who’s an equal opportunities politician-hater, for those with dirt on someone to get it aired in public.
"She touched his organ, and from that bright epoch even it, the old companion of his happiest hours, incapable as he had thought of elevation, began a new and deified existence...”
(blank)
"string 'em up"
"stand 'em up against a wall"
"hanging's too good for 'em"
"I wouldn't piss in his ear if his brain was on fire"
"ummmm. errrrr"
Good night everyone.
AFAIK, absent any criminal conviction, there is no obligation on a prospective employee to disclose indiscretions of this nature - unless specifically requested to do so.
For those interested, here’s an example: https://inews.co.uk/opinion/understand-tories-floundering-listen-mp-introduced-theresa-mays-speech/
Shirley not!!!!!
A quick look at the constituency results in 2015 clearly shows that the talk of big Conservatives gains among non-white voters was bollox.
His sociopathic attraction to any form of power, no matter how lowly and debased, means this doesn't preclude a few pops at individuals supposedly on his side.
The overall effect is clear though - he is a pathetic peddler of sub-tabloid tittle-tattle of which the absolute vast majority is aimed at left wingers, in an attempt to debase the debate and distract from any sensible discussion of potentially popular left-leaning policies and the dIsintegration of Thatcherism.