|
Fans posted:Pissflaps what is your actual point here, or are you just arguing over wording for no reason? What a silly question.
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:In true Mail fashion they conflate a bunch of things that aren't all that bad but are Worse than any of that is the fact that he called his daughter Marymartha.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 02:23
|
|
to the social conservative set like "had a joint now and again" and "had interest in BDSM and poppers", things that he maybe should have got help with like "borderline alcoholism", and actual bad things that make him an awful person like "was an abusive shithead" and "demanded things sexually outside of a consenting framework". They're incapable of accusing him of being a rapist without tying in "and he did all the gay drugs too".
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Incest is bad Dan't incest shame.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Fans posted:So yeah how about literally anything else. Why Andy Burnham? He's been more-or-less going along with things, as is his wont, why would he be under threat?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Fans posted:Maria Eagle is almost sure to go. Angela Eagle probably will as well. Lord Falconer maybe and that's all he needs to do. Eagle, Eagle and Falconer? Just what is with Jeremy Corbyn's sinister agenda against birds?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
I hope there's no reshuffle at all, it's just Corbyn giving each shadow minister a handshake and telling them they're doing a great job.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Hilary Benn is a quantum politician, existing in both shadow cabinet and backbencher states until someone from the press can observe his status.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You probably don't argue with people that they probably shouldn't have kids on the basis that kid having is sort of inherently immoral though. Some do, apparently big scary monsters posted:Choosing to have a child in this country is supremely selfish and egotistical. I know that it's not quite as simple as going to the child pound and picking one out, but if you want a kid then it seems to me that in the UK adopting is really the only morally defensible choice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:This post doesn't make any sense. The two that were sacked yesterday rebelled against him personally, Benn didn't rebel, as you've just said, it was a free vote. So he is removing people from his cabinet for doing what he's done throughout his career, which is disagree with the leader. There's a difference between 'disagree' and 'criticise and brief against'.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
dispatch_async posted:Are you prepared to vote and campaign for a Labour party that promises tough immigration controls and an EU exit (the only way of achieving reduced immigration)? Only 15% of voters agree with Labour on immigration. Fifteen percent! Labour won't win another general election until they give up on an immigration policy that only the hardcore far left in the UK support. What is Labour's immigration policy? What does 'controls in immigration' mean? We already have some.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
So that seems to have been a fairly successful reshuffle to me; sack two Blairite tossers who have been deliberately destabilising the leadership, see a handful others gently caress off and voluntarily abdicate any input into policy, and in a week nobody in the general public will remember or care since no-one knew who any of them were and they weren't high-profile roles anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:Hitchens side-along... Well, I'm not sure 'support' is the word, but affectations towards Corbyn is still one of the more surreal parts of it all. Hitchens I think considers himself a man of principle and see Corbyn as the same even if there's little overlap in those principles. You can't say the same thing of Call Me Dave or of the vast majority of the intake of either party during the Blair years.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Jose posted:The daily mail picked a bad day to run this I saw someone dump this on Twitter earlier without saying the date, I don't think that's from today since the date bar at the top looks like Wednesday 6th (you can't see it in that photo bit can sort of in this one: https://twitter.com/ianprior/status/686476717880438785?s=09 )
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Jose posted:Here's the page from their site that was published today Well then that's hilarious and I'm surprised they haven't pulled it yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:The problem with the "they're not the person I married any more" argument is this - what is special about a change of gender that makes it different to the other significant medical changes people normally go through? That's a pretty solipsistic argument. I'm pretty sure everyone (including and especially the person transitioning) would agree that it's a fundamental change for the person in question. quote:Instant annulment does seem the sensible option as I can't imagine there's a lot of people who want to stay with their partner after a transition. And they can always get the paperwork reorganised if they do. But this is the onvious answer, an option for annulment for thise who want it. A marital veto is ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
StoneOfShame posted:Exactly, that only has meaning because the people the contracts relate instill them with meaning. The same applies to money. Send me all your money please if you don't care about bits of paper.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
I agree with Pissflaps, Lord Janner is definitely dead.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Jose posted:i honestly thought they'd have dropped it once they realised the economy is about to go tits up If it does then obviously it's because the markets are scared of Jeremy Corbyn, duh
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TubbSky/status/689029832286597120 Controlling men who won't let muslim women have a voice is indeed a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
A gaff is when you say something even slightly different from what every other politician says.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
That matters less ever than the rest of the polls you post since it says nothing about opinions or about actual chances.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Yeah that's some pretty poor reporting. Paragraphs 11 & 12 gives the actual figure, I think it's rather difficult to call that "most". It's such a ridiculous use of statistics that I'll give the writer the benefit of the boudt and assume they're just stupid. Though I notice there are no comments on the article.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Hey, did you know there is no housing crisis and never was one? Buying a house is indeed very expensive. So is buying a yacht. We are not having a yacht crisis
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:Am I imagining it, or did Polly Toynbee write a bunch of columns when it looked like Corbyn would win the leadership election about how perhaps it would be best if the Labour party split into two groups, the Real Labour Party (lead by Corbyn) and what we may as well call Continuity Labour, home of the Blairites? She's a pragmatist above all else and the moment Corbyn won in a landslide realised that he was in by popular demand of the party members and agitating against him would only be harmful. Probably smarter than most of the PLP then.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:HAHAHAHAHA Yeah I've no idea what led them to consider the notion, it's not like any of the military top brass have floated the possibility or anything
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
Also even if you accept the events relayed by an anonymous source relayed to The Telegraph, the claim that Corbyn contrived it to show how right on he was for having sex with a black woman is entirely the source's interpretation of an event that happened 40 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 00:19
|
|