Quote:
She admitted that after the pay-per-view smut scandal had broken, her son had said: "Dad, haven't you heard of the internet?" Smith was also shocked by a visit to the Erotica exhibition, where confronted by the likes of the Monkey Spanker and artisan-built bondage furniture, "I felt completely innocent."
I believe the word you actually meant to use in place of "innocent", Smith, was "stupid".
Everyone's favourite ex-Home Secretary is in the news again this week.
Apparently, she's admitted being wrong about cannabis when she was in office. Now, if only she'll admit to being wrong about everything else....
Apparently, she's admitted being wrong about cannabis when she was in office. Now, if only she'll admit to being wrong about everything else....
That basically means she knew she was wrong in office, but didn't have the balls to say it. Yet another politician who says "well, unfortunately I can do nothing about it... now".
Well, this thread has aged well.
Unintentionally, you might say.
Unintentionally, you might say.
I yearn for the politics of 2009
Kern wrote:
Well, this thread has aged well.
Unintentionally, you might say.
Unintentionally, you might say.
Quote:
It is understood that some in government will claim that Patel’s behaviour towards staff had been “unintentional”, because she was unaware of the effects of her actions.
I’m struggling to get over this line in that article. Is this supposed to be a defence, or explanation of sorts? Bullying people but not understanding (caring) how awfully your actions affect other humans is not something that should be given by way of trying to excuse it. Yikes.
Mimi wrote:
Kern wrote:
Well, this thread has aged well.
Unintentionally, you might say.
Unintentionally, you might say.
Quote:
It is understood that some in government will claim that Patel’s behaviour towards staff had been “unintentional”, because she was unaware of the effects of her actions.
I’m struggling to get over this line in that article. Is this supposed to be a defence, or explanation of sorts? Bullying people but not understanding (caring) how awfully your actions affect other humans is not something that should be given by way of trying to excuse it. Yikes.
By accounts, she isn't the brightest, and she is an absolutely terrible human being to boot.
Call me old fashioned, but I'd like my politicians to be... intelligent
My views on this are somewhat coloured by the fact I can't stand her.
MaliA wrote:
My views on this are somewhat coloured by the fact I can't stand her.
And you fancy her. Complicated
MaliA wrote:
My views on this are somewhat coloured by the fact I can't stand her.
I would say let’s explore why you don’t like either Patel or Abbott despite them being polar opposites politically but I actually don’t have time today
Mr Chonks wrote:
MaliA wrote:
My views on this are somewhat coloured by the fact I can't stand her.
I would say let’s explore why you don’t like either Patel or Abbott despite them being polar opposites politically but I actually don’t have time today
You're going to have to spell this one out for me, chief.
DavPaz wrote:
MaliA wrote:
My views on this are somewhat coloured by the fact I can't stand her.
And you fancy her. Complicated
It is.
Yes, she is very fanciable, even more so than Kier Starmer.
I honestly don't know enough about her as a politician to decide how evil she is or otherwise. Did she do bad, Mali?
I honestly don't know enough about her as a politician to decide how evil she is or otherwise. Did she do bad, Mali?
Very bad, MrChris, very bad.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status ... 7925814273
I mean, fucking hell.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson says he judges the ministerial code was not breached by Home Secretary Priti Patel and that he has "full confidence" in her after an inquiry concluded she broke the ministerial code
— Sky News Breaking (@SkyNewsBreak) November 20, 2020
For more on this and other news visit https://t.co/8OWd2TvLrt
I mean, fucking hell.
Wasn't the govt argument that it was "unintentional" bullying? Which seems a brilliant artifice to me.
"Not self-aware enough to know she was being an arsehole" is how I translate that.
And don't forget, she wants to come down hard on counter-terrorist offenders.
Cras wrote:
"Not self-aware enough to know she was being an arsehole" is how I translate that.
That’s a perfect description of my last manager. He was a vile unpleasant bully, but had zero ability to recognise that, and I’m told was quite hurt when he it explained that people didn’t like him.
MaliA wrote:
Mimi wrote:
Kern wrote:
Well, this thread has aged well.
Unintentionally, you might say.
Unintentionally, you might say.
Quote:
It is understood that some in government will claim that Patel’s behaviour towards staff had been “unintentional”, because she was unaware of the effects of her actions.
I’m struggling to get over this line in that article. Is this supposed to be a defence, or explanation of sorts? Bullying people but not understanding (caring) how awfully your actions affect other humans is not something that should be given by way of trying to excuse it. Yikes.
By accounts, she isn't the brightest, and she is an absolutely terrible human being to boot.
<Adds to file>
https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021 ... mpredirect
Yes, it looks like another poorly-constructed, openly illiberal legislation pushed by an authoritarian and out-of-her-depth Home Secretary. And yes, I'm outraged, but as there's so much to be outraged by this administration compared to previous ones it all seems to merge into a general smog of anger which ain't healthy.
The stuff on protest reminds me a heck of a lot about Labour's restrictions on Parliament Square that became farcical. I'm yet to hear howls of protests from the libertarian right who were always so vocal about these things 15 years ago.
The stuff on protest reminds me a heck of a lot about Labour's restrictions on Parliament Square that became farcical. I'm yet to hear howls of protests from the libertarian right who were always so vocal about these things 15 years ago.
They only care about freedom these days when it’s freedom from “wokery”. See trans rights: now trans people are stuck in bureaucratic hell in order to get their gender showing correctly on documents, but this is ok for some reason
I see Schindler and the RNLI are the bad people now
Genuinely sickening.
What's all this about?
https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/1412622035797352453
The "Nicholas Winton" clause. pic.twitter.com/vpQ9DUqOn4
— Jonathan Portes (@jdportes) July 7, 2021
Is the asylum seeker also a criminal now then?
I'm sure there is a proper difference in the legal definition of 'arrival in' and 'entry into' (otherwise why would it be in there) but I don't know what it is so it seems like an overlap to my basic mind. Is it to do with clearing border control or something?
MaliA wrote:
Craster wrote:
Every company in the world can handle expenses claims with a view to ensuring their employees aren't taking the piss. Why can't the government?
I find the incompetence of government administration charming for the most part, though. Otherwise we wouldn't get stuff like this turning up.
Hahahaha oh Christ.
Page 4 of 4 [ 180 posts ]