Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: phil old leake on October 13, 2022, 06:08:14 pm
-
Neath Labour MP Christina Rees suspended on bullying allegations https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-63245280
-
No doubt a member of the Britain Surrendering Together Party will comment on this shortly.
-
you just did
-
Neath Labour MP Christina Rees suspended on bullying allegations https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-63245280
I don't really understand your point here Phil.
An accusation of bullying behaviour has been made. Labour has immediately suspended the MP and instigated an investigation.
This news has only broken in the last couple of hours. What exactly is your issue here?
Still, you've got BB posting useful contributions, so well done.
-
The point is, if this story had been about a Tory MP, you or one of your cronies would have started a thread about it.
-
The point is, if this story had been about a Tory MP, you or one of your cronies would have started a thread about it.
Tory MP’s too busy touching up young men.
-
The point is, if this story had been about a Tory MP, you or one of your cronies would have started a thread about it.
One of my cronies.
Are you EVER going to grow up?
-
Are you ever going to actually address the point of my post?
-
No. Because it's been years since you've made a remotely interesting point.
-
Does anyone have a link to the Priti Patel bullying thread please?
It will be interesting to see what the people complaining about Starmer suspending an MP due to a complaint had to say about Johnson ignoring an Offical Report detailing bullying incidents?
Or Daniel Kawcynski, suspended from Parliament for bullying by Standards Committe but no action taken by Johnson.
Or peado rapist MP Imran Khan - known to have bullied staff for several years but allowed to stand as a Tory MP and never suspended, until the rape trial, even after further allegations to Johnson.
Or Justin Johnson, accused of bullying by five members of staff but chosen to be Deputy Party Chairman by Johnson.
Any links at all to posts/threads will do thanks. I am sure there must have been loads by the people who only want to criticise Labour.
-
Wilts, when all those links appear won’t it show how many people only want to criticise the government though?
-
No of course it wont hound. Because the people complaining about Starmer suspending a suspected bully are clearly interested in throwing all bullies out of parliament from whatever party - or they would be seen as hypocrits.
So there will be loads of posts from them on those Tory cases. Won't there...
-
Glad that BB and Hound got my point
-
Wilts, in your above reply number nine, you yourself only mention Tory people when asking for links to the cases.
-
Of course, the Labour party has to react when situations like this come to light because it has spent the entire last 3 years or so preaching how moral it is and how immoral the Tory party is. The party simply could not turn a blind eye to it.
It's a pity its supporters on here don't react as fast and instead turn a blind eye to it!
-
Turn a blind eye to it?
Labour supporters needn’t have to make a comment when the party has already dealt with the matter.
Unlike the Tories who ignored bullying complaints or simply dismissed them out of hand time after time, after time, after time.
-
It's a pity its supporters on here don't react as fast and instead turn a blind eye to it!
Perhaps if the OP had posted this a significant amount of time after instead of just two hours after the BBC put that article online you might - for once - have a point.
-
Turn a blind eye to it?
Labour supporters needn’t have to make a comment when the party has already dealt with the matter.
Unlike the Tories who ignored bullying complaints or simply dismissed them out of hand time after time, after time, after time.
This!
The problem which this thread highlights starkly is that there are a few people in here who are absolutely desperate to convince themselves that the people they disagree with are hypocrites.
It's really quite sad to see it played out time after time, because I'm sure those posters aren't actually unpleasant people. They are just stuck in a mindset.
-
The point is, if this story had been about a Tory MP, you or one of your comrades would have started a thread about it.
-
BB.
If the Tory party had always over recent years quickly and effectively dealt with issues like this, there'd be nothing to discuss.
The issue isn't whether all political parties have some very nasty people in them. Of course they do. Every cross section of society has some deeply unpleasant people. You only need to look at one or two contributers in here.
The issue had been that for years, the Tory party had turned a blind eye to the very worst cases of intomidatory or sexually transgressive behaviour. Generally, although not always, the Labour party hasn't turned a blind eye.
Let's look the couple of most recent cases.
A Tory MP has been accused of a sexual offence. By the time I personally became aware of it, Truss had already acted to discipline him. Which is exactly as it should be. As a result, I personally didn't feel the need to comment on it. Although I note that you very much tried, for reasons known only to yourself, to drag my name into the discussion.
In this latest case, the news that Labour were disciplining the MP was out before the OP was even made. So I didn't feel any need to comment on it. I DID comment on the fact that the OP was suggesting there was something to comment on, which I found odd. And before I'd even done that, I note that you'd waded in with your own effort to make this yet another argument about hypocrisy.
I wish you didn't do this because I know you are smart enough to contribute useful stuff if you weren't so dead set on doing nothing but trying to have fights. But I've long resigned myself that you aren't going to change, so I'll just go back to ignoring you if it's all the same.
-
BST, did you or your fellow Labour supporters on here ever start a thread concerning the occasions when Labour turned a blind eye to bad conduct?
If the Tory party had always over recent years quickly and effectively dealt with issues like this, are you sure there'd be nothing to discuss? Would you or one of your fellow labour supporters on this forum have found the suspect guilty from the start, and declared a whitewash if the suspect was acquitted following the inquiry?
I think so.
-
Don’t be silly BB it’s only the Tories that do things wrong
You need to get a grip and remember all Labour MPs are perfect.
-
Don’t be silly BB it’s only the Tories that do things wrong
You need to get a grip and remember all Labour MPs are perfect.
How does that square with what I wrote here?
If you start off deciding what you want to think, and refuse to listen to anything else, you'll end up thinking what you decided to think at the start.
Perfect example you've just given us.
-
BST can I have a pint of what your on. Is there anything that you can’t twist to suit your way of thinking.
Obviously you have no sense of humour
-
Don’t be silly BB it’s only the Tories that do things wrong
You need to get a grip and remember all Labour MPs are perfect.
The issue isn't whether all political parties have some very nasty people in them. Of course they do. Every cross section of society has some deeply unpleasant people.
Eh?
-
P.S. I'm not a cronie of anyone here and I don't have a vested interest. In fact I very rarely post at all these days but it's concerning that someone can read what BST wrote then reply as you did, Phil.
-
He's either thick or a wind up merchant Mike, and I don't think he's thick.
-
The point is, if this story had been about a Tory MP, you or one of your comrades would have started a thread about it.
If it were about a Tory MP you would criticise the people posting and put an alternative view about Labour./the other side.
But as it's a Labour MP you wont, but you will criticise the people who do.
-
P.S. I'm not a cronie of anyone here and I don't have a vested interest. In fact I very rarely post at all these days but it's concerning that someone can read what BST wrote then reply as you did, Phil.
Anyone reading my posts and my replies to Phil will see I have the opposite political point of view to him and disagree with him on (nearly) all political topics. But I dont believe he has any malovent intentions - he is just fixed in his point of view and people are misunderstanding his 'humour'.
I actually appreciate his threads like this, gives us something to talk about.
-
The point is, if this story had been about a Tory MP, you or one of your comrades would have started a thread about it.
If it were about a Tory MP you would criticise the people posting and put an alternative view about Labour./the other side.
But as it's a Labour MP you wont, but you will criticise the people who do.
How would my participation in your Tory-kicking obsession redress the balance of the forum?
-
I want to log this in, just in case it turns out he voted for labour at some time or other
''Man admits sexual assault of woman in queue for Queen’s lying in state
Adeshina Adio, 20, from south-east London, was arrested after jumping into Thames to evade police''
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/14/man-admits-sexual-assault-of-woman-in-queue-for-queens-lying-in-state
-
Wilts you’re right I appreciate your comments. You are right I have no malevolent intentions. I must say some on here are too serious.
-
Please excuse me if I failed to note the jaunty way you used the word hate in the OP title
-
And the relevance of the link to the royal funeral sexual exposure and assault is ???
-
Wilts you’re right I appreciate your comments. You are right I have no malevolent intentions. I must say some on here are too serious.
There is nothing wrong with being serious Phil, its the ability for posters to see when other people are not really being serious that people need.
I enjoy your political posts because they are (generally) the total opposite to what I think and they give me the opportunity to post the opposite opinion with a few facts and a bit of humour. I dont take any replies personally and I hope you dont to. No idea why other people do, its just boring.
There are a couple of trolls on here but they are very, very easy to spot. Again why do people keep replying, its just boring.
-
And the relevance of the link to the royal funeral sexual exposure and assault is ???
Brilliant comeback Phil.
-
Wilts you’re right I appreciate your comments. You are right I have no malevolent intentions. I must say some on here are too serious.
There is nothing wrong with being serious Phil, its the ability for posters to see when other people are not really being serious that people need.
I enjoy your political posts because they are (generally) the total opposite to what I think and they give me the opportunity to post the opposite opinion with a few facts and a bit of humour. I dont take any replies personally and I hope you dont to. No idea why other people do, its just boring.
There are a couple of trolls on here but they are very, very easy to spot. Again why do people keep replying, its just boring.
Another great post wilts.
-
And the relevance of the link to the royal funeral sexual exposure and assault is ???
I thought you'd see the humour in it phil.
-
Nothing humorous about sexual assault
-
But bullying IS something to be light hearted about?
Got it now. I'm starting to see why I don't get your jokes.
-
But Phil hasn’t tried to make a joke about bullying has he.
It was Syd who (by his own admission) tried to do that.
Talk about twisting stuff to suit the narrative.
-
Please explain your last comment BST. Surely not aimed at me
-
Go back and look at the exchange.
You post about bullying.
I give my thoughts about the issue, including saying clearly that there are unpleasant people in all parties.
You come back with what I'm guessing is your bit of light hearted humour about how some people would never criticise Labour.
We were having a serious discussion about a serious issue. You made a wisecrack about it.
-
Crikey bst, if you think that was a wisecrack there must be some really weird “jokes” in your home and workplace.
-
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-mp-christian-matheson-should-face-four-week-suspension-for-serious-sexual-misconduct-parliamentary-watchdog-12726202
Another one incoming. I say it again, regardless of political affiliation ; What is wrong with these people??
-
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-mp-christian-matheson-should-face-four-week-suspension-for-serious-sexual-misconduct-parliamentary-watchdog-12726202
Another one incoming. I say it again, regardless of political affiliation ; What is wrong with these people??
but despite his protestations he has resigned from parliament
-
Surprising that Labour have more MP's who now don't have the Whip than other parties, for various reasons.
-
Well one reason is that Labour suspends the whip over the sort of allegations that Johnson dismissed as piffle.
-
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-mp-christian-matheson-should-face-four-week-suspension-for-serious-sexual-misconduct-parliamentary-watchdog-12726202
Another one incoming. I say it again, regardless of political affiliation ; What is wrong with these people??
i wonder how this would be treated today
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/22/revealed-jeremy-corbyn-showed-off-naked-diane-abbott-to-impress/
-
Well one reason is that Labour suspends the whip over the sort of allegations that Johnson dismissed as piffle.
Labour suspends bullies and sexual predators. Johnson promoted them.
-
Pity Jimmy Savile wasn't in the Labour party.
-
What a stupid bloody remark.
A pity Jimmy Saville died before his hideous crimes could put him behind bars.
-
What a stupid bloody remark.
A pity Jimmy Saville died before his hideous crimes could put him behind bars.
WHAT?
-
Pity Jimmy Savile wasn't in the Labour party.
What party did he support BB? Which PM invited him to private parties at Chequers BB? Which minister authorised his 'access all areas' prison pass that allowed him to abuse inmates - including in the mortuary - because he promised to 'blackmail' prison officers on their behalf?
-
That utterly disgusting slur being chucked in again by a Tory supporter.
You need to take a long look at yourself BB.
-
Pity Jimmy Savile wasn't in the Labour party.
What party did he support BB? Which PM invited him to private parties at Chequers BB? Which minister authorised his 'access all areas' prison pass that allowed him to abuse inmates - including in the mortuary - because he promised to 'blackmail' prison officers on their behalf?
Regarding politics, I wasn't questioning Savile's choice of which party to support. He may have been evil, but he wasn't thick.
How come you know all that info about Savile, but the director of public prosecutions at the time didn't?
-
That utterly disgusting slur being chucked in again by a Tory supporter.
You need to take a long look at yourself BB.
Of course it's disgusting, Billy lad, It's about someone having the audacity to slur your beloved Labour party. I'm sure you'll 'level up with another half a dozen slurs against the Tories today!
-
Beneath contempt.
-
What a surprise!
-
BB
Even senior Tories queued up to tell Johnson how disgusted they were when he came out with that slur.
The only people who now use it are far right bottom feeding trolls. I used to think you were better than this, but recently it fits a trend.
-
BB
Even senior Tories queued up to tell Johnson how disgusted they were when he came out with that slur.
The only people who now use it are far right bottom feeding trolls. I used to think you were better than this, but recently it fits a trend.
Give over. Johnson's remark was as valid a point as Starmer's was when he suggested Johnson was responsible for all of Downing Street's misdemeanors because he was in charge, irrespective of his personal involvement.
I was also 'disgusted' by Johnson's remark because he had sunk to Starmer's level.
-
In which case your ‘so called ‘disgust’ is for the wrong reasons in so many ways I wouldn’t know where to start pointing them out.
Suffice to say that anyone who now knows the history of Saville’s crimes & with a modicum of intelligence & integrity would never use his name in any form of debate (let alone at the dispatch box) in order to attempt to score ANY sort of point.
For Johnson to have done so in PMQ’s televised across the nation, when there are people still suffering mentally from Saville’s depravity is beyond contempt.
-
Anyone interested in how Savile got away with it should get the book 'In Plain Sight' by Dan Davies. You can get it on ebay for £3 ish.
It's a compelling read that I binged in 2 sittings.
-
In which case your ‘so called ‘disgust’ is for the wrong reasons in so many ways I wouldn’t know where to start pointing them out.
Suffice to say that anyone who now knows the history of Saville’s crimes & with a modicum of intelligence & integrity would never use his name in any form of debate (let alone at the dispatch box) in order to attempt to score ANY sort of point.
For Johnson to have done so in PMQ’s televised across the nation, when there are people still suffering mentally from Saville’s depravity is beyond contempt.
Yes, Savile's crimes were so depraved that no f**ker brought him to justice.
Let's just cover it up, if only for political reasons, eh?
-
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/60213975.amp
-
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/60213975.amp
Who said Starmer WAS involved?
-
Saw this on Twitter, is it true?
Amongst the Tory debacle, 4 Labour MPs are suspended or expelled in 4 weeks: Matheson for being a sexual predator, Christina Rees for bullying, Rupa Huq for racism and Nick Brown for a complaint that is undisclosed.
A complete cess pit
-
All those behaviours are inexcusable - but therein lies the point, they haven’t been excused have they?
-
UnLike the sexual predator promoted by the Greasy Piglet despite being warned about the bloke.
BobG
-
All those behaviours are inexcusable - but therein lies the point, they haven’t been excused have they?
What it does say is that both parties are as bad as each other and it is not just the antics of one party.
-
All those behaviours are inexcusable - but therein lies the point, they haven’t been excused have they?
What it does say is that both parties are as bad as each other and it is not just the antics of one party.
What it says is that all parties, like all sections of society, have sociopaths in them.
What matters regarding the parties is how they deal with them when the evidence emerges.
-
All those behaviours are inexcusable - but therein lies the point, they haven’t been excused have they?
What it does say is that both parties are as bad as each other and it is not just the antics of one party.
As has just been pointed out they are not. Since 2019 Labour have suspended or expelled bullies and sex pests - Johnson promoted them & then lied about it.
-
All those behaviours are inexcusable - but therein lies the point, they haven’t been excused have they?
What it does say is that both parties are as bad as each other and it is not just the antics of one party.
As has just been pointed out they are not. Since 2019 Labour have suspended or expelled bullies and sex pests - Johnson promoted them & then lied about it.
Irrespective of how you deal with them, both parties have the sex pests, the bullies, the racist amongst their members it is not limited to just one party.
-
Glos.
Every section of society has them.
The police, the army, schools, companies football teams.
What is your point?
-
Glos.
Every section of society has them.
The police, the army, schools, companies football teams.
What is your point?
My point is that this is not limited to just one party at Westminster, like society it is everywhere and not limited to just one party.
-
Glos.
Every section of society has them.
The police, the army, schools, companies football teams.
What is your point?
My point is that this is not limited to just one party at Westminster, like society it is everywhere and not limited to just one party.
And you suppose that actually needs pointing out? The important point as has already been made is the way they are dealt with when they come to light. But of course, using that as a measure shows Johnson to be the unprincipled liar that everyone knows him to be, and you can't bear that.
-
If people on this forum do not condemn those that I highlighted earlier the same as they are condemning the Tory pest then they don’t really care about what’s going on as much as they do about scoring party political points. That’s my point and opinion.
And another opinion I don’t give a toss about Johnson I think he is an unprincipled liar and wouldn’t trust him to do what’s best for this country before doing what’s best for him.
-
Glos.
What matters is how they are dealt with.
I've worked for a sociopathic bully who wasn't dealt with. It was horrific. It caused a suicide and several nervous breakdowns.
I've had a person work for me who turned out to be a bully. I had no way of knowing that when I took him on, but I sacked him when the evidence emerged.
You can't necessarily filter these people out before they start acting like that. But if you don't when they do, you are as much to blame as they are.
Johnson never did.
Truss did in the case of the person against whom accusations came to light early in her leadership and fair play to her for that. I didn't comment on that because it wasn't necessary.
I didn't comment on the case in the OP here because it wasn't necessary. It came to light and was dealt with immediately. In fact it was dealt with before I'd even heard about it.
Compare and contrast with how Johnson ignored the Chris Pincher case.
-
If people on this forum do not condemn those that I highlighted earlier the same as they are condemning the Tory pest then they don’t really care about what’s going on as much as they do about scoring party political points. That’s my point and opinion.
And another opinion I don’t give a toss about Johnson I think he is an unprincipled liar and wouldn’t trust him to do what’s best for this country before doing what’s best for him.
I am not saying this happens very time, but Labour seem to deal with their miscreants appropriately but the Tories don’t.
-
In general I'd say the Tories have dealt with these issues appropriately.
But not under Johnson.
-
If people on this forum do not condemn those that I highlighted earlier the same as they are condemning the Tory pest then they don’t really care about what’s going on as much as they do about scoring party political points. That’s my point and opinion.
And another opinion I don’t give a toss about Johnson I think he is an unprincipled liar and wouldn’t trust him to do what’s best for this country before doing what’s best for him.
I am not saying this happens very time, but Labour seem to deal with their miscreants appropriately but the Tories don’t.
The point of this thread is the Labour supporters on this forum don't!
-
But they needn’t if the party already has..
-
Wouldn't make a ha'p'orth of difference. Surfing for anti-Tory transgressions is rife in the media, and this forum is no different. If any hint of wrongdoing is found it will most definitely be mentioned here. It wouldn't matter one iota if the matter had been dealt with or not. Take post 68 on this very thread for an example of that.
-
BB.
Take a big deep breath and read post 68 again.
See if you can think what the issue is there.
-
But you needn't post stuff like that if the party has already dealt with it.
-
But you and Gloucester persist in not seeing the difference in how the two parties have dealt with these people. Post 68 is there to remind you of something you seem to have forgotten
BobG
-
But you needn't post stuff like that if the party has already dealt with it.
The point was that the Tory party DIDN'T deal with it when they first knew about it!
Dealing with it afterwards, after Johnson had been forced out, doesn't absolve them. It doesn't make them morally equivalent to a party that deals with such a think immediately.
Is that really so hard to see?
-
But you and Gloucester persist in not seeing the difference in how the two parties have dealt with these people. Post 68 is there to remind you of something you seem to have forgotten
BobG
I haven't forgotten, and in any case, I reckon the real reason you raised it again is more likely because you haven't got owt new to say.
Starmer's Labour party has spent most of its time trying to be popular by means of making the Tories unpopular. I don't blame it for that because that is what it is best at. What goes with that territory though is that to preach squeaky-clean virtues means you have to be shown to be squeaky-clean yourself. Of course, the Labour party is far from squeaky clean, but it takes pride in morality by taking quick action on those members who prove not to be squeaky clean.
If the Tory party had always over recent years quickly and effectively dealt with issues like this, it wouldn't have made a ha'p'orth of difference to you Tory haters. The accused would have been guilty from the start, and if they were found not guilty you'd have declared the outcome a whitewash.
-
The only time I can remember the tory party doing anything swiftly about errant members is when truss was PM she just got everything else wrong is all
-
BB.
Why do you do this?
Here's your argument:
One party deals with these issues quickly and effectively.
The other party has turned a blind eye for years.
But if we lived in a parallel universe where the other party had dealt with these things quickly and effectively, I think the people who I disagree with would be hypocrites.
Therefore they are hypocrites.
Don't you see how stupid this is?
-
Oh, it's stupid alright. The problem is your refusal to accept responsibility.
-
Glos.
Every section of society has them.
The police, the army, schools, companies football teams.
What is your point?
My point is that this is not limited to just one party at Westminster, like society it is everywhere and not limited to just one party.
No. But dealing with it has been limited to only one main party. Or to be more accurate, since 2017 only one party has allowed MP's accused or rape and serious sexual (2 of whom were found guilty and jailed) and bullying to remain members. In at least two cases they were promoted.
-
Don’t forget also Johnson poo-pooed the accusations against Priti Patel didn’t he.?
-
In which case your ‘so called ‘disgust’ is for the wrong reasons in so many ways I wouldn’t know where to start pointing them out.
Suffice to say that anyone who now knows the history of Saville’s crimes & with a modicum of intelligence & integrity would never use his name in any form of debate (let alone at the dispatch box) in order to attempt to score ANY sort of point.
For Johnson to have done so in PMQ’s televised across the nation, when there are people still suffering mentally from Saville’s depravity is beyond contempt.
Yes, Savile's crimes were so depraved that no f**ker brought him to justice.
Let's just cover it up, if only for political reasons, eh?
Including the f****r who made him a fund raiser for Stoke Mandeville Hospital in 1980 where he went on to abuse countless vulnerable people.
-
The sex abuse scandal didn't break until 32 f**king years after that.
-
Posted this before I think.
25 years ago I was a CPN in a community mental health team.
A social worker in the team had worked on a team in London, some years previously and she said that there was a file on Saville 6 inches thick, but nothing was ever done about it because of the powerful people who supported him.
So the authorities knew what was going on 30 years ago.
-
The sex abuse scandal didn't break until 32 f**king years after that.
Not having sufficient evidence isn't an excuse though. Apparently.
-
If you pick up the book I mentioned in post 62, you will find out so much more about what he got up to his whole life.
Like stealing his dead uncle's identity during the war.
But the story that stuck with me was when he opened a new shopping centre in a Yorkshire town. As a 'charitable act', he refused a fee and said all he wanted was for the Mayor to arrange 2 tents on the moors the night before. One for him and his driver, the other Mayor should arrange for 4 teenage girls to occupy. To keep the 2 men 'company'. The Mayor actually did and put his16yo daughter and 3 of her friends in the bloody tent!!
-
I have read some things about staff etc being BBC witness to his abuse and not doing anything about it.
They should be hanging their heads in shame and living with the full weight of guilt. To witness abuse of this nature and not report it is abhorrent and there is no excuse for it
-
Seems we all missed it with so much else going on, but the Parliamentary Standards Committee began an investigation last week into the allegations against Chris Pincher.
https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1584496586515615744
-
And the findings that Dotty Dorries mislead/lied to her Select Committee