[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 83558)
Message
File  []
close
tonedeaf.png
835588355883558
>> No. 83558 Anonymous
22nd October 2017
Sunday 4:15 am
83558 spacer
He jokingly called a man "bitch".

He jokingly invited a man to play-act a blowie, and the "bitch" willingly complied.

That was an act that seriously undermines Parliament, but apparently fucking with the constitution to govern like a quasi-dictatorship is just fine.
Expand all images.
>> No. 83559 Anonymous
22nd October 2017
Sunday 1:18 pm
83559 spacer
>>83558
Are you shocked?
>> No. 83560 Anonymous
22nd October 2017
Sunday 2:02 pm
83560 spacer
Yeah, I don't mind disagreeing with right wing politicians as much as I loathe every breath they take forming a cloud hypocritical, mock outraged, pseudo-morality.

Can't they just like free markets and not be full of shit?
>> No. 83561 Anonymous
22nd October 2017
Sunday 2:06 pm
83561 spacer
>>83560
I don't think Clive Lewis is that bad.
>> No. 83562 Anonymous
22nd October 2017
Sunday 2:37 pm
83562 spacer
>That was an act that seriously undermines Parliament, but apparently fucking with the constitution to govern like a quasi-dictatorship is just fine.

Welcome to politics. You have five seconds to decide on your favourite type of biscuit before this turns into soggy-biscuit-gate.
>> No. 83563 Anonymous
22nd October 2017
Sunday 3:28 pm
83563 spacer
>>83558

It really is just a smear campaign to get rid of an opponent MP. I'm pretty sure Bo Jo comes out with much worse on a daily basis. This is just cynical faux outrage of the highest degree, I think they're actively taking advantage of the current social climate following the stories coming out about Weinstein.

He said something as a joke, perhaps worst case scenario someone could have told Clive to be mindful of his language and he should apologise (which he did).

Clive used to be my MP before I moved, he's a genuinely really nice and thoughtful guy and I imagine this would be really upsetting him.
>> No. 83565 Anonymous
22nd October 2017
Sunday 4:25 pm
83565 spacer
>>83563
>get rid of an opponent MP
So you're going to exaggerate the seriousness of the whole affair as well, huh. It's just a distraction, an attempt to shift headlines away from the universal credit debacle and put the opponents on the defensive.
>> No. 83566 Anonymous
22nd October 2017
Sunday 4:53 pm
83566 spacer
>>83563
>I moved, he's a genuinely really nice and thoughtful guy and I imagine this would be really upsetting him.

Oh, well, better call it off then.
>> No. 83567 Anonymous
22nd October 2017
Sunday 6:32 pm
83567 spacer
>>83558
>He jokingly called a man "bitch".

>He jokingly invited a man to play-act a blowie, and the "bitch" willingly complied.

As much as I like Clive Lewis: firstly the 'just a joke' defence doesn't wash. Secondly the whole scenario does smell of trivialising sexual violence against women. It sounds a pretty inappropriate thing to play out.

But those calling for him to have the whip withdrawn are out of their minds. And Tories of course so when it comes to feigning outrage over sexism they can fuck off.
>> No. 83568 Anonymous
22nd October 2017
Sunday 6:48 pm
83568 spacer
>>83565
But the story started before the Tories got hold of it. Quite what he was doing at a Momentum event is anyone's guess.

>>83567
If you'd actually watch the video you would notice that it is exactly a joke, the whole event was a silly game with tins of red stripe everywhere. You make it sound like he was reading off a carefully planned speech attacking women when really the 'joke' was centred around male domination which when said to another man takes on a prison context.

>And Tories of course so when it comes to feigning outrage over sexism they can fuck off.

n1 m8 that tory bitch wnt knw wot hit her!
>> No. 83569 Anonymous
23rd October 2017
Monday 5:08 pm
83569 spacer
>A Labour MP has refused calls to resign from the women and equalities committee after Jared O’Mara, the MP for Sheffield Hallam, issued an apology saying he was “deeply ashamed of the comments” he made online at the age of 25.

>In a comment posted on the Drowned in Sound music website in 2004, O’Mara wrote: “Girls Aloud - I advise you to sack Sarah and the remaining four members (Nicola, Cheryl, Nadine and Kimberley) come have an orgy with me.”

>In March 2004, on the same forum, he suggested Pop Idol’s 2003 victor McManus “only won because she was fat”. O’Mara, who has cerebral palsy, added: “Being a disabled person, I would hate to win something because people thought I was ‘brave’ or felt sorry for me, rather than for my superior ability/talent.”

>In the same post, he said of Cullum: “It would be no great loss to the music world if he was sodomised with his own piano and subsequently died of a sore arse. In fact, it would be quite funny.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/23/labour-mp-jared-omara-sheffield-hallam-sorry-girls-aloud-orgy
>> No. 83570 Anonymous
23rd October 2017
Monday 6:22 pm
83570 spacer
>>83569
So I guess the era of millennial politicians being caught out by what they used to say online when they were younger has begun.

This should be fun.
>> No. 83571 Anonymous
23rd October 2017
Monday 6:34 pm
83571 spacer

Untitled.png
835718357183571
>>83569
>In a comment posted on the Drowned in Sound music website in 2004, O’Mara wrote: “Girls Aloud - I advise you to sack Sarah and the remaining four members (Nicola, Cheryl, Nadine and Kimberley) come have an orgy with me.”

What a fucking poof.
>> No. 83572 Anonymous
23rd October 2017
Monday 6:52 pm
83572 spacer
>>83571
Was she the one who got done for dolphin rape on the early days of Girls Aloud?

She looks like she's mental enough that if she wasn't famous there's a fairly high probability she'd have been convicted of glassing someone who looked at her the wrong way or trying to blind them with a Stiletto.
>> No. 83573 Anonymous
23rd October 2017
Monday 7:04 pm
83573 spacer
>>83570

This heralds the dawn of my personal dystopian nightmare of all actions being accountable to all parties at all times. When a moment of weakness of character at any point in your life will damn you for all eternity, even against groups and agendas that don't even exist at the point that you made the comment. Things are only going to get worse from this point forward.
>> No. 83574 Anonymous
23rd October 2017
Monday 8:55 pm
83574 spacer

jaredposts.png
835748357483574
Okay, perhaps he is a twat:

>“Just cos he writes about gayness and gay issues, doesn’t mean he drives up the Marmite motorway, or for that matter, allows someone else to drive up his…

>“You do mean ‘took it up the ass’ figuratively don’t you?… I just think that this story is much more poignantly romantic than fudge packing Jake or anyone else in a causual manner and I don’t want such a lovely vista to be spoilt.

>“I find it funny how some homosexuals think they have the monopoly on being subject to abuse, they should try being Ginger…”

>“To those of you that are bitter and resentful about being homosexual, maybe you need to take a bit of pride in your gayness, it’s not something to be ashamed of.”

https://order-order.com/2017/10/23/vile-homophobic-slurs-jared-omara/

I mean, posting on a Morrissey site.
>> No. 83575 Anonymous
23rd October 2017
Monday 9:50 pm
83575 spacer
Hang on, when did otherlad become an MP?
>> No. 83576 Anonymous
23rd October 2017
Monday 10:26 pm
83576 spacer
In these times where some dastardly wags are trying to distract us with things such as the Brexit shitshow and the executive's sustained campaign of undermining the constitutional order, we can focus on the things that are really important, like a couple of blokes bantering in a club, or what someone posted on a message board when they were a student.
>> No. 83577 Anonymous
23rd October 2017
Monday 11:01 pm
83577 spacer
>>83576

On Saturday the bomb squad were called to Sellafield and performed two controlled explosions. Call me paranoid, but the story seems to have stayed suspiciously quiet. Do any of you lads have a Geiger counter?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41705402
>> No. 83578 Anonymous
23rd October 2017
Monday 11:18 pm
83578 spacer

99EE60F9-6B73-402B-AA8D-A44B6170482D.jpg
835788357883578
>>83577

Here’s what’s happened.
>> No. 83579 Anonymous
23rd October 2017
Monday 11:20 pm
83579 spacer
>>83578
That jargon means nothing to me.
>> No. 83580 Anonymous
23rd October 2017
Monday 11:24 pm
83580 spacer
>>83576
Are you suggesting that Guido is involved in some sort of vast cover-up with the highest echelons of power and not just out to collect more scalps?
>> No. 83581 Anonymous
23rd October 2017
Monday 11:26 pm
83581 spacer
>>83578
Just another day at Sellafield then.
>> No. 83582 Anonymous
23rd October 2017
Monday 11:31 pm
83582 spacer
>>83578
Which of these do you think was sounded?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtNgOeqBKQU
>> No. 83583 Anonymous
24th October 2017
Tuesday 12:22 am
83583 spacer
>>83582

The criticality alarm sounds exactly as evil as I imagined.
>> No. 83584 Anonymous
24th October 2017
Tuesday 7:34 am
83584 spacer
>>83576
>trying to distract us with things such as the Brexit shitshow and the executive's sustained campaign of undermining the constitutional order,

It's almost as if it is possible to pay attention to more than one thing at once. Then again, Brexit is such a small event I suppose it would be easy for it to slip by without anyone noticing.
>> No. 83585 Anonymous
24th October 2017
Tuesday 4:55 pm
83585 spacer
>>83583

"You know, Dave, I think we need people to really feel the proper alarm.
Like how, Phil?
Like an impact?
Hmm...yeah, but what kind of impact?
How about a freight train?
Perfect!"
>> No. 83586 Anonymous
24th October 2017
Tuesday 5:22 pm
83586 spacer
>>83585

They've got so many different alarms, I'm surprised that they didn't end up using The Crazy Frog or that Nokia tune.
>> No. 83587 Anonymous
25th October 2017
Wednesday 7:32 pm
83587 spacer
>MP Jared O'Mara has been suspended by Labour while it investigates whale poacheric and homophobic comments he is alleged to have made. The Sheffield Hallam MP has apologised for online remarks from 2002 and 2004 but denies some more recent claims.

>Labour initially said it would not be suspending the MP while these allegations were investigated. But Jeremy Corbyn had decided to act when yet more comments emerged on Wednesday, a spokesman said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41750136

O'Mara also gave an interview yesterday where he said he wouldn't resign over the comments but suggested that a Tory MP making similar remarks should, a tacit admission that Labour should be held to lower moral standards.
>> No. 83588 Anonymous
25th October 2017
Wednesday 7:58 pm
83588 spacer
>>83573
It isn't so bad. I'm pretty sure forced anonymity will become a thing after a PM resigns for saying something on facebook a couple of decades from now.
>> No. 83594 Anonymous
28th October 2017
Saturday 10:58 am
83594 spacer
I wonder if there will be an urgent debate for his sacking as well...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/28/michael-gove-apologises-clumsy-harvey-weinstein-joke-today-show
>> No. 83595 Anonymous
28th October 2017
Saturday 12:07 pm
83595 spacer

fish.png
835958359583595
>>83594

Cheep points scoring two eyed Scottish idiot. Of course rape is a laughing matter, the entire point of a joke is to defuse tension about something we are uncomftable with, which is why I find it helps to tell a knock knock joke after.
>> No. 83596 Anonymous
28th October 2017
Saturday 12:49 pm
83596 spacer
>>83594
I think a better example of double standards would be the sweetheart of the Guardian, Jess Phillips, demanding the head of Philip Davies for having a different viewpoint to her whilst she was all too ready to give Jared O'Mara the benefit of the doubt initially despite his behaviour being far worse all because he wears a read rosette.
>> No. 83597 Anonymous
28th October 2017
Saturday 1:22 pm
83597 spacer
>>83594
I'm as lefty as they come, and I think the man's a twat. I don't think he should get sacked for a joke in poor taste, and the pile-on to disgrace him is utterly transparent, as >>83595 says.
>> No. 83598 Anonymous
28th October 2017
Saturday 1:30 pm
83598 spacer
>>83597 I was more linking it to Clive Lewis who's comments were just as benign, if not more so and whether the Tories would use the same logic on Gove.
>> No. 83600 Anonymous
28th October 2017
Saturday 1:42 pm
83600 spacer
>>83598

Could go either way, the virtue signalling game is all about holier than thou cheap shots against your political opponents. If you admit your faults, you lose control of the bullshit narative. No one actually cares, but everyone feels they have to pretend to care the most. So either they will act like it never happened and keep it quite or they will disproportionately punish, I imagine they will go with the former and if it gets any more heated May will give some speech about her right to choose as a woman to have a complete tit in her government.
>> No. 83601 Anonymous
28th October 2017
Saturday 1:44 pm
83601 spacer
>>83600

I should add to this, if there is a desire to axe Gove anyway this will be used as the pretext.
>> No. 83602 Anonymous
29th October 2017
Sunday 12:46 am
83602 spacer
was originally going to post a quote as an amusing note, but now can't find it.
the gist of it was that a Labour MP having an affair is a massive scandal while a Tory MP can get away with whatever the hell they want (i forget exactly what inappropriate acts they were up to, it can't have been anything too hubristic because i'm sure it was said by a proper politician, almost certainly a cabinet minister, possibly a prime minister.) wasn't trying to make that argument, but was going to note it's distant historical relevance.

anyone know what quote i'm thinking of?
>> No. 83603 Anonymous
29th October 2017
Sunday 8:11 am
83603 spacer
>Jeremy Corbyn was also sticking rigidly to the progressive line.

>‘A vital book on how we bring about gender equality,’ he tweeted. What he didn’t tweet was how he’d spent his own week promoting gender equality by refusing to take any action against Jared O’Mara, arguing it was ‘a shame’ he’d resigned from the parliamentary Women and Equalities Committee, and then refused to meet with one of his MPs to discuss fresh allegations of sexual abuse.

>Speaking to Labour MPs, there is genuine anger at the way the O’Mara issue has been handled. Not just because of the nature of his offences, but because of the perceived double standards surrounding his selection. Everyone who stands for the party is asked if there is anything in their past that could bring Labour into disrepute, then signs a formal contract stating they have given full disclosure of possible past misdemeanours.

>‘That’s been enough to bar a lot of people from seats,’ one MP explained to me, ‘but because Jared was the Momentum candidate, they just overlooked all this stuff.’

>Of course they did. This past week has exposed what really lies at the heart of Jeremy Corbyn’s malign project. Not idealism. Not romanticism. Not even – if you bother to dig deep enough – the molten heat of radical socialism. No, Corbynism is instead bound together by the rancid glue of self-interest and hypocrisy.

>I actually can’t board the tumbril transporting O’Mara to the gallows. His comments posted on the internet were disgusting but, in the social media age, ancient. The decision to suspend him appears to be based on a single, angry altercation with a former acquaintance, the details of which he contests. To my eyes, these are not hanging offences. But to the Corbynites, they should be. They are, after all, self-appointed vigilantes of Britain’s progressive morals. ‘The Labour Party will continue to proudly stand with the LGBT community against intolerance, homophobia and transphobia, wherever it is found,’ Labour’s leader boldly proclaimed in Pink News in June. ‘It’s 2017. This sexism must be consigned to history,’ he raged after a newspaper published a photograph of Nicola Sturgeon’s and Theresa May’s legs.

>What he really meant, of course, was that Labour will take a stand everywhere except its own back yard. Sexism must be consigned to history, unless it’s Labour sexism. In which case it must be rationalized or whitewashed. dolphin rape. Homophobia. Misogyny. Once Labour’s stance was zero- tolerance when confronted with this triple-headed hydra of prejudice. As it still is, unless the alleged perpetrator is an acolyte or ally of Jeremy Corbyn. At which point the attitude becomes: ‘Well, maybe a little bit of tolerance.’

>Firstly, the extent to which Corbynism is built upon a golden rule – there are no rules. Not for Corbynites. Rules are to keep the plebs in order and his opponents at bay. They do not apply to the children of the revolution.

>Second, whatever Corbynites do is morally defensible, simply because it is Corbynites doing it. Even in those rare instances where the actions may appear indefensible, there is actually a very robust defence. Namely, that those highlighting the offence in question are ‘weaponising it’ in an attempt to target Corbyn and derail his historic mission. Call it the Corbynite Nuremberg defence – especially given the ever-expanding charge sheet of Labour anti-Semitism.

>And encompassing it all is a final truth – that the 2017 Labour revolution is not a revolution at all. The objective isn’t to smash the establishment, but supplant it. Replacing the old patriarchy with a new one – the Left’s patriarchy – is the goal. ‘Jeremy is the absolute boy,’ his devotees chant as they grind away to their Acid Corbynism, and laugh as his MPs deliver that instruction to get on their knees. Which, by and large, the Labour Party is agreeing to do. The Livingstone inquiry rolls on without resolution, 18 months after his comments. The O’Mara inquiry is expected to reach a similarly indecisive conclusion – ‘these things never go anywhere if the leadership doesn’t want them to,’ an MP admitted to me. And the mantra ‘do as I say, not as I do’ will remain Labour’s new unofficial Clause 4.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5028029/Labour-s-golden-rule-Corbyn-s-friends-NEVER-guilty.html
>> No. 83604 Anonymous
29th October 2017
Sunday 11:53 am
83604 spacer
>>83603
>dailymail.co.uk
>> No. 83605 Anonymous
29th October 2017
Sunday 4:27 pm
83605 spacer
I'm looking back at my own forum posts before the advent of imageboards now. Fucking hell, I guess that is my political career over when I never tried nor even thought about it.

Not to say any of it is mega-bad, just that as a teen I used comedy that would be similar to Rod Liddle without necessarily meaning any of it seriously. How are we as a society supposed to cope with this future knowledge of our leaders?

>>83603
>Speaking to Labour MPs, there is genuine anger at the way the O’Mara issue has been handled. Not just because of the nature of his offences, but because of the perceived double standards surrounding his selection. Everyone who stands for the party is asked if there is anything in their past that could bring Labour into disrepute, then signs a formal contract stating they have given full disclosure of possible past misdemeanours.

I don't know about this. Obscure internet posts seems like something O’Mara wouldn't be consciously aware of and with that the whole argument starts to unravel even as Hodges throws in the line that he doesn't 'board the tumbril'.

If Corbynist hypocrisy is at work then he needs to start throwing out some evidence on the other-side, after all we're talking about many of the ordinary members who were once in or aligned with the SWP and how long it took Rod Liddle to be locked in permanent suspension. Nor can you really claim that things were different back then while ignoring that internet posts from over 10 years ago don't set a new precedent.

Still, better than that shitshow we saw on Hignfy

>>83604
>Britfa.gs/pol/
>> No. 83606 Anonymous
29th October 2017
Sunday 5:51 pm
83606 spacer
>>83604
Play the ball, not the man.

>>83605
>Obscure internet posts seems like something O’Mara wouldn't be consciously aware of

He was making the posts around the time he became a Labour councillor, so he can't really use the excuse it was before he joined politics.
>> No. 83607 Anonymous
29th October 2017
Sunday 6:16 pm
83607 spacer
>>83605
You used to use your real name?

I guess I have to be thankful for my severe paranoia and schizophrenia. The voices are sometimes right.
>> No. 83608 Anonymous
29th October 2017
Sunday 7:17 pm
83608 spacer
>>83606
I'd say he can. In the early 00s it's not something that would pop into anyone's head given anonymity was still generally assumed and I'm still not even sure if terms like 'Marmite Motorway' count as homophobia given our cultures love of sex euphemisms.

Anyway, this is the point I was getting at, he signed a contract but 'past actions that could bring disrepute' is a rather nebulous and subjective clause that is largely decided upon retroactively. For example, if the Mrs occasionally pisses on me or I put her over my knee and spank her it can all seem like none of party business but it very much can be if we get labeled the Golden Showers or the police try and do me for BDSM -and that is stuff you would ordinarily flash across your mind. If this came up in a court of law it would be pretty easy to pick it apart on the red hand rule alone and if I were a party leader I would also be rather cautious with the whip anyway considering everyone has some skeletons in their closets.

>>83607
I had my MSN connected to my profile and later on added few of the other users on facebook. It probably wouldn't be too hard for the gutterpress to track me down even if I deleted all the posts or for old friends to blackmail me.

Fuck, and what about the chatlogs someone could well have on an old computer!
>> No. 83752 Anonymous
17th November 2017
Friday 11:28 am
83752 spacer
>>83608
"Fuck, and what about the chatlogs someone could well have on an old computer!"

I'm sure thats an issue for many early 2000's teenlads.
>> No. 83753 Anonymous
18th November 2017
Saturday 10:29 am
83753 spacer
They generally won't let people into parliament unless they've got some dirt on them. If you can't blackmail them by threat of character assassination then there's always a danger that someone principled might actually try to change things.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password