99 replies to this topic

[getdownmonkeyman]

How many of us on this forum, would keep their jobs if they 'wrongly' claimed their expenses?

[Bedford Roughyed]

They didn't have enough evidence to charge him.

More evidence is produced in this report, but that is covered by parliamentary privilege so can't be used by the police...

[metallithrax]

They didn't have enough evidence to charge him.

More evidence is produced in this report, but that is covered by parliamentary privilege so can't be used by the police...

Parliamentary Privilege - ###### - thieving scumbags should still be prosecuted.

[JohnM]

and now this- another cop to evade justice? http://www.independe...14-8278088.html

[Trojan]

I wonder if someone has released Bryant's name to the press because he's been giving Dave a hard time about embarassing emails and texts to Rebbekah Brookes?

[JohnM]

Maybe they have done it because he is a hypocrite

[Trojan]

Maybe they have done it because he is a hypocrite

Justify that claim John. And while you're at it prove that Cameron isn't a bigger one.

[Wolford6]

Justify that claim John. And while you're at it prove that Cameron isn't a bigger one.

This week, Bryant has had a go at Cameron about inappropriate text messages. His own record in the electronic media is far more embarrassing.

Approx halfway down the page:

http://isupportthere...y-1-labour.html

[Griff9of13]

This week, Bryant has had a go at Cameron about inappropriate text messages. His own record in the electronic media is far more embarrassing.

Approx halfway down the page:

http://isupportthere...y-1-labour.html

Ah, so what you're saying is that because Chris Bryant did something wrong and he then brings to our attention something the Dave Cameron has done wrong, the thing that Dave Cameron has done can't be wrong because Chris Bryant has done something equally as wrong, or worse?

Were you never taught as a child that "two wrongs don't make a right"?

Edit: I would appreciate in future that if you must post links to sites of the BNP you please warn us first.

Edited by Griff9of13, 06 November 2012 - 09:09 AM.

[Wolford6]

I didn't realise it was a BNP site; I just Google-imaged the famous shot and that was what came up. Even if the article is by the BNP, and I was genuinely unaware that it is, does that exclude it from being accurate?

Does your stressing of the word must by placing it in italics imply that you are accusing me of being a BNP supporter? I most certainly am not. I've also posted links from the Sydney Morning Herald and I'm not Australian either.

As for ' two wrongs don't make a right', I would counter that with 'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.

[JohnM]

something the Dave Cameron has done wrong,

remind us again... what has he done wrong? If it was this I'd understand, or even this but it isn't.

[Griff9of13]

I didn't realise it was a BNP site; I just Google-imaged the famous shot and that was what came up. Even if the article is by the BNP, and I was genuinely unaware that it is, does that exclude it from being accurate?

Does your stressing of the word must by placing it in italics imply that you are accusing me of being a BNP supporter? I most certainly am not. I've also posted links from the Sydney Morning Herald and I'm not Australian either.

As for ' two wrongs don't make a right', I would counter that with 'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.

If you didn't realise it was a BNP site then fair enough. My apologies.

[Severus]

Ah, so what you're saying is that because Chris Bryant did something wrong and he then brings to our attention something the Dave Cameron has done wrong, the thing that Dave Cameron has done can't be wrong because Chris Bryant has done something equally as wrong, or worse?

Were you never taught as a child that "two wrongs don't make a right"?

Edit: I would appreciate in future that if you must post links to sites of the BNP you please warn us first.

Is what Bryant has done wrong?

[JohnM]

by definition, yes.

[Wolford6]

Is what Bryant has done wrong?

Prior to being an MP, he was a vicar with a specific mission as a Youth Chaplain.

If you place his gaydar postings in this context, then, as a parent and grandparent, I would say morally wrong if not legally wrong.

It strikes me that, if he was my MP or a church minister offering spiritual guidance to my grandkids, I wouldn't give him any trust.

[Severus]

Prior to being an MP, he was a vicar with a specific mission as a Youth Chaplain.

If you place his gaydar postings in this context, then, as a parent and grandparent, I would say morally wrong if not legally wrong.

It strikes me that, if he was my MP or a church minister offering spiritual guidance to my grandkids, I wouldn't give him any trust.

What if Bryant was heterosexual and made similar DTF postings? Would that make a difference?

[Wolford6]

What if Bryant was heterosexual and made similar DTF postings? Would that make a difference?

Either way, if he was a schoolteacher ... a position of equivalent status and trust ... I think he'd have got sacked, and probably struck off the register.

Quite frankly, would you feel comfortable having him as a colleague who was acting as a personal tutor for potentially vulnerable eighteen year old students?

[WearyRhino]

Prior to being an MP, he was a vicar with a specific mission as a Youth Chaplain.

If you place his gaydar postings in this context, then, as a parent and grandparent, I would say morally wrong if not legally wrong.

It strikes me that, if he was my MP or a church minister offering spiritual guidance to my grandkids, I wouldn't give him any trust.

And those having religious office who have pledged to abstain from the 'sins' of the flesh have proved to be such excellent guides for the spirits and morals of the young haven't they?

[Severus]

Either way, if he was a schoolteacher ... a position of equivalent status and trust ... I think he'd have got sacked, and probably struck off the register.

Quite frankly, would you feel comfortable having him as a colleague who was acting as a personal tutor for potentially vulnerable eighteen year old students?

There are lots of people who use sites such as match.com to hook up with potential sexual partners. I don't think using them should affect someone's professional life.

Yes I would feel comfortable that someone could be a personal tutor to 18 year olds and use the internet to meet partners in their private life. Else celibates would be the only people we could trust (e.g., Priests).

Edited by Severus, 06 November 2012 - 03:05 PM.

[Wolford6]

And those having religious office who have pledged to abstain from the 'sins' of the flesh have proved to be such excellent guides for the spirits and morals of the young haven't they?

There are thousands of celibate priests .... Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist etc. Just because a very minor proportion have dodgy characters doesn't mean:
- that all priests should automatically be assumed to be dodgy characters.
- there is no reason why those who give an an indication of being a dodgy characters should not be selected for sensitive posts.