This is why debate is stifled...

First topic message reminder :

It all depends upon who posts the story.

Work it out

Ben Reilly wrote:I honestly don't understand anybody who can support their political party (or their country, for that matter) no matter what it does. It's the stupidest thing.

If your thinking and beliefs guide you toward aligning with a certain party, that's fine. If that party then screws the pooch, don't say the pooch was asking for it. Criticize the party, leave it if you're that disgusted, but don't defend bad policies or behavior.

Just an aside: I think the point Quill's trying to make is that voters should be more outraged by politicians' lies to cover up misdeeds that harm the nation than by politicians' lies to cover up misdeeds in their personal lives, and I agree.

Clinton's lies to cover up his affair had no real effect on me or any other American citizen (besides Monica Lewinsky, Hilary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton). Neither did Trump's lies to cover up his affairs, so I don't really care about them either, other than to point out the hypocrisy of Republican Trump supporters who claim to value the family and marriage (which they do loudly and often).

Trump's lies to cover up the damage he's done to America do affect me and the American people, and those lies I do care about.

Clinton did wrong but it was blown out of all proportion by his political enemies.
Extramarital affairs are tolerable in political leaders in certain circumstances. Not tolerable if the politician is indiscrete or if he spends public money on the mistress. And it does not look good if he was elected on a "wholesome family man" ticket like republicans usually are.

Look at the vitriol Cobyn received, even from a few racists here, when it emerged he and Abbott had been an item decades ago when they were young and single.
Compare that with how Major's porking of Edwina Currie was pretty much laughed at and covered up by the Tory press.

As eds said, infidelity is a family matter. Family is about interpersonal matters in a close-knit family unit. It is hurtful, but within that small circle.

Politics is, by definition, a very public kind of matter, on a much grander, global level. The lies told by Tory/Republicans affect thousands, if not millions of people.

Take the betrayal by Trump of the Kurds, and contrast that with an intrafamily betrayal. By orders of magnitude, the political betrayal is much more important than the personal matter.

Even if it doesn't involve war and genocide, reshaping the mission of a nation by tax cuts and/or deregulation of public protections, can be far more devastating, to more people, than a familial interpersonal matter.

Andy wrote:Look at the vitriol Cobyn received, even from a few racists here, when it emerged he and Abbott had been an item decades ago when they were young and single.
Compare that with how Major's porking of Edwina Currie was pretty much laughed at and covered up by the Tory press.

Corbyn's affair with Diane Abbott became a legitimate matter for scrutiny because as leader of the Opposition he had appointed his singularly talentless former mistress to the position of Shadow, and therefore possible,  Home Secretary, one of the four traditional Great Offices of State.

Johnson's likely affair with that American businesswoman is similarly under legitimate scrutiny because of allegations that she received preferential treatment that was of advantage to her business interests.

Don't you think that Labour briefing against Johnson, particularly by Labour party member and present London Mayor Sadiq Khan, isn't equally vitriolic, if not more so? Don't be so bloody naive.

And as for your claim that the Conservative-supporting Press covered up John Major's affair with Edwina Currie, that is an absolute lie. It was extensively covered by all the national media and  even more so in my local and regional press, radio and TV, because Major was MP for one of our local constituencies and Currie had stood as a Tory candidate in a neighbouring constituency  at the European elections.

(For the record, I voted Lib Dem on that occasion, because I never could stand the woman. I have to say, however, that to my knowledge she had great legs...and wore black frilly underwear and a suspender belt!)

People keep missing the point about Clinton. He didn't just lie to save himself embarrassment.

It was during a court case in which he as being accused of the sexual assault of a different woman.

I doubt if any female posters on here were victims of sexual assault and were involved in a case against their attacker, would come to the conclusion his perjury was blown out of proportion.

eddie wrote:“To point out the affair about Clinton/Lewinsky is embarrassing, but it is not the kind of lie I mean. It's a lie to his wife, not a lie to the voters. It might lose him some respect, but not necessarily votes”

It would matter to me. I don’t like people who lie to their families. It means they can lie to just about anyone.
A lie is a lie.

Don’t white wash it.  

When UK War Minister John Profumo was revealed as having had an affair with the prostitute Christine Keeler many years ago, he immediately offered the humblest of apologies to his family, constituents and parliamentary colleagues and handed in his resignation. He then devoted himself to charity work and once again earned the respect and trust of the country.

A very rare sort of politician. A great shame there are not more like him.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Andy wrote:Look at the vitriol Cobyn received, even from a few racists here, when it emerged he and Abbott had been an item decades ago when they were young and single.
Compare that with how Major's porking of Edwina Currie was pretty much laughed at and covered up by the Tory press.

Corbyn's affair with Diane Abbott became a legitimate matter for scrutiny because as leader of the Opposition he had appointed his singularly talentless former mistress to the position of Shadow, and therefore possible,  Home Secretary, one of the four traditional Great Offices of State.

If I may borrow your logic, I think you are agreeing with me. By "legitimate matter for scrutiny" you mean to say you are placing politics on a higher, more important plane. That's why Clinton's infidelity was a frivolous matter of concern, whereas RW political lying is strategic.

Maddog wrote:People keep missing the point about Clinton. He didn't just lie to save himself embarrassment.

It was during a court case in which he as being accused of the sexual assault of a different woman.

I doubt if any female posters on here were victims of sexual assault and were involved  in a case against their attacker, would come to the conclusion his perjury was blown out of proportion.  

It was a frivolous civil accusation compared to matters of state. It's not as if he was removed from office by the Senate. It's not as if they were actually charging him with sexual assault. It's not even as if he was charged with perjury about the matter. (note: Perjury is a process crime, in which intent must be shown. It never was...no one cared.)

The Clinton infidelity was a milder offense, in which at most, he lost his law license in the state of Arkansas. After two terms as president, I think he could make a living elsewhere.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Andy wrote:Look at the vitriol Cobyn received, even from a few racists here, when it emerged he and Abbott had been an item decades ago when they were young and single.
Compare that with how Major's porking of Edwina Currie was pretty much laughed at and covered up by the Tory press.

Corbyn's affair with Diane Abbott became a legitimate matter for scrutiny because as leader of the Opposition he had appointed his singularly talentless former mistress to the position of Shadow, and therefore possible,  Home Secretary, one of the four traditional Great Offices of State.

Johnson's likely affair with that  American businesswoman is similarly under legitimate scrutiny because of allegations that she received preferential treatment that was of advantage to her business interests.

Don't you think that Labour briefing against Johnson, particularly by Labour party member and present London Mayor Sadiq Khan, isn't equally vitriolic, if not more so? Don't be so bloody naive.

And as for your claim that the Conservative-supporting Press covered up John Major's affair with Edwina Currie, that is an absolute lie. It was extensively covered by all the national media and  even more so in my local and regional press, radio and TV, because Major was MP for one of our local constituencies and Currie had stood as a Tory candidate in a neighbouring constituency  at the European elections.

(For the record, I voted Lib Dem on that occasion, because I never could stand the woman. I have to say, however, that to my knowledge she had great legs...and wore black frilly underwear and a suspender belt!)

Why debase a freindship that turned physical by calling it an affair,. They were both young, single and fancied each other.
An affair rather suggests something a bit more sordid, discreet, a bit on the side.
So Corbyn was nothing like Major, who unloaded into Currie across his desk, whilst married.

Andy wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Corbyn's affair with Diane Abbott became a legitimate matter for scrutiny because as leader of the Opposition he had appointed his singularly talentless former mistress to the position of Shadow, and therefore possible,  Home Secretary, one of the four traditional Great Offices of State.

Johnson's likely affair with that  American businesswoman is similarly under legitimate scrutiny because of allegations that she received preferential treatment that was of advantage to her business interests.

Don't you think that Labour briefing against Johnson, particularly by Labour party member and present London Mayor Sadiq Khan, isn't equally vitriolic, if not more so? Don't be so bloody naive.

And as for your claim that the Conservative-supporting Press covered up John Major's affair with Edwina Currie, that is an absolute lie. It was extensively covered by all the national media and  even more so in my local and regional press, radio and TV, because Major was MP for one of our local constituencies and Currie had stood as a Tory candidate in a neighbouring constituency  at the European elections.

(For the record, I voted Lib Dem on that occasion, because I never could stand the woman. I have to say, however, that to my knowledge she had great legs...and wore black frilly underwear and a suspender belt!)

Why debase a freindship that turned physical by calling it an affair,. They were both young, single and fancied each other.
An affair rather suggests something a bit more sordid,  discreet, a bit on the side.
So Corbyn was nothing like Major, who unloaded into Currie across his desk, whilst married.

Corbyn's wife Jane Chapman was hardly out of his bed before Abbott was in it, and Chapman was always adamant that Abbott had scuppered an attempt at reconciliation. And have you forgotten that Corbyn actually invited two fellow Left Wing activists around and let them see her naked in his bed, largely to enhance his egalitarian credentials?

Don't come your lickspittle bullshit about Corbyn with me, Andy. No matter how you wriggle like a worm on a hook trying to big him up, giving his ex lover one of the most senior shadow roles in British politics when she had to be taken off the senior spokesperson rota at the time of the 2017 General Election because she was so goddam useless, unprepared and almost unintelligible at key interviews indicates that the man's choice of Shadow Home Secretary was dictated more by his cock's happy memories than what passes for his brain.

Nor did I defend Major over his affair with Currie in any way; the only point I made was that your claim that the "Tory Press" had covered it up was an absolute lie.

+1

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Andy wrote:

Why debase a freindship that turned physical by calling it an affair,. They were both young, single and fancied each other.
An affair rather suggests something a bit more sordid,  discreet, a bit on the side.
So Corbyn was nothing like Major, who unloaded into Currie across his desk, whilst married.

Corbyn's wife Jane Chapman was hardly out of his bed before Abbott was in it, and Chapman was always adamant that Abbott had scuppered an attempt at reconciliation. And have you forgotten that Corbyn actually invited two fellow Left Wing activists around and let them see her naked in his bed, largely to enhance his egalitarian credentials?

Don't come your lickspittle bullshit about Corbyn with me, Andy. No matter how you wriggle like a worm on a hook trying to big him up, giving his ex lover one of the most senior shadow roles in British politics when she had to be taken off the senior spokesperson rota at the time of the 2017 General Election because she was so goddam useless, unprepared and almost unintelligible at key interviews indicates that the man's choice of Shadow Home Secretary was dictated more by his cock's happy memories than what passes for his brain.

Nor did I defend Major over his affair with Currie in any way; the only point I made was that your claim that the "Tory Press" had covered it up was an absolute lie.  

Fred I thought you said you were a professional journalist. Why debase yourself totally with this kind of LUDICROUS nonsense and bogus strawman arguments?

The fact that Corbyn was not celibate after his marriage broke down & he separated from his wife - you've decided  to use that as a reason for failure of the Corbyns to reconcile. Simple straightforward question, Fred - do you think the various MP's who separated from their wives have all been celibate too? Boris most certainly wasn't. If you want to get judgemental you can start with Boris who was kicked out by both his first & second wives for infidelity.  

As for Ms Abbot being referred to as ''mistress'' & ''lover''. Deliberate use of pejorative terms. They were just 2 young unattached people who  were mutually attracted for a brief period. There was no secrecy or sleaze, they were upfront with their relatonship & they went on holiday abroad together like any couple would.

Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn 'showed off' naked Diane Abbott to impress Left-wing friends

The Labour leader invited fellow activists to his London flat where they were “shaken” to find Ms Abbott in his bed, one of his friends recalled.

The incident took place in 1979 soon after Mr Corbyn’s first marriage broke down because of his near-obsessive dedication to his political activism.

It is described in Comrade Corbyn, a biography of the Labour leader by Rosa Prince, which is being serialised by The Telegraph.

The book, which draws on interviews with close friends and members of Mr Corbyn’s family, sheds new light on how his brief relationship with Ms Abbott – now a member of his shadow cabinet – helped establish his credentials on the Labour Left.

According to a Labour figure present at the time, Mr Corbyn may have thought that letting it be known that he was in a relationship with a black woman would demonstrate his commitment to radical Left-wing politics.

The witness describes how Mr Corbyn contrived an incident where a group of party activists had to visit his bedsit, where their arrival startled Ms Abbott.

“One Sunday autumn morning, he had broken up with Jane [Chapman, his first wife], and we were out leafleting. And for some reason he called four or five of us and said: ‘Oh, we’ve got to go back to my flat and pick up some leaflets.’

“It seemed a bit odd – ‘Why the hell didn’t you bring them with you, Jeremy?’ So we all bowl along to his bedsit, follow Jeremy into the room; there on the mattress on the floor in the one room is Diane with the duvet up to her neck, saying: ‘What the ****’s going on?’

“We were quite shaken. You know what it’s like when people you know both sides of break up – you have no inkling they’re going to break up, then suddenly they break up. So there was a bit of people’s surprise at that. It was [the] late ’70s, it was still a point of interest, a white man with a black woman, so he was slightly showing off: ‘I’ve got a new girlfriend, and she’s black’.”

By 1979 Jeremy Corbyn's marriage to Jane Chapman relationship was over. “In all honesty, they didn’t split up, it just unravelled,” Keith Veness, a union colleague, sayd. “He never came home very much and Jane gave up on him in the end.”

Corbyn bought out Chapman’s share of their flat, and by the end of the year they were divorced.

Corbyn was not single for long. Chapman has since said that she still half held out the hope that they might reconcile, but within a few months of the separation, her husband had met the woman with whom he would have one of the most long-standing relationships of his life: Diane Abbott.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/22/revealed-jeremy-corbyn-showed-off-naked-diane-abbott-to-impress/

In other words what Fred said was correct

phildidge wrote:Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn 'showed off' naked Diane Abbott to impress Left-wing friends



According to a Labour figure present at the time, Mr Corbyn may have thought that letting it be known that he was in a relationship with a black woman would demonstrate his commitment to radical Left-wing politics.

The witness describes how Mr Corbyn contrived an incident where a group of party activists had to visit his bedsit, where their arrival startled Ms Abbott.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/22/revealed-jeremy-corbyn-showed-off-naked-diane-abbott-to-impress/

In other words what Fred said was correct

to be fair that's just someone else's opinion on the matter. that doesn't make it true

''according to''

''may have''

doesn't really make a case

it may well have been true but the article doesn't prove it at all imo

gelico wrote:

phildidge wrote:Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn 'showed off' naked Diane Abbott to impress Left-wing friends



According to a Labour figure present at the time, Mr Corbyn may have thought that letting it be known that he was in a relationship with a black woman would demonstrate his commitment to radical Left-wing politics.

The witness describes how Mr Corbyn contrived an incident where a group of party activists had to visit his bedsit, where their arrival startled Ms Abbott.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/22/revealed-jeremy-corbyn-showed-off-naked-diane-abbott-to-impress/

In other words what Fred said was correct

to be fair that's just someone else's opinion on the matter.  that doesn't make it true

''according to''

''may have''

doesn't really make a case

it may well have been true but the article doesn't prove it at all imo

He correctly gave the views of people including the wife

That is "Fred" being factually correct on this

Does not mean it is necessarily true but factually correct in what is stated

I don't give a shit what they got up to. The childish  fascination with the salacious details and minutiae of their relationship does not interest me in the slightest.  

There are politicians who stick their dicks  absolutely everywhere but they don't get anywhere near as much flak as these two who hooked up briefly 40 years ago as two very young unattached people.

Jules wrote:I don't give a shit what they got up to. The childish  fascination with the salacious details and minutiae of their relationship does not interest me in the slightest.  

There are politicians who stick their dicks  absolutely everywhere but they don't get anywhere near as much flak as these two who hooked up briefly 40 years ago as two very young unattached people.

Well many who hero worship Corbn obviously feel this way ignoring the fact many more politicians have received far more flak in history

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Corbyn's wife Jane Chapman was hardly out of his bed before Abbott was in it, and Chapman was always adamant that Abbott had scuppered an attempt at reconciliation.

At best it's an opinion, formed at an emotional time. It doesn't mean it's true just because she alleges this.  There must be cracks in a marriage for it to break down in the first place. The version I read was that Abbot did not start  dating him until several months after the separation.


There have been all sorts of unsuitable and unworthy ministerial appointments in cabinets & shadow cabinets. Individual voters cannot take it upon themselves to decide who is suitable for what role.  Voters elect the winning party then leave the new prime minister to select his cabinet. You will get your fair chance to throw Corbyn out of office in an  election, Fred  and that is where  your remit starts and ends, it's not up to voters to decide who is suitable for what post. And you have no proof that a relationship from FORTY years ago impacts on Corbyn's current choices.

I'm not really a fan of Corbyn these days, I have more faith in the libdems tbh. But I get bored at the way people make a meal out of a brief relationship from decades ago whilst ignoring the randy immoral conduct of some current politicians.

Jules wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Corbyn's wife Jane Chapman was hardly out of his bed before Abbott was in it, and Chapman was always adamant that Abbott had scuppered an attempt at reconciliation.

At best it's an opinion, formed at an emotional time. It doesn't mean it's true just because she alleges this.  There must be cracks in a marriage for it to break down in the first place. The version I read was that Abbot did not start  dating him until several months after the separation.

I'm sure I just read that the marriage didn't break down as such it just seemed to unravel. His wife kinda gave up on the marriage because he was never at home due to his constant activism. she may have hoped for some kind of reconciliation but it didn't happen and he moved on,,,,,,,,it happens


I'm not really a fan of Corbyn these days, I have more faith in the libdems tbh. But I get bored at the way people make a meal out of a brief relationship from decades ago whilst ignoring the randy immoral conduct of some current politicians.

Amen to that

Jules wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Corbyn's wife Jane Chapman was hardly out of his bed before Abbott was in it, and Chapman was always adamant that Abbott had scuppered an attempt at reconciliation. And have you forgotten that Corbyn actually invited two fellow Left Wing activists around and let them see her naked in his bed, largely to enhance his egalitarian credentials?

Don't come your lickspittle bullshit about Corbyn with me, Andy. No matter how you wriggle like a worm on a hook trying to big him up, giving his ex lover one of the most senior shadow roles in British politics when she had to be taken off the senior spokesperson rota at the time of the 2017 General Election because she was so goddam useless, unprepared and almost unintelligible at key interviews indicates that the man's choice of Shadow Home Secretary was dictated more by his cock's happy memories than what passes for his brain.

Nor did I defend Major over his affair with Currie in any way; the only point I made was that your claim that the "Tory Press" had covered it up was an absolute lie.  

Fred I thought you said you were a professional journalist. Why debase yourself totally with this kind of LUDICROUS nonsense and bogus strawman arguments?

The fact that Corbyn was not celibate after his marriage broke down & he separated from his wife - you've decided  to use that as a reason for failure of the Corbyns to reconcile. Simple straightforward question, Fred - do you think the various MP's who separated from their wives have all been celibate too? Boris most certainly wasn't. If you want to get judgemental you can start with Boris who was kicked out by both his first & second wives for infidelity.  

As for Ms Abbot being referred to as ''mistress'' & ''lover''. Deliberate use of pejorative terms. They were just 2 young unattached people who  were mutually attracted for a brief period. There was no secrecy or sleaze, they were upfront with their relatonship & they went on holiday abroad together like any couple would.

I was simply pointing out to Andy, who for some reason decided to introduce John Major's affair into  a discussion about Bill Clinton and political truth and lies in the USA, that the present leader of the Labour party is not without his murky past either. It is well documented, and like any "professional journalist" I checked my facts.

Perhaps had I emulated Andy's style and simply used the word "porking" you would have found my "professionalism" more acceptable.

Andy, as always, does not like to hear argument that tends to conflict with his own views. It would appear that it is a common trend on the Left.

The essence of leftyism is to harbor an unrequited love for challenging views - - it's why we try to understand Muslim terrorists, to cite but one of many frustrating examples.

I do think that an acceptable trade-off for talent on the job is crazy off the job.. But that's a bit more owned in a brand sense by the libertarians, to be fair.

And yes, what I've said sounds insane.

And yes, Corbyn sucks Wookie.

Ben Reilly wrote:The essence of leftyism is to harbor an unrequited love for challenging views - - it's why we try to understand Muslim terrorists, to cite but one of many frustrating examples.

I do think that an acceptable trade-off for talent on the job is crazy off the job.. But that's a bit more owned in a brand sense by the libertarians, to be fair.

that may be you on a personal level, ben but it's certainly not standard

in my experience the left will name any excuse possible for Muslim terrorists, eg, marginalised / mental health issues / far right's fault.  anything in fact but look at the koran it seems

as for challenging views, again, in my experience all the left is capable of is labelling any challenging view that they don't like as 'hate speech' just to get rid of it

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I was simply pointing out to Andy, who for some reason decided to introduce John Major's affair into  a discussion about Bill Clinton and political truth and lies in the USA, that the present leader of the Labour party is not without his murky past either. It is well documented, and like any "professional journalist" I checked my facts.

Perhaps had I emulated Andy's style and simply used the word "porking" you would have found my "professionalism" more acceptable.

Andy, as always, does not like to hear argument that tends to conflict with his own views. It would appear that it is a common trend on the Left.

No, there's nothing murky about a brief summer romance involving 2 young people who were both free agents. A straightforward man-meets-woman story. Afterwards they parted ways amicably. The end.

Wanna see REAL muck, Fred??
Dirty sleazy stuff? Here's some.  Fill your boots.> https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/five-questions-mps-want-answered-about-jennifer-arcuri/ar-AAIT4n2?ocid=spartanntp

(btw Arcuri is yet another American woman who suddenly dropped everything & ran off back to the states, just like that diplomat's wife involved in the fatal road accident. Hopefully voluptuous Miss Arcuri will return the £100K of London taxpayers money so inappropriately gifted to her.)

+1.
Boris shagged a tart for £100k, which was paid for by the taxpayer, and the tories call him a bit of a lad.
We know he has 6 kids from about 4 women. The real question is how many has he that we dont know about.

Sounds like the left and the right are as bad as each other.

Maddog wrote:Sounds like the left and the right are as bad as each other.  

Sounds like the oft-cited libertarian fallacy that people align with the left or with the right based on the leaders of a political party, rather than their agreement or disagreement with the parties' policies.

It's almost as though you're saying it's impossible for a Republican to be disgusted with Trump, or a Democrat such as myself to not be particularly impressed by Joe Biden.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:Sounds like the left and the right are as bad as each other.  

Sounds like the oft-cited libertarian fallacy that people align with the left or with the right based on the leaders of a political party, rather than their agreement or disagreement with the parties' policies.

It's almost as though you're saying it's impossible for a Republican to be disgusted with Trump, or a Democrat such as myself to not be particularly impressed by Joe Biden.

It's a little of both.

Look at how Dems are up in arms about Trumps pull out in Syria.

Don't even attempt to tell me that they wouldn't support it if a Dem had done the same thing.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Sounds like the oft-cited libertarian fallacy that people align with the left or with the right based on the leaders of a political party, rather than their agreement or disagreement with the parties' policies.

It's almost as though you're saying it's impossible for a Republican to be disgusted with Trump, or a Democrat such as myself to not be particularly impressed by Joe Biden.

It's a little of both.

Look at how Dems are up in arms about Trumps pull out in Syria.

Don't even attempt to tell me that they wouldn't support it if a Dem had done the same thing.  

A Dem wouldn't have stabbed his partner in the back. Only a libertarian would do that, primarily because he hasn't got any friends, let alone a partner.

Jules wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I was simply pointing out to Andy, who for some reason decided to introduce John Major's affair into  a discussion about Bill Clinton and political truth and lies in the USA, that the present leader of the Labour party is not without his murky past either. It is well documented, and like any "professional journalist" I checked my facts.

Perhaps had I emulated Andy's style and simply used the word "porking" you would have found my "professionalism" more acceptable.

Andy, as always, does not like to hear argument that tends to conflict with his own views. It would appear that it is a common trend on the Left.

No, there's nothing murky about a brief summer romance involving 2 young people who were both free agents. A straightforward man-meets-woman story. Afterwards they parted ways amicably. The end.

Which is, of course, exactly what the Labour Party press office (maybe it was Momentum - I can't remember, and currently there is little difference) circulated when the matter became an issue of media and public interest.

Another and perhaps more cynical interpretation might well be: Straightforward man-meets-woman, then becomes the leader of a political party and rewards her with (potentially) one of the Four Great Offices of State appointments" story, when,  fine and dedicated constituency MP though  she may be, a potential Home Secretary in overall charge of this country's policing and national security she certainly ain't. By any stretch of even the most fertile of imaginations.

Cyncical? Yes...I have a doctorate in the subject. And that it why I never became an unquestioning sycophant like Owen Jones, Kevin Maguire and Alastair Campbell.

I am sure that you would regard that trio as being more acceptably "professional"......

They are better than the septic triumvirate of hatred that are Hatie Flopkins, Rod (wife beater) Liddle and Julia Fartley- Blower.

Andy wrote:They are better than the septic triumvirate of hatred that are Hatie Flopkins, Rod (wife beater) Liddle and Julia Fartley- Blower.

Perhaps if you used correct names rather than silly, meaningless nicknames other posters might at least have a chance of understanding just what that unintelligible garbage means.

And how do you know that I don't regard Right-leaning unquestioning sycophants with an equal degree of professional cynicism? Just for the record, I do.

The real question that you are, as usual, desperately trying to evade is: Do you place your right to freedom of expression above that of Boris Johnson, citizen, elector and Prime Minister? Yes or no?

phildidge wrote:

Jules wrote:I don't give a shit what they got up to. The childish  fascination with the salacious details and minutiae of their relationship does not interest me in the slightest.  

There are politicians who stick their dicks  absolutely everywhere but they don't get anywhere near as much flak as these two who hooked up briefly 40 years ago as two very young unattached people.

Well many who hero worship Corbn obviously feel this way ignoring the fact many more politicians have received far more flak in history
.

Where are all these Corbyn "hero worshippers",  Dodge  ???

Certainly nowhere to be seen around here on Newsfix..

I like Corbyn, because as long as he's leader of the Labour Party they'll never win an Election !

Andy wrote:+1........

Does that mean a greenie award? Not being sarky but people keep posting ''+1'' to me but don't actually award anything. Strange.

But it's ok, it's the thought that counts, I guess.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Which is, of course, exactly what the Labour Party press office (maybe it was Momentum - I can't remember, and currently there is little difference) circulated when the matter became an issue of media and public interest.

Another and perhaps more cynical interpretation might well be: Straightforward man-meets-woman, then becomes the leader of a political party and rewards her with (potentially) one of the Four Great Offices of State appointments" story, when,  fine and dedicated constituency MP though  she may be, a potential Home Secretary in overall charge of this country's policing and national security she certainly ain't. By any stretch of even the most fertile of imaginations.

Cyncical? Yes...I have a doctorate in the subject. And that it why I never became an unquestioning sycophant like Owen Jones, Kevin Maguire and Alastair Campbell.

I am sure that you would regard that trio as being more acceptably "professional"......

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is, of course, exactly what the Labour Party press office (maybe it was Momentum -

Please don't mention Momentum to me in your posts, Fred, as I have no interest in them.  I know nowt about them, and care even less and I have never read anything they have written. Ta.

Another and perhaps more cynical interpretation  .....

So it was all about your own interpretation of events - yet you were posting like it was solid fact. Why not say at the outset that it's just your take on things?

Jules wrote:

Andy wrote:+1........

Does that mean a greenie award? Not being sarky but people keep posting ''+1'' to me but don't actually award anything. Strange.

But it's ok, it's the thought that counts, I guess.

I would have awarded a greenie, but Ben has rigged it so only 1 greenie every hour.

Andy wrote:

Jules wrote:
Does that mean a greenie award? Not being sarky but people keep posting ''+1'' to me but don't actually award anything. Strange.

But it's ok, it's the thought that counts, I guess.

I would have awarded a greenie, but Ben has rigged it so only 1 greenie every hour.

That happens to me many times. I've wanted to tag a post with a greenie, but my quota is used up for the hour.

I think reds and greens should be identifiable, at least to the recipient. Would reduce the trolling , ganging up and nausiating psycophancy from some on here, who are too dull or too lazy to comment.

Jules wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Which is, of course, exactly what the Labour Party press office (maybe it was Momentum - I can't remember, and currently there is little difference) circulated when the matter became an issue of media and public interest.

Another and perhaps more cynical interpretation might well be: Straightforward man-meets-woman, then becomes the leader of a political party and rewards her with (potentially) one of the Four Great Offices of State appointments" story, when,  fine and dedicated constituency MP though  she may be, a potential Home Secretary in overall charge of this country's policing and national security she certainly ain't. By any stretch of even the most fertile of imaginations.

Cyncical? Yes...I have a doctorate in the subject. And that it why I never became an unquestioning sycophant like Owen Jones, Kevin Maguire and Alastair Campbell.

I am sure that you would regard that trio as being more acceptably "professional"......

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is, of course, exactly what the Labour Party press office (maybe it was Momentum -

Please don't mention Momentum to me in your posts, Fred, as I have no interest in them.  I know nowt about them, and care even less and I have never read anything they have written. Ta.

Another and perhaps more cynical interpretation  .....

So it was all about your own interpretation of events - yet you were posting like it was solid fact. Why not say at the outset that it's just your take on things?

Of course it was my interpretation. One of the definitions of the adjective cynical is "distrustful of integrity." You surely don't think that I would unequivocally accept the veracity of a press release from the Labour Party, or any other political party for that matter, do you?

Corbyn's romance with Diane Abbott would have been of little more importance than a Mills and Boon love story - but for the fact that he appointed her Shadow Home Secretary when many commentators, myself included, are of the opinion that she is not of sufficient calibre for the position of ultimate authority over the policing and internal security of this country.

She may well be a fine constituency MP for all I know, but that does not necessarily mean that she is suitable for what is potentially one of the highest and most challenging jobs in government; in fact when she was given high profile roles in the last general election and later at the dispatch box in the House her performance served only to reinforce that view.

It was Corbyn's decision to give her the appointment and his reasons for doing so that made the matter of legitimate media and public interest; nothing more.

The alleged affair of Johnson and Jennifer Acuri and the possible involvement of pecuniary or business advantages to her are similarly deserving of press and public scrutiny.

I think I can be confident that you would not wish that to be covered up.

So far as Momentum (sorry) is concerned, I find it disturbing that a Labour Party supporter should be neither interested nor concerned in the involvement and influence of that sinister faction over the recent direction of the party.

OK.