FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Angela Rayner departure
Angela Rayner departure
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many MPs of any party have been jailed for expenses fraud ?" Jeffrey Archer.. I think | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many MPs of any party have been jailed for expenses fraud ? Jeffrey Archer.. I think " That was for perverting the course of justice and perjury about meeting a sex worker. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many MPs of any party have been jailed for expenses fraud ?" Five Labour MPs went to jail in the 2009 Expenses scandal Remember Neidle, the Labour member and activist, also tax accountant - he pushed and pushed for action against Zahawi. Zahawi lost his ministerial job (still MP) but never faced criminal charges. Angela Rayner kept calling for him to resign! Funny how Neidle now totally quiet and Rayner now knows what it's like. So I am thinking possible hypocrite, to answer your question!! But I suppose to be fair to her, let's see what the investigation turns up. Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! " Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's called politics, expect to see more of same ahead of GE." The honeypot Grindr issue is quite intriguing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's called politics, expect to see more of same ahead of GE. The honeypot Grindr issue is quite intriguing" Embarrassing is the word I would use. The man is a liability and should never be trusted again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many MPs of any party have been jailed for expenses fraud ? Five Labour MPs went to jail in the 2009 Expenses scandal Remember Neidle, the Labour member and activist, also tax accountant - he pushed and pushed for action against Zahawi. Zahawi lost his ministerial job (still MP) but never faced criminal charges. Angela Rayner kept calling for him to resign! Funny how Neidle now totally quiet and Rayner now knows what it's like. So I am thinking possible hypocrite, to answer your question!! But I suppose to be fair to her, let's see what the investigation turns up. Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! " And mortgage fraud Peter Mandelson, who was never prosecuted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jared O'Mara Labour" O'Mara and Arnold were found guilty of six counts of expenses fraud, submitting invoices totalling £19,400 for a bogus company called Confident About Autism. He was convicted of six counts of fraud by false representation Rayners potential £1500 capital gains liability small beer by comparison. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! " Well if you know you have done nothing wrong….. Currygate was the daily mails and telegraph’s feeble attempt to conflate a meeting with the countless no.10 parties The police saw through that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lord Taylor and Lord Hanningford, Conservative Peers, were both jailed for expenses fraud" Taylor £11277, Hannington £3300 but was later acquitted. Are their salaries not enough. Recent ex chancellor Zahawi falsely claimed £5800 for electric to heat his horses stabling, at his second home. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She bought her council house under the 'right to buy' scheme. That's a scheme Labour have always opposed but hey, if there's a bargain to be had.... Just like Abbott sending her children to private schools because 'she wanted what was best for them.' Hypocrites both. " And under Labour, between 1997 and 2010 there were 2,780 council homes built with a peak of 320 in 2010. Since then, there have been 10,310 homes built by councils, under the Conservatives housing targets. For balance those building targets have now been removed from councils by the tories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Gillan (Conservative) claimed £4.47 for dog food !" And claimed back a £72.27 gas bill despite her statement showing her account was £26.72 in credit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From what I've seen, Rayner had said she'll step down if 'lfound guilty of 'breaking electoral law'. Maybe I'm overthinking this but does that mean she won't step down if found guilty of 'fraud', which is actually the real story here. " Well her boss is a lawyer, so her pronouncements will be carefully drafted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe there are mitigating circumstances in that she spent nine months in intensive care with her baby during the period in question. " I had covid but managed to file by self assessment return on time to avoid a fine And what about the carer who worked an extra shift at Sainsbury’s that just got screwed over by DWP If there is latitude, then for everyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe there are mitigating circumstances in that she spent nine months in intensive care with her baby during the period in question. " In 2008?? Still mitigates some responsibility 7 years later?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe there are mitigating circumstances in that she spent nine months in intensive care with her baby during the period in question. In 2008?? Still mitigates some responsibility 7 years later? "What is the date of the expert tax advice which is being withheld. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most people would avoid using the language which she used in referring to people as scum. Ironically she was always demanding that other politicians were investigated yet goes quiet when investigated herself . All she has to do is show copies of the addresses used on her pay slips , income tax returns , car registration ,carinsurance , bank statements and house insurance. What address does HMRC have for her. ? " Police have not been called because Rayner hasn't paid enough CGT, the Police have been called because of election reporting irregularities. The issue seems to be Rayner has used one address as her main residence for the purposes of standing for election enrolment, but was actually living at property B according to her CGT position/living arrangements that have been publicly discussed these last few days She is clearly in the shit with this and withholding her expert tax advice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe there are mitigating circumstances in that she spent nine months in intensive care with her baby during the period in question. In 2008?? Still mitigates some responsibility 7 years later?
What is the date of the expert tax advice which is being withheld. "No idea if it even exists. I just find a suggestion that something that happened 7 years prior somehow absolves some responsibility fucking hilarious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ongoing debacle of alledged tax avoidance from the sale of her previous main residence, and misleading information. Greater Manchester police said on Friday that they were investigating the sale of Angela Rayners council house in March 2015, after she was accused of giving false information about where she was living for the first five years of her marriage before she was elected as an MP in May 2015. It appears her stance is that the former home was her principle primarily residence which would not be subject to capital gains if sold within three years of changes to her primary address . The press saying she sold it five years after moving out, which would potentially make any capital gains taxable. Angela Rayner says she will step down if found to have committed a crime. Keir Starmer says his team have seen all the details and there is no case to answer. Is this a Tory witch-hunt at tax payers expense or is Angela, shadow housing minister, a tax dodging hypocrite to join her ex colleagues in financial dishonesty, more labour MPs jailed for expenses fraud than any other party. " More than Tories? That's hard to believe. Or maybe Tories are more into sleaze. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ?" And all corrupt judges are tory supporters  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many MPs of any party have been jailed for expenses fraud ? Five Labour MPs went to jail in the 2009 Expenses scandal Remember Neidle, the Labour member and activist, also tax accountant - he pushed and pushed for action against Zahawi. Zahawi lost his ministerial job (still MP) but never faced criminal charges. Angela Rayner kept calling for him to resign! Funny how Neidle now totally quiet and Rayner now knows what it's like. So I am thinking possible hypocrite, to answer your question!! But I suppose to be fair to her, let's see what the investigation turns up. Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! " neidle has done a number of articles on this. Irrc his promince with zahawi and indeed the post office is because he's breaking the stories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many MPs of any party have been jailed for expenses fraud ? Five Labour MPs went to jail in the 2009 Expenses scandal Remember Neidle, the Labour member and activist, also tax accountant - he pushed and pushed for action against Zahawi. Zahawi lost his ministerial job (still MP) but never faced criminal charges. Angela Rayner kept calling for him to resign! Funny how Neidle now totally quiet and Rayner now knows what it's like. So I am thinking possible hypocrite, to answer your question!! But I suppose to be fair to her, let's see what the investigation turns up. Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! neidle has done a number of articles on this. Irrc his promince with zahawi and indeed the post office is because he's breaking the stories. " also this came up first when I started looking for articles on Raynor https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2024/04/i-looked-into-angela-rayners-tax-affairs-heres-what-i-found | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I doubt Starmer would stick his neck out that far if he's seen the evidence. Yeah it looks like another Tory witch hunt" Witch will she is one  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ongoing debacle of alledged tax avoidance from the sale of her previous main residence, and misleading information. Greater Manchester police said on Friday that they were investigating the sale of Angela Rayners council house in March 2015, after she was accused of giving false information about where she was living for the first five years of her marriage before she was elected as an MP in May 2015. It appears her stance is that the former home was her principle primarily residence which would not be subject to capital gains if sold within three years of changes to her primary address . The press saying she sold it five years after moving out, which would potentially make any capital gains taxable. Angela Rayner says she will step down if found to have committed a crime. Keir Starmer says his team have seen all the details and there is no case to answer. Is this a Tory witch-hunt at tax payers expense or is Angela, shadow housing minister, a tax dodging hypocrite to join her ex colleagues in financial dishonesty, more labour MPs jailed for expenses fraud than any other party. " I would think that SKS has gone over this carefully for her and seems happy for her to continue so I'm guessing no laws were actually broken or can't be proven to have been broken. I hope this is not a sign of things to come. With Labour's position so close to the Tories the only glimmer was the hope Labour will not be as self serving and corrupt. I don't understand the Tory witch hunt thing. Just looks like some Labour person is under investigation and others are making political capital from it, just like Labour do when it's a Tory under investigation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ongoing debacle of alledged tax avoidance from the sale of her previous main residence, and misleading information. Greater Manchester police said on Friday that they were investigating the sale of Angela Rayners council house in March 2015, after she was accused of giving false information about where she was living for the first five years of her marriage before she was elected as an MP in May 2015. It appears her stance is that the former home was her principle primarily residence which would not be subject to capital gains if sold within three years of changes to her primary address . The press saying she sold it five years after moving out, which would potentially make any capital gains taxable. Angela Rayner says she will step down if found to have committed a crime. Keir Starmer says his team have seen all the details and there is no case to answer. Is this a Tory witch-hunt at tax payers expense or is Angela, shadow housing minister, a tax dodging hypocrite to join her ex colleagues in financial dishonesty, more labour MPs jailed for expenses fraud than any other party. I would think that SKS has gone over this carefully for her and seems happy for her to continue so I'm guessing no laws were actually broken or can't be proven to have been broken. I hope this is not a sign of things to come. With Labour's position so close to the Tories the only glimmer was the hope Labour will not be as self serving and corrupt. I don't understand the Tory witch hunt thing. Just looks like some Labour person is under investigation and others are making political capital from it, just like Labour do when it's a Tory under investigation." It was a the tory James Daly that has asked Manchester police to investigate again, due to them not following up on evidence. I guess it is driven by the tories, witch hunt, is a little strong but helps deflect. As for Starmer looking over the evidence, he knows as well as the rest of us, the police are far from competent, leading to a high % chance they will fail too dot the I's. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She's said she'll step down as deputy leader... hasn't mentioned stepping down as an MP or as Shadow Housing Secretary " If she's innocent, I have no issue with her staying in post. If not, she should leave politics. Is it too much to ask for an honest set of MPs across the board? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She's said she'll step down as deputy leader... hasn't mentioned stepping down as an MP or as Shadow Housing Secretary If she's innocent, I have no issue with her staying in post. If not, she should leave politics. Is it too much to ask for an honest set of MPs across the board?" Yes it is too much to ask, because MP's are people from the communities we live in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ?" No, just as I would not say they're all like Wayne Couzens, David Carrick and many others! I just think it's alarming the former DPP these days knows everything will be OK. That's the point I made. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ? No, just as I would not say they're all like Wayne Couzens, David Carrick and many others! I just think it's alarming the former DPP these days knows everything will be OK. That's the point I made. " Could it be that he's seen the evidence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ? No, just as I would not say they're all like Wayne Couzens, David Carrick and many others! I just think it's alarming the former DPP these days knows everything will be OK. That's the point I made. Could it be that he's seen the evidence?" What evidence can there be that makes her innocent? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ? No, just as I would not say they're all like Wayne Couzens, David Carrick and many others! I just think it's alarming the former DPP these days knows everything will be OK. That's the point I made. Could it be that he's seen the evidence? What evidence can there be that makes her innocent?" No idea I haven't seen any of it. I guess the police are going to look into it and come to whatever conclusion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ? No, just as I would not say they're all like Wayne Couzens, David Carrick and many others! I just think it's alarming the former DPP these days knows everything will be OK. That's the point I made. Could it be that he's seen the evidence? What evidence can there be that makes her innocent? No idea I haven't seen any of it. I guess the police are going to look into it and come to whatever conclusion. " Judging by Rayners own words and the write up by Dan Neidle I'd say if there was evidence of no wrongdoing she'd have released it already. It appears she opened her mouth to try to make the story go away but has inadvertently made it worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She's said she'll step down as deputy leader... hasn't mentioned stepping down as an MP or as Shadow Housing Secretary If she's innocent, I have no issue with her staying in post. If not, she should leave politics. Is it too much to ask for an honest set of MPs across the board? Yes it is too much to ask, because MP's are people from the communities we live in." Good point. Fallible human beings, like all of us. This is why it's laughable some voters think they will vote in a clean cut, honest and free from corruption Labour Party in the next 9 months! The last Labour lot brought us Bernie Ecclestone's corrupt £1m Donation to Labour to exempt formula 1 from tobacco adverts ban, Cherie Blair's Freebie Holidays, Mandelson sacked twice and his mortgage applications, Tony's cronies, cash for passports for Hinduja brothers, dodgy Iraq dossiers, 5 Labour MPs jailed for expenses fraud. At the time, Tony Blair insisted: "I am a pretty straight sort of guy." They're all the same, snouts in the trough! Changing from Tory to Labour won't do anything. Two cheeks of same backside. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ? No, just as I would not say they're all like Wayne Couzens, David Carrick and many others! I just think it's alarming the former DPP these days knows everything will be OK. That's the point I made. Could it be that he's seen the evidence? What evidence can there be that makes her innocent?" my prediction She filled out the electoral stuff correctly. No crime. She messed up the tax returns because she thought that there was no CGT on a house and so didn't go looking to do a self assessment. She will get a slap across the risk but will say it's a mistake rather than intentional. And possibly: a tax accountant has looked at the details and found despite that it wasn't her primary residence at the time, she spent enough on it to offset the gain. (Once allowing for allowances etc) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ? No, just as I would not say they're all like Wayne Couzens, David Carrick and many others! I just think it's alarming the former DPP these days knows everything will be OK. That's the point I made. Could it be that he's seen the evidence? What evidence can there be that makes her innocent? No idea I haven't seen any of it. I guess the police are going to look into it and come to whatever conclusion. Judging by Rayners own words and the write up by Dan Neidle I'd say if there was evidence of no wrongdoing she'd have released it already. It appears she opened her mouth to try to make the story go away but has inadvertently made it worse. " Time will tell and she'll either stay or go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ? No, just as I would not say they're all like Wayne Couzens, David Carrick and many others! I just think it's alarming the former DPP these days knows everything will be OK. That's the point I made. Could it be that he's seen the evidence?" I doubt Police have shown Starmer anything they've dug up. Starmer will have seen what Rayner wants him to see. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ? No, just as I would not say they're all like Wayne Couzens, David Carrick and many others! I just think it's alarming the former DPP these days knows everything will be OK. That's the point I made. Could it be that he's seen the evidence? I doubt Police have shown Starmer anything they've dug up. Starmer will have seen what Rayner wants him to see. " Quite a few people on here seem to feel they know what evidence is available. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ? No, just as I would not say they're all like Wayne Couzens, David Carrick and many others! I just think it's alarming the former DPP these days knows everything will be OK. That's the point I made. Could it be that he's seen the evidence? What evidence can there be that makes her innocent?my prediction She filled out the electoral stuff correctly. No crime. She messed up the tax returns because she thought that there was no CGT on a house and so didn't go looking to do a self assessment. She will get a slap across the risk but will say it's a mistake rather than intentional. And possibly: a tax accountant has looked at the details and found despite that it wasn't her primary residence at the time, she spent enough on it to offset the gain. (Once allowing for allowances etc) " Think you're probably right. I think what irks most people is her hypocritical howling for Tory resignations, like Zahawi. He settled up with Taxman after misunderstanding. She will do same. This is why you have to be careful if you live in glass houses. Stones will be thrown back at you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ? No, just as I would not say they're all like Wayne Couzens, David Carrick and many others! I just think it's alarming the former DPP these days knows everything will be OK. That's the point I made. Could it be that he's seen the evidence? What evidence can there be that makes her innocent?my prediction She filled out the electoral stuff correctly. No crime. She messed up the tax returns because she thought that there was no CGT on a house and so didn't go looking to do a self assessment. She will get a slap across the risk but will say it's a mistake rather than intentional. And possibly: a tax accountant has looked at the details and found despite that it wasn't her primary residence at the time, she spent enough on it to offset the gain. (Once allowing for allowances etc) " I don't believe she filled out the electoral stuff correctly judging by comments made by others, and the fact her kids 'lived' with her husband. I could understand her messing up the tax returns as CGT in that instance isn't something too many people would know much about, however, she said she tax advice from tax experts, so either she fiddled or she's lying about taking advice. Lastly, if she had enhancement expenditure, surely she would've just said that. All the cloak and dagger makes me suspicious. Probably a slap on the wrist but still, judging again by her own words, she should step down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ongoing debacle of alledged tax avoidance from the sale of her previous main residence, and misleading information. Greater Manchester police said on Friday that they were investigating the sale of Angela Rayners council house in March 2015, after she was accused of giving false information about where she was living for the first five years of her marriage before she was elected as an MP in May 2015. It appears her stance is that the former home was her principle primarily residence which would not be subject to capital gains if sold within three years of changes to her primary address . The press saying she sold it five years after moving out, which would potentially make any capital gains taxable. Angela Rayner says she will step down if found to have committed a crime. Keir Starmer says his team have seen all the details and there is no case to answer. Is this a Tory witch-hunt at tax payers expense or is Angela, shadow housing minister, a tax dodging hypocrite to join her ex colleagues in financial dishonesty, more labour MPs jailed for expenses fraud than any other party. I would think that SKS has gone over this carefully for her and seems happy for her to continue so I'm guessing no laws were actually broken or can't be proven to have been broken. I hope this is not a sign of things to come. With Labour's position so close to the Tories the only glimmer was the hope Labour will not be as self serving and corrupt. I don't understand the Tory witch hunt thing. Just looks like some Labour person is under investigation and others are making political capital from it, just like Labour do when it's a Tory under investigation. It was a the tory James Daly that has asked Manchester police to investigate again, due to them not following up on evidence. I guess it is driven by the tories, witch hunt, is a little strong but helps deflect. As for Starmer looking over the evidence, he knows as well as the rest of us, the police are far from competent, leading to a high % chance they will fail too dot the I's." Ok thanks, that kind of explains the accusations of Tory witch hunt. That said it is for the police to decide if further investigation is needed though raises the question, has new evidence come to light since they first looked at it or was the evidence there at the start, but for whatever reason they dismissed it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ? No, just as I would not say they're all like Wayne Couzens, David Carrick and many others! I just think it's alarming the former DPP these days knows everything will be OK. That's the point I made. Could it be that he's seen the evidence? What evidence can there be that makes her innocent?my prediction She filled out the electoral stuff correctly. No crime. She messed up the tax returns because she thought that there was no CGT on a house and so didn't go looking to do a self assessment. She will get a slap across the risk but will say it's a mistake rather than intentional. And possibly: a tax accountant has looked at the details and found despite that it wasn't her primary residence at the time, she spent enough on it to offset the gain. (Once allowing for allowances etc) " It does seem to come down to did she do it deliberately or just an honest error. Difficult to prove it was deliberate I would have thought, but who knows. People often say that those in office should be held to a higher standard and if she gets through this will be in office shortly. Best get used to the extra scrutiny now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She's said she'll step down as deputy leader... hasn't mentioned stepping down as an MP or as Shadow Housing Secretary If she's innocent, I have no issue with her staying in post. If not, she should leave politics. Is it too much to ask for an honest set of MPs across the board? Yes it is too much to ask, because MP's are people from the communities we live in. Good point. Fallible human beings, like all of us. This is why it's laughable some voters think they will vote in a clean cut, honest and free from corruption Labour Party in the next 9 months! The last Labour lot brought us Bernie Ecclestone's corrupt £1m Donation to Labour to exempt formula 1 from tobacco adverts ban, Cherie Blair's Freebie Holidays, Mandelson sacked twice and his mortgage applications, Tony's cronies, cash for passports for Hinduja brothers, dodgy Iraq dossiers, 5 Labour MPs jailed for expenses fraud. At the time, Tony Blair insisted: "I am a pretty straight sort of guy." They're all the same, snouts in the trough! Changing from Tory to Labour won't do anything. Two cheeks of same backside. " There's a huge difference between a fallible human being and lying shyster. Sadly most of the 650 or so in parliament are the latter but that doesn't mean we can't hope for honesty in the role | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She's said she'll step down as deputy leader... hasn't mentioned stepping down as an MP or as Shadow Housing Secretary If she's innocent, I have no issue with her staying in post. If not, she should leave politics. Is it too much to ask for an honest set of MPs across the board? Yes it is too much to ask, because MP's are people from the communities we live in. Good point. Fallible human beings, like all of us. This is why it's laughable some voters think they will vote in a clean cut, honest and free from corruption Labour Party in the next 9 months! The last Labour lot brought us Bernie Ecclestone's corrupt £1m Donation to Labour to exempt formula 1 from tobacco adverts ban, Cherie Blair's Freebie Holidays, Mandelson sacked twice and his mortgage applications, Tony's cronies, cash for passports for Hinduja brothers, dodgy Iraq dossiers, 5 Labour MPs jailed for expenses fraud. At the time, Tony Blair insisted: "I am a pretty straight sort of guy." They're all the same, snouts in the trough! Changing from Tory to Labour won't do anything. Two cheeks of same backside. There's a huge difference between a fallible human being and lying shyster. Sadly most of the 650 or so in parliament are the latter but that doesn't mean we can't hope for honesty in the role" It's the fallibility that causes the lying shysters to so behave? Or where is the crossover point? The people on here with unaware spouses /partners, are they fallible? Or lying shysters? Hope for honesty, generally end up disappointed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think what irks most people is her hypocritical howling for Tory resignations, like Zahawi. He settled up with Taxman after misunderstanding. " A misunderstanding ? He owed £3.7 million. Does he not have an accountant ? The most Rayner might owe is £3 thousand. A bit of a difference ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Gillan (Conservative) claimed £4.47 for dog food !" Pathetic. I think the entire expenses swizz should be looked into why the hell are they claiming for dog food! Oh it’s because they’re allowed, what a swizz. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think what irks most people is her hypocritical howling for Tory resignations, like Zahawi. He settled up with Taxman after misunderstanding. A misunderstanding ? He owed £3.7 million. Does he not have an accountant ? The most Rayner might owe is £3 thousand. A bit of a difference !" Optics are important. If a bank robber takes £3k or £300k the act of taking is still the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ? No, just as I would not say they're all like Wayne Couzens, David Carrick and many others! I just think it's alarming the former DPP these days knows everything will be OK. That's the point I made. Could it be that he's seen the evidence? What evidence can there be that makes her innocent?" Perhaps that she lived in the house? Of all things for the police to be investigating, this seems like a very minor potential infringement, when serious crimes aren't investigated, due to resource deficits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ? No, just as I would not say they're all like Wayne Couzens, David Carrick and many others! I just think it's alarming the former DPP these days knows everything will be OK. That's the point I made. Could it be that he's seen the evidence? What evidence can there be that makes her innocent?my prediction She filled out the electoral stuff correctly. No crime. She messed up the tax returns because she thought that there was no CGT on a house and so didn't go looking to do a self assessment. She will get a slap across the risk but will say it's a mistake rather than intentional. And possibly: a tax accountant has looked at the details and found despite that it wasn't her primary residence at the time, she spent enough on it to offset the gain. (Once allowing for allowances etc) It does seem to come down to did she do it deliberately or just an honest error. Difficult to prove it was deliberate I would have thought, but who knows. People often say that those in office should be held to a higher standard and if she gets through this will be in office shortly. Best get used to the extra scrutiny now" Don't forget that she was not an MP at the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think what irks most people is her hypocritical howling for Tory resignations, like Zahawi. He settled up with Taxman after misunderstanding. A misunderstanding ? He owed £3.7 million. Does he not have an accountant ? The most Rayner might owe is £3 thousand. A bit of a difference !" To me, this is very much the point. Whether she committed fraud knowingly or not, it is peanuts. It will cost a lot more to investigate than to retrieve. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Angela Rayner the council house raider" She was entitled... What's the issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think what irks most people is her hypocritical howling for Tory resignations, like Zahawi. He settled up with Taxman after misunderstanding. A misunderstanding ? He owed £3.7 million. Does he not have an accountant ? The most Rayner might owe is £3 thousand. A bit of a difference !" . These are two entirely different scenarios In the case of Zahami the query related to allocation of founder shares in YouTube. HMRC disagreed with the basis of the allocation but stated that it was a careless but not deliberate error. HMRC agreed with Zahawis accountants that he had never set up an offshore structure including Baltshore Investments , nor was he a beneficiary of Balshore investment . As the case was a matter of opinion Zahawi could have contested it. Angela Rayner loves holding people to account but is reluctant to release any information when she herself is under investigation for fraud. All she has to do is publish the address on her bank and credit card statements,car registration documents , labour party membership address and any loyalty schemes of which she is a member. She could save a lot of public money by disclosing all this information and resigning . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you read what shes actually said, she will step down if shes broke electoral law, nothing about stepping down if shes broken the law" That makes no sense. Breaking electoral law is breaking the law! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think what irks most people is her hypocritical howling for Tory resignations, like Zahawi. He settled up with Taxman after misunderstanding. A misunderstanding ? He owed £3.7 million. Does he not have an accountant ? The most Rayner might owe is £3 thousand. A bit of a difference !" Agreed. But breaking the law is still breaking the law. The degree to which that is done is reflected in the sentence. 56mph in a 30 will be punished more severely than 36mph in a 30. Gradient-based punishment I think they call it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Gillan (Conservative) claimed £4.47 for dog food ! Pathetic. I think the entire expenses swizz should be looked into why the hell are they claiming for dog food! Oh it’s because they’re allowed, what a swizz. " It was. 5 Labour Mps went to jail on the gradient-based punishment principle. Nobody is going to jail for £4.47. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ? No, just as I would not say they're all like Wayne Couzens, David Carrick and many others! I just think it's alarming the former DPP these days knows everything will be OK. That's the point I made. Could it be that he's seen the evidence? What evidence can there be that makes her innocent?my prediction She filled out the electoral stuff correctly. No crime. She messed up the tax returns because she thought that there was no CGT on a house and so didn't go looking to do a self assessment. She will get a slap across the risk but will say it's a mistake rather than intentional. And possibly: a tax accountant has looked at the details and found despite that it wasn't her primary residence at the time, she spent enough on it to offset the gain. (Once allowing for allowances etc) It does seem to come down to did she do it deliberately or just an honest error. Difficult to prove it was deliberate I would have thought, but who knows. People often say that those in office should be held to a higher standard and if she gets through this will be in office shortly. Best get used to the extra scrutiny now Don't forget that she was not an MP at the time." I haven't forgotten she became an MP in 2015. But like all of us, she still had to keep to the law on CGT, giving truthful information about where she was living for the first five years of her marriage before she was elected as an MP in May 2015 and on potentially claiming the 25% council tax discount for single residency. This is what is being looked into, as it would be for all of us. Nobody is above the law. MP or otherwise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think what irks most people is her hypocritical howling for Tory resignations, like Zahawi. He settled up with Taxman after misunderstanding. A misunderstanding ? He owed £3.7 million. Does he not have an accountant ? The most Rayner might owe is £3 thousand. A bit of a difference ! Optics are important. If a bank robber takes £3k or £300k the act of taking is still the same." 100% correct. The bank cashier is as terrified, whatever the amount or intent of amount to steal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think what irks most people is her hypocritical howling for Tory resignations, like Zahawi. He settled up with Taxman after misunderstanding. A misunderstanding ? He owed £3.7 million. Does he not have an accountant ? The most Rayner might owe is £3 thousand. A bit of a difference ! Optics are important. If a bank robber takes £3k or £300k the act of taking is still the same. 100% correct. The bank cashier is as terrified, whatever the amount or intent of amount to steal. " some crimes have have different penalties for how severe it is. Eg speeding. Intent also matters. Some analogies are better than othera ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think what irks most people is her hypocritical howling for Tory resignations, like Zahawi. He settled up with Taxman after misunderstanding. A misunderstanding ? He owed £3.7 million. Does he not have an accountant ? The most Rayner might owe is £3 thousand. A bit of a difference ! Optics are important. If a bank robber takes £3k or £300k the act of taking is still the same. 100% correct. The bank cashier is as terrified, whatever the amount or intent of amount to steal. some crimes have have different penalties for how severe it is. Eg speeding. Intent also matters. Some analogies are better than othera ! " Speeding | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! Are you saying all Police are corrupt Labour supporters ? No, just as I would not say they're all like Wayne Couzens, David Carrick and many others! I just think it's alarming the former DPP these days knows everything will be OK. That's the point I made. Could it be that he's seen the evidence? What evidence can there be that makes her innocent? Perhaps that she lived in the house? Of all things for the police to be investigating, this seems like a very minor potential infringement, when serious crimes aren't investigated, due to resource deficits." Perhaps she did live alone in the house without her husband and children. Witnesses say differently and this is what is being investigated. If it turns out she's in the clear then that's sound, I have no issue with it, I'm very doubtful though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you prove that someone wasn't somewhere. I live in a cul de sac and rarely see or take notice of anyone more than a house away." Most neighbours tend to know who lives in what house. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you prove that someone wasn't somewhere. I live in a cul de sac and rarely see or take notice of anyone more than a house away. Most neighbours tend to know who lives in what house. " Knowing and proving are unlikely to work | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you prove that someone wasn't somewhere. I live in a cul de sac and rarely see or take notice of anyone more than a house away. Most neighbours tend to know who lives in what house. Knowing and proving are unlikely to work" I guess thats why they need to investigate. Probably speak to neighbours etc. I don't know what the investigation will entail. What I do know is Rayner is a gobshite who may well fall on her own hypocrisy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are they investigating? Eg what's the offence. I've tried to work out but reports keep talking about cgt. " They're investigating whether she lied on the electoral register. If they conclude she did then they'll have to go after her for tax evasion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are they investigating? Eg what's the offence. I've tried to work out but reports keep talking about cgt. They're investigating whether she lied on the electoral register. If they conclude she did then they'll have to go after her for tax evasion. " which one did she say she lived at ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are they investigating? Eg what's the offence. I've tried to work out but reports keep talking about cgt. They're investigating whether she lied on the electoral register. If they conclude she did then they'll have to go after her for tax evasion. which one did she say she lived at ?" She said she lived at the property (hers) she sold, without her husband and kids. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you prove that someone wasn't somewhere. I live in a cul de sac and rarely see or take notice of anyone more than a house away." In order to check the validity of the Single Person Discount, all accounts in receipt of the 25% discount are passed to a credit referencing agency, like Experian, who perform a search against the property and not the individual. Experian, for instance, then compare addresses against over 1 billion records covering 45 million UK residents drawn from over 750 data sources and provide Council with a list of adults who are associated with the property. These searches are drawn from Consumer Credit Agreements, previous credit applications, the electoral register, address links (unique to firms like Experian) where the customer gives a forwarding/previous address to a lender, alias data (again unique to the likes of Experian) and mortality data (taken from deaths register, insurance records etc). If there is evidence that another individual could be living at the property, then the Council is provided with the following information: Name Date of birth Residency score, indicating the strength of the data linking the individual to the address The first and last date the individual is showing as active Whether or not there is evidence to suggest the individual is financially connected to the claimant. The Council also makes surprise visits to claimants' homes to establish whether other people are also living there. They won't reveal other methods they use for obvious reasons. If a new partner has moved in, new tenant or lodger has moved in, a relative has moved in or a child has turned 18, best update your Council tax! Sydney University obviously monitors the situation too, but so far Councils disregard a meet off Fab, for less than an hour, as a new permanent resident. Apparently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What I do know is Rayner is a gobshite who may well fall on her own hypocrisy. " There are millions like you hoping this is what happens. If she's done nothing wrong, fair go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are they investigating? Eg what's the offence. I've tried to work out but reports keep talking about cgt. " Rayner MAY have wrongly declared which house was her permanent address on the electoral roll, which is a criminal offence. Rayner MAY have had to pay capital gains tax on the 2015 sale of her council house, owing to the confusion over whether it was her principal residency. The 25% single resident discount MAY have been falsely claimed. Rayner bought her former council house in 2007 under the right-to-buy scheme, and is said to have made a £48,500 profit when she sold it eight years later. She was registered as living at that house, on Vicarage Road, Stockport, on the electoral roll until the sale in 2015. But she appears to have given a different address when she re-registered the births of two of her children in 2010 following her marriage to Mark Rayner, listing her then-husband's home on Lowndes Lane, Stockport. There are claims that when she was visited at the Lowndes Lane property around the time she became a parliamentary candidate, there was absolutely no doubt that this was Rayner's family home, where she lived with her then husband, Mark. Apparently according to the electoral register, her brother lived with her husband, the two kids and cats appearing in photos on FB, and she lived alone. The 2011 census is now being looked at, and she MAY have committed address fraud for school choice. Other things allegedly being looked at are utility bills /consumption at each address at the time. It's apparently so thorough, if there's a cover up, it will be found. If she's cleared, then fair enough. Either way she'll have to accept that when you become an MP, not just a Tory MP, your life is an open book. It'll get no better for her in Government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you prove that someone wasn't somewhere. I live in a cul de sac and rarely see or take notice of anyone more than a house away. Most neighbours tend to know who lives in what house. Knowing and proving are unlikely to work I guess thats why they need to investigate. Probably speak to neighbours etc. I don't know what the investigation will entail. What I do know is Rayner is a gobshite who may well fall on her own hypocrisy. " You forgot to add that its just your opinion that shes a gobshite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What I do know is Rayner is a gobshite who may well fall on her own hypocrisy. There are millions like you hoping this is what happens. If she's done nothing wrong, fair go. " I said further above if she's done nothing wrong then fair, I've no issue with it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you prove that someone wasn't somewhere. I live in a cul de sac and rarely see or take notice of anyone more than a house away. Most neighbours tend to know who lives in what house. Knowing and proving are unlikely to work I guess thats why they need to investigate. Probably speak to neighbours etc. I don't know what the investigation will entail. What I do know is Rayner is a gobshite who may well fall on her own hypocrisy. You forgot to add that its just your opinion that shes a gobshite." Being that I was the person writing, it's obviously my opinion. Calling someone a gobshite isn't some declaration of fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you prove that someone wasn't somewhere. I live in a cul de sac and rarely see or take notice of anyone more than a house away. Most neighbours tend to know who lives in what house. Knowing and proving are unlikely to work I guess thats why they need to investigate. Probably speak to neighbours etc. I don't know what the investigation will entail. What I do know is Rayner is a gobshite who may well fall on her own hypocrisy. You forgot to add that its just your opinion that shes a gobshite. Being that I was the person writing, it's obviously my opinion. Calling someone a gobshite isn't some declaration of fact. " So why do you think she is stupid? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you prove that someone wasn't somewhere. I live in a cul de sac and rarely see or take notice of anyone more than a house away. Most neighbours tend to know who lives in what house. Knowing and proving are unlikely to work I guess thats why they need to investigate. Probably speak to neighbours etc. I don't know what the investigation will entail. What I do know is Rayner is a gobshite who may well fall on her own hypocrisy. You forgot to add that its just your opinion that shes a gobshite. Being that I was the person writing, it's obviously my opinion. Calling someone a gobshite isn't some declaration of fact. So why do you think she is stupid?" I don't believe I've said she is stupid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you prove that someone wasn't somewhere. I live in a cul de sac and rarely see or take notice of anyone more than a house away. Most neighbours tend to know who lives in what house. Knowing and proving are unlikely to work I guess thats why they need to investigate. Probably speak to neighbours etc. I don't know what the investigation will entail. What I do know is Rayner is a gobshite who may well fall on her own hypocrisy. You forgot to add that its just your opinion that shes a gobshite. Being that I was the person writing, it's obviously my opinion. Calling someone a gobshite isn't some declaration of fact. So why do you think she is stupid? I don't believe I've said she is stupid. " Thats what gobshite means | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you prove that someone wasn't somewhere. I live in a cul de sac and rarely see or take notice of anyone more than a house away. Most neighbours tend to know who lives in what house. Knowing and proving are unlikely to work I guess thats why they need to investigate. Probably speak to neighbours etc. I don't know what the investigation will entail. What I do know is Rayner is a gobshite who may well fall on her own hypocrisy. You forgot to add that its just your opinion that shes a gobshite. Being that I was the person writing, it's obviously my opinion. Calling someone a gobshite isn't some declaration of fact. So why do you think she is stupid? I don't believe I've said she is stupid. Thats what gobshite means" Gobshite: a stupid, foolish or incompetent person. You're welcome  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you prove that someone wasn't somewhere. I live in a cul de sac and rarely see or take notice of anyone more than a house away. Most neighbours tend to know who lives in what house. Knowing and proving are unlikely to work I guess thats why they need to investigate. Probably speak to neighbours etc. I don't know what the investigation will entail. What I do know is Rayner is a gobshite who may well fall on her own hypocrisy. You forgot to add that its just your opinion that shes a gobshite. Being that I was the person writing, it's obviously my opinion. Calling someone a gobshite isn't some declaration of fact. So why do you think she is stupid? I don't believe I've said she is stupid. Thats what gobshite means Gobshite: a stupid, foolish or incompetent person. You're welcome "yip ,but you dont think she is stupid,your welome | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you prove that someone wasn't somewhere. I live in a cul de sac and rarely see or take notice of anyone more than a house away. Most neighbours tend to know who lives in what house. Knowing and proving are unlikely to work I guess thats why they need to investigate. Probably speak to neighbours etc. I don't know what the investigation will entail. What I do know is Rayner is a gobshite who may well fall on her own hypocrisy. You forgot to add that its just your opinion that shes a gobshite. Being that I was the person writing, it's obviously my opinion. Calling someone a gobshite isn't some declaration of fact. So why do you think she is stupid? I don't believe I've said she is stupid. Thats what gobshite means Gobshite: a stupid, foolish or incompetent person. You're welcome yip ,but you dont think she is stupid,your welome
"What? Are you serious? There's 3 words in that definition and it could be any one of them. I'm actually shocked I'm having to explain this to an adult. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you prove that someone wasn't somewhere. I live in a cul de sac and rarely see or take notice of anyone more than a house away. Most neighbours tend to know who lives in what house. Knowing and proving are unlikely to work I guess thats why they need to investigate. Probably speak to neighbours etc. I don't know what the investigation will entail. What I do know is Rayner is a gobshite who may well fall on her own hypocrisy. You forgot to add that its just your opinion that shes a gobshite. Being that I was the person writing, it's obviously my opinion. Calling someone a gobshite isn't some declaration of fact. So why do you think she is stupid? I don't believe I've said she is stupid. Thats what gobshite means Gobshite: a stupid, foolish or incompetent person. You're welcome yip ,but you dont think she is stupid,your welome
What? Are you serious?
There's 3 words in that definition and it could be any one of them. I'm actually shocked I'm having to explain this to an adult.
"So what is it that in your opinin makes her a gobshite and why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you prove that someone wasn't somewhere. I live in a cul de sac and rarely see or take notice of anyone more than a house away. Most neighbours tend to know who lives in what house. Knowing and proving are unlikely to work I guess thats why they need to investigate. Probably speak to neighbours etc. I don't know what the investigation will entail. What I do know is Rayner is a gobshite who may well fall on her own hypocrisy. You forgot to add that its just your opinion that shes a gobshite. Being that I was the person writing, it's obviously my opinion. Calling someone a gobshite isn't some declaration of fact. So why do you think she is stupid? I don't believe I've said she is stupid. Thats what gobshite means Gobshite: a stupid, foolish or incompetent person. You're welcome yip ,but you dont think she is stupid,your welome
What? Are you serious?
There's 3 words in that definition and it could be any one of them. I'm actually shocked I'm having to explain this to an adult.
"oh and your not explaining anything to me,as i know what it means | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you prove that someone wasn't somewhere. I live in a cul de sac and rarely see or take notice of anyone more than a house away. Most neighbours tend to know who lives in what house. Knowing and proving are unlikely to work I guess thats why they need to investigate. Probably speak to neighbours etc. I don't know what the investigation will entail. What I do know is Rayner is a gobshite who may well fall on her own hypocrisy. You forgot to add that its just your opinion that shes a gobshite. Being that I was the person writing, it's obviously my opinion. Calling someone a gobshite isn't some declaration of fact. So why do you think she is stupid? I don't believe I've said she is stupid. Thats what gobshite means Gobshite: a stupid, foolish or incompetent person. You're welcome yip ,but you dont think she is stupid,your welome
What? Are you serious?
There's 3 words in that definition and it could be any one of them. I'm actually shocked I'm having to explain this to an adult.
oh and your not explaining anything to me,as i know what it means "You obviously woke up looking for an argument. I don't have the energy for you today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way." I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'?" I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you prove that someone wasn't somewhere. I live in a cul de sac and rarely see or take notice of anyone more than a house away. Most neighbours tend to know who lives in what house. Knowing and proving are unlikely to work I guess thats why they need to investigate. Probably speak to neighbours etc. I don't know what the investigation will entail. What I do know is Rayner is a gobshite who may well fall on her own hypocrisy. You forgot to add that its just your opinion that shes a gobshite. Being that I was the person writing, it's obviously my opinion. Calling someone a gobshite isn't some declaration of fact. So why do you think she is stupid? I don't believe I've said she is stupid. Thats what gobshite means Gobshite: a stupid, foolish or incompetent person. You're welcome yip ,but you dont think she is stupid,your welome
What? Are you serious?
There's 3 words in that definition and it could be any one of them. I'm actually shocked I'm having to explain this to an adult.
oh and your not explaining anything to me,as i know what it means
You obviously woke up looking for an argument. I don't have the energy for you today."So hou cant answer why shes foolish or incompetent ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern." That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. " It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!)" You gave an example only to debunk your own example
I chose Luton because its south as opposed to your North. And because there are at least 2 men from that town who many would recognise as gobshites.
As far as working class goes, I'm sure we can find 'upper class', JRM or Boris Johnson aren't working class. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!) You gave an example only to debunk your own example
I chose Luton because its south as opposed to your North. And because there are at least 2 men from that town who many would recognise as gobshites.
As far as working class goes, I'm sure we can find 'upper class', JRM or Boris Johnson aren't working class. "I think Rishi’s trainers are outliers lol I still believe what I said in my opening post though. People like Rayner are perceived a certain way because of their gender, their “class”, their origins. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!) You gave an example only to debunk your own example
I chose Luton because its south as opposed to your North. And because there are at least 2 men from that town who many would recognise as gobshites.
As far as working class goes, I'm sure we can find 'upper class', JRM or Boris Johnson aren't working class.
I think Rishi’s trainers are outliers lol
I still believe what I said in my opening post though. People like Rayner are perceived a certain way because of their gender, their “class”, their origins."If you perceive that way, then you're speaking about yourself. Don't throw me into the mix with you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!) You gave an example only to debunk your own example
I chose Luton because its south as opposed to your North. And because there are at least 2 men from that town who many would recognise as gobshites.
As far as working class goes, I'm sure we can find 'upper class', JRM or Boris Johnson aren't working class.
I think Rishi’s trainers are outliers lol
I still believe what I said in my opening post though. People like Rayner are perceived a certain way because of their gender, their “class”, their origins.
If you perceive that way, then you're speaking about yourself. Don't throw me into the mix with you. "Very very well said! The thing about perception is that it’s in the eye of the beholder. The moment you tell someone their perception of something is wrong, or it's a, b and c, you’ve officially invalidated their experience and, in a sense, part of who they are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!) You gave an example only to debunk your own example
I chose Luton because its south as opposed to your North. And because there are at least 2 men from that town who many would recognise as gobshites.
As far as working class goes, I'm sure we can find 'upper class', JRM or Boris Johnson aren't working class.
I think Rishi’s trainers are outliers lol
I still believe what I said in my opening post though. People like Rayner are perceived a certain way because of their gender, their “class”, their origins.
If you perceive that way, then you're speaking about yourself. Don't throw me into the mix with you. "Whose talking about you? Look at my first post. I specifically made the point this was nit about you and that I was only referencing the word gobshite as it was a good example. I think you spend so much time on here arguing with people that you think everyone is therefore having a dig or arguing with you! They aren’t! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who’s Before I come a croppa from the spelling and grammar police." Too late: Croppa is a pale-green metallic ore vein, dotted by deep purple crystals jutting from its surface. tic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who’s Before I come a croppa from the spelling and grammar police. Too late: Croppa is a pale-green metallic ore vein, dotted by deep purple crystals jutting from its surface. tic "And the comms cops still coming for you for : "this was nit about you"!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who’s Before I come a croppa from the spelling and grammar police. Too late: Croppa is a pale-green metallic ore vein, dotted by deep purple crystals jutting from its surface. tic "Lolz | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who’s Before I come a croppa from the spelling and grammar police. Too late: Croppa is a pale-green metallic ore vein, dotted by deep purple crystals jutting from its surface. tic
And the comms cops still coming for you for :
"this was nit about you"!! "Fat thumbs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case "*that* necklace... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! " I thought they were cleared because they hadn't done anything wrong. Despite the best efforts of the Daily Mail, sharing a curry after work (at a time when this was allowed by the lock down rules) is nothing like regular d*unken parties at a time in lockdown when this was very clearly illegal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case ".Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to. Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children . Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at. Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience "£19bn Bank of England market bailout for this retards seven weeks as PM. Now collecting £115k pa pension. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience "And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it! 
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?"probably because male m.ps wear the same boring suits as everyone else | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?"Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers. From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Alarming that just like Currygate, Keir and company already know they'll be in the clear after a generous whitewash?! I thought they were cleared because they hadn't done anything wrong. Despite the best efforts of the Daily Mail, sharing a curry after work (at a time when this was allowed by the lock down rules) is nothing like regular d*unken parties at a time in lockdown when this was very clearly illegal " Oh, you mean the event where they couldn't remember whether Rayner was there and then when video evidence emerged, Labour 'remembered' she was? And who drinks beer at work? Shame on Lab and Tories in this respect. Perception is everything these days and Beergate stank. The Tory MP who reported Angela Rayner to the police amid an ongoing row over the sale of her council house refused to explain what alleged offences he thought she had committed. However, James Daly, the Conservative Party deputy chairman, failed to answer the question of what laws were broken three times during an awkward exchange on the BBC’s Daily Politics programme. The possible offences are all in the public domain. They must stop sending ill-prepared interviewees to that programme, Jo Coburn is good as presenter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say. "Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?". It looks like you need to read those newspapers which you receive daily a little more carefully. Rishi Sunaks shoes were mentioned on numerous occasions as were his trousers. People were commenting that his trousers always appeared to be too short. The dress sense of Boris Johnson was a topic of discussion in the press on many occasions . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience "She literally had to be removed as she was damaging the markets and therefore country, an absolute disaster as PM, it was the market that removed her not 'woke left' or whatever she is claiming now, they literally couldn't sell bonds because of her incompetence. Stop trying to revise reality Pat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men."I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged! You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
She literally had to be removed as she was damaging the markets and therefore country, an absolute disaster as PM, it was the market that removed her not 'woke left' or whatever she is claiming now, they literally couldn't sell bonds because of her incompetence. Stop trying to revise reality Pat.". It is a pity more people did not take a longer term view of the market and ignore short term fluctuations . She was vastly superior to the present pm and had she remained in power we would be reaping the awards now . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many MPs of any party have been jailed for expenses fraud ?" Currently there are a lot of Tories to choose from. ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many MPs of any party have been jailed for expenses fraud ? Currently there are a lot of Tories to choose from. ! " Parliament was rocked by the expenses scandal in 2009, so politicians pledged to clean up their act. MPs of both parties have generally done this, but the last MP to go to jail (all such MP prisoners have been Labour by the way) was Jared O’Mara who was found guilty of making fraudulent expense claims to fund a “galloping” cocaine habit. O’Mara, 41, was a Labour MP between 2017 and 2019, who submitted fake invoices to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to help fund his addiction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
"We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example. "Not just me saying it… https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
"I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick. I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
"This has been interesting to read. I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed. To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
This has been interesting to read.
I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed.
To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing."Clearly I disagree and anyone who cares to research it will find plenty of examples. Theresa May’s shoes come to mind. Happy to concede my use of “never” in relation to menswear was not accurate but I will revise and stick to “rarely” and continue to assert that womenswear is “very often”. Clothing was only one example. My point was about women MPs being treated differently by the media compared to male MPs. “Blair’s Babes” being another example. I stand by that but it is becoming increasingly tangential to the topic of this thread so won’t bang on any further. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ongoing debacle of alledged tax avoidance from the sale of her previous main residence, and misleading information. Greater Manchester police said on Friday that they were investigating the sale of Angela Rayners council house in March 2015, after she was accused of giving false information about where she was living for the first five years of her marriage before she was elected as an MP in May 2015. It appears her stance is that the former home was her principle primarily residence which would not be subject to capital gains if sold within three years of changes to her primary address . The press saying she sold it five years after moving out, which would potentially make any capital gains taxable. Angela Rayner says she will step down if found to have committed a crime. Keir Starmer says his team have seen all the details and there is no case to answer. Is this a Tory witch-hunt at tax payers expense or is Angela, shadow housing minister, a tax dodging hypocrite to join her ex colleagues in financial dishonesty, more labour MPs jailed for expenses fraud than any other party. " This is a non news story, the statute of limitations on this has since long past, so the police can investigate all they wish as the CPS cannot bring a case. She has said she will stand down if charged, she has refused to publish tax advice, well we know why now, she cannot be charged. Making this story as important as egg and chips for tea, a distraction for us, another subject matter to discuss other than mass murder. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
This has been interesting to read.
I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed.
To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing.
Clearly I disagree and anyone who cares to research it will find plenty of examples. Theresa May’s shoes come to mind. Happy to concede my use of “never” in relation to menswear was not accurate but I will revise and stick to “rarely” and continue to assert that womenswear is “very often”. Clothing was only one example. My point was about women MPs being treated differently by the media compared to male MPs. “Blair’s Babes” being another example. I stand by that but it is becoming increasingly tangential to the topic of this thread so won’t bang on any further. "I understand that what you’re describing has happened, but I can’t see the connection to the description of Truss in this story, in fact I think you’ve missed a connection in the importance of the description’s of her clothing to the story. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
She literally had to be removed as she was damaging the markets and therefore country, an absolute disaster as PM, it was the market that removed her not 'woke left' or whatever she is claiming now, they literally couldn't sell bonds because of her incompetence. Stop trying to revise reality Pat.. It is a pity more people did not take a longer term view of the market and ignore short term fluctuations . She was vastly superior to the present pm and had she remained in power we would be reaping the awards now . "She wasn't vastly superior to anything,what are you basing thatonll on? A Tufton puppet, she can barely string a sentence together. The fact that Sunak is only marginally better than him is a sad reflection on him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
This has been interesting to read.
I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed.
To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing.
Clearly I disagree and anyone who cares to research it will find plenty of examples. Theresa May’s shoes come to mind. Happy to concede my use of “never” in relation to menswear was not accurate but I will revise and stick to “rarely” and continue to assert that womenswear is “very often”. Clothing was only one example. My point was about women MPs being treated differently by the media compared to male MPs. “Blair’s Babes” being another example. I stand by that but it is becoming increasingly tangential to the topic of this thread so won’t bang on any further.
I understand that what you’re describing has happened, but I can’t see the connection to the description of Truss in this story, in fact I think you’ve missed a connection in the importance of the description’s of her clothing to the story.
"Ok. You can find some examples of male MPs clothing being brought up but it is exclusively by way of criticism (Sunak’s trainers, Corbyn being scruffy). But when was the last time you read a piece on a male MP that made reference to how smart they are or described their outfit? The serious article on Truss felt the need to describe her clothing! Why? What value did that bring to the article? How was it relevant? Oh a necklace she wore from her husband! Yeah and so what? Do you see articles talking about the watch Rishi’s wife bought him or his hand made shoes or Saville Road suit (making all that up BTW). It is double standards for men and women. Oh yeah, it may be nice to compliment her attire but it added no value to the article. And that was just one example that happened on the day it was posted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
This has been interesting to read.
I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed.
To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing.
Clearly I disagree and anyone who cares to research it will find plenty of examples. Theresa May’s shoes come to mind. Happy to concede my use of “never” in relation to menswear was not accurate but I will revise and stick to “rarely” and continue to assert that womenswear is “very often”. Clothing was only one example. My point was about women MPs being treated differently by the media compared to male MPs. “Blair’s Babes” being another example. I stand by that but it is becoming increasingly tangential to the topic of this thread so won’t bang on any further.
I understand that what you’re describing has happened, but I can’t see the connection to the description of Truss in this story, in fact I think you’ve missed a connection in the importance of the description’s of her clothing to the story.
Ok. You can find some examples of male MPs clothing being brought up but it is exclusively by way of criticism (Sunak’s trainers, Corbyn being scruffy). But when was the last time you read a piece on a male MP that made reference to how smart they are or described their outfit?
The serious article on Truss felt the need to describe her clothing! Why? What value did that bring to the article? How was it relevant? Oh a necklace she wore from her husband! Yeah and so what?
Do you see articles talking about the watch Rishi’s wife bought him or his hand made shoes or Saville Road suit (making all that up BTW).
It is double standards for men and women. Oh yeah, it may be nice to compliment her attire but it added no value to the article.
And that was just one example that happened on the day it was posted."Having said I wouldn't comment again on attire, I will - because of the nonsense being spouted. You lost your own-invented argument on women frequently being commented on satorially, men never - so you modified it to positive re women, only negative re men. But Jacob Rees Mogg is frequently praised for his formal, double-breasted suits. I gave you the example of Ian Blackford praised for his smart kilt look. In actual fact some of our most successful male political figures, past and present, have adopted stylish items of clothing that display their inner character and political standpoint, much better than any speech can. Remember newly elected PM Tony Blair strolling into No 10 in 1997 wearing chinos and open-neck shirt? Modernity had arrived in Westminster and soon top businessmen and other MPs were losing the tie to share in the Cool Britannia vibe. If Chuka Umunna had not left the leadership race against Corbyn, then we might have had a Labour Party leader better known for his bespoke suits from Savile Row. Like him or loathe him, Nigel Farage, one-time leader of UKIP, is often seen in a smart coat with dark collar and tan colour, it originated as a riding coat for gentlemen but its horse racing association saw it evolve into the uniform of ambitious working class men as worn by TV characters Arthur Daley in Minder and Del Boy in Only Fools and Horses. It combines quintessential Britishness with countryside conservatism and working class aggression — a good message to put out for the Brexiteer downing a pint in the pub! It feels like you're looking for an argument that doesn't exist frankly. How odd. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
This has been interesting to read.
I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed.
To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing.
Clearly I disagree and anyone who cares to research it will find plenty of examples. Theresa May’s shoes come to mind. Happy to concede my use of “never” in relation to menswear was not accurate but I will revise and stick to “rarely” and continue to assert that womenswear is “very often”. Clothing was only one example. My point was about women MPs being treated differently by the media compared to male MPs. “Blair’s Babes” being another example. I stand by that but it is becoming increasingly tangential to the topic of this thread so won’t bang on any further.
I understand that what you’re describing has happened, but I can’t see the connection to the description of Truss in this story, in fact I think you’ve missed a connection in the importance of the description’s of her clothing to the story.
Ok. You can find some examples of male MPs clothing being brought up but it is exclusively by way of criticism (Sunak’s trainers, Corbyn being scruffy). But when was the last time you read a piece on a male MP that made reference to how smart they are or described their outfit?
The serious article on Truss felt the need to describe her clothing! Why? What value did that bring to the article? How was it relevant? Oh a necklace she wore from her husband! Yeah and so what?
Do you see articles talking about the watch Rishi’s wife bought him or his hand made shoes or Saville Road suit (making all that up BTW).
It is double standards for men and women. Oh yeah, it may be nice to compliment her attire but it added no value to the article.
And that was just one example that happened on the day it was posted.
Having said I wouldn't comment again on attire, I will - because of the nonsense being spouted.
You lost your own-invented argument on women frequently being commented on satorially, men never - so you modified it to positive re women, only negative re men.
But Jacob Rees Mogg is frequently praised for his formal, double-breasted suits. I gave you the example of Ian Blackford praised for his smart kilt look.
In actual fact some of our most successful male political figures, past and present, have adopted stylish items of clothing that display their inner character and political standpoint, much better than any speech can.
Remember newly elected PM Tony Blair strolling into No 10 in 1997 wearing chinos and open-neck shirt? Modernity had arrived in Westminster and soon top businessmen and other MPs were losing the tie to share in the Cool Britannia vibe.
If Chuka Umunna had not left the leadership race against Corbyn, then we might have had a Labour Party leader better known for his bespoke suits from Savile Row.
Like him or loathe him, Nigel Farage, one-time leader of UKIP, is often seen in a smart coat with dark collar and tan colour, it originated as a riding coat for gentlemen but its horse racing association saw it evolve into the uniform of ambitious working class men as worn by TV characters Arthur Daley in Minder and Del Boy in Only Fools and Horses. It combines quintessential Britishness with countryside conservatism and working class aggression — a good message to put out for the Brexiteer downing a pint in the pub!
It feels like you're looking for an argument that doesn't exist frankly. How odd.
"What a lot of words! I gave up reading after having said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!) You gave an example only to debunk your own example
I chose Luton because its south as opposed to your North. And because there are at least 2 men from that town who many would recognise as gobshites.
As far as working class goes, I'm sure we can find 'upper class', JRM or Boris Johnson aren't working class.
I think Rishi’s trainers are outliers lol
I still believe what I said in my opening post though. People like Rayner are perceived a certain way because of their gender, their “class”, their origins.
If you perceive that way, then you're speaking about yourself. Don't throw me into the mix with you.
Whose talking about you? Look at my first post. I specifically made the point this was nit about you and that I was only referencing the word gobshite as it was a good example.
I think you spend so much time on here arguing with people that you think everyone is therefore having a dig or arguing with you! They aren’t!"Because I wrote 'me', you thought I was being specific about myself. As you said, this wasn't about 'me'. I was speaking for anyone who thinks the same way as 'me'. You have been given plenty of examples of men's attire being focused on but refuse to admit you may be wrong. I know we jest that you're always right but this is extreme. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
This has been interesting to read.
I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed.
To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing.
Clearly I disagree and anyone who cares to research it will find plenty of examples. Theresa May’s shoes come to mind. Happy to concede my use of “never” in relation to menswear was not accurate but I will revise and stick to “rarely” and continue to assert that womenswear is “very often”. Clothing was only one example. My point was about women MPs being treated differently by the media compared to male MPs. “Blair’s Babes” being another example. I stand by that but it is becoming increasingly tangential to the topic of this thread so won’t bang on any further.
I understand that what you’re describing has happened, but I can’t see the connection to the description of Truss in this story, in fact I think you’ve missed a connection in the importance of the description’s of her clothing to the story.
Ok. You can find some examples of male MPs clothing being brought up but it is exclusively by way of criticism (Sunak’s trainers, Corbyn being scruffy). But when was the last time you read a piece on a male MP that made reference to how smart they are or described their outfit?
The serious article on Truss felt the need to describe her clothing! Why? What value did that bring to the article? How was it relevant? Oh a necklace she wore from her husband! Yeah and so what?
Do you see articles talking about the watch Rishi’s wife bought him or his hand made shoes or Saville Road suit (making all that up BTW).
It is double standards for men and women. Oh yeah, it may be nice to compliment her attire but it added no value to the article.
And that was just one example that happened on the day it was posted."Here is what you posted from the description, "Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman”. The necklace is a key part of the description, it tells the reader how important it is to her and she is wearing it again now. I think you may have over reacted, there is nothing degrading or harmful here, the writer describing the scene for the reader is perfectly acceptable and supports the article. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!) You gave an example only to debunk your own example
I chose Luton because its south as opposed to your North. And because there are at least 2 men from that town who many would recognise as gobshites.
As far as working class goes, I'm sure we can find 'upper class', JRM or Boris Johnson aren't working class.
I think Rishi’s trainers are outliers lol
I still believe what I said in my opening post though. People like Rayner are perceived a certain way because of their gender, their “class”, their origins.
If you perceive that way, then you're speaking about yourself. Don't throw me into the mix with you.
Whose talking about you? Look at my first post. I specifically made the point this was nit about you and that I was only referencing the word gobshite as it was a good example.
I think you spend so much time on here arguing with people that you think everyone is therefore having a dig or arguing with you! They aren’t!
Because I wrote 'me', you thought I was being specific about myself. As you said, this wasn't about 'me'.
I was speaking for anyone who thinks the same way as 'me'.
You have been given plenty of examples of men's attire being focused on but refuse to admit you may be wrong. I know we jest that you're always right but this is extreme. "LOLZ that is a poor attempt from you! You literally said: “Don't throw me into the mix with you.” It can’t possibly mean anything other than “me” as in you Feisty. Come on my friend that is very poor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
This has been interesting to read.
I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed.
To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing.
Clearly I disagree and anyone who cares to research it will find plenty of examples. Theresa May’s shoes come to mind. Happy to concede my use of “never” in relation to menswear was not accurate but I will revise and stick to “rarely” and continue to assert that womenswear is “very often”. Clothing was only one example. My point was about women MPs being treated differently by the media compared to male MPs. “Blair’s Babes” being another example. I stand by that but it is becoming increasingly tangential to the topic of this thread so won’t bang on any further.
I understand that what you’re describing has happened, but I can’t see the connection to the description of Truss in this story, in fact I think you’ve missed a connection in the importance of the description’s of her clothing to the story.
Ok. You can find some examples of male MPs clothing being brought up but it is exclusively by way of criticism (Sunak’s trainers, Corbyn being scruffy). But when was the last time you read a piece on a male MP that made reference to how smart they are or described their outfit?
The serious article on Truss felt the need to describe her clothing! Why? What value did that bring to the article? How was it relevant? Oh a necklace she wore from her husband! Yeah and so what?
Do you see articles talking about the watch Rishi’s wife bought him or his hand made shoes or Saville Road suit (making all that up BTW).
It is double standards for men and women. Oh yeah, it may be nice to compliment her attire but it added no value to the article.
And that was just one example that happened on the day it was posted.
Here is what you posted from the description, "Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman”.
The necklace is a key part of the description, it tells the reader how important it is to her and she is wearing it again now.
I think you may have over reacted, there is nothing degrading or harmful here, the writer describing the scene for the reader is perfectly acceptable and supports the article.
"And you are doing what you always do and ignoring the wider theme and focusing on a specific. As I said, and you ignored, the journalist would not have commented on something a male MP was wearing in the same way, such as a watch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
This has been interesting to read.
I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed.
To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing.
Clearly I disagree and anyone who cares to research it will find plenty of examples. Theresa May’s shoes come to mind. Happy to concede my use of “never” in relation to menswear was not accurate but I will revise and stick to “rarely” and continue to assert that womenswear is “very often”. Clothing was only one example. My point was about women MPs being treated differently by the media compared to male MPs. “Blair’s Babes” being another example. I stand by that but it is becoming increasingly tangential to the topic of this thread so won’t bang on any further.
I understand that what you’re describing has happened, but I can’t see the connection to the description of Truss in this story, in fact I think you’ve missed a connection in the importance of the description’s of her clothing to the story.
Ok. You can find some examples of male MPs clothing being brought up but it is exclusively by way of criticism (Sunak’s trainers, Corbyn being scruffy). But when was the last time you read a piece on a male MP that made reference to how smart they are or described their outfit?
The serious article on Truss felt the need to describe her clothing! Why? What value did that bring to the article? How was it relevant? Oh a necklace she wore from her husband! Yeah and so what?
Do you see articles talking about the watch Rishi’s wife bought him or his hand made shoes or Saville Road suit (making all that up BTW).
It is double standards for men and women. Oh yeah, it may be nice to compliment her attire but it added no value to the article.
And that was just one example that happened on the day it was posted.
Here is what you posted from the description, "Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman”.
The necklace is a key part of the description, it tells the reader how important it is to her and she is wearing it again now.
I think you may have over reacted, there is nothing degrading or harmful here, the writer describing the scene for the reader is perfectly acceptable and supports the article.
And you are doing what you always do and ignoring the wider theme and focusing on a specific. As I said, and you ignored, the journalist would not have commented on something a male MP was wearing in the same way, such as a watch."Thanks again for the critic….
Now going back to the topic you started, you introduced the specific, I have then looked at it, you failed to associate the necklace with her determination that lends it self to the story.
This is a strange hill to die on…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
This has been interesting to read.
I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed.
To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing.
Clearly I disagree and anyone who cares to research it will find plenty of examples. Theresa May’s shoes come to mind. Happy to concede my use of “never” in relation to menswear was not accurate but I will revise and stick to “rarely” and continue to assert that womenswear is “very often”. Clothing was only one example. My point was about women MPs being treated differently by the media compared to male MPs. “Blair’s Babes” being another example. I stand by that but it is becoming increasingly tangential to the topic of this thread so won’t bang on any further.
I understand that what you’re describing has happened, but I can’t see the connection to the description of Truss in this story, in fact I think you’ve missed a connection in the importance of the description’s of her clothing to the story.
Ok. You can find some examples of male MPs clothing being brought up but it is exclusively by way of criticism (Sunak’s trainers, Corbyn being scruffy). But when was the last time you read a piece on a male MP that made reference to how smart they are or described their outfit?
The serious article on Truss felt the need to describe her clothing! Why? What value did that bring to the article? How was it relevant? Oh a necklace she wore from her husband! Yeah and so what?
Do you see articles talking about the watch Rishi’s wife bought him or his hand made shoes or Saville Road suit (making all that up BTW).
It is double standards for men and women. Oh yeah, it may be nice to compliment her attire but it added no value to the article.
And that was just one example that happened on the day it was posted.
Here is what you posted from the description, "Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman”.
The necklace is a key part of the description, it tells the reader how important it is to her and she is wearing it again now.
I think you may have over reacted, there is nothing degrading or harmful here, the writer describing the scene for the reader is perfectly acceptable and supports the article.
"It's just a journalistic device that uses a description of appearance to help subjects come alive for readers. Those details create an image and useful information about a person’s character. It's standard practice, and used all the time for M and F. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
This has been interesting to read.
I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed.
To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing.
Clearly I disagree and anyone who cares to research it will find plenty of examples. Theresa May’s shoes come to mind. Happy to concede my use of “never” in relation to menswear was not accurate but I will revise and stick to “rarely” and continue to assert that womenswear is “very often”. Clothing was only one example. My point was about women MPs being treated differently by the media compared to male MPs. “Blair’s Babes” being another example. I stand by that but it is becoming increasingly tangential to the topic of this thread so won’t bang on any further.
I understand that what you’re describing has happened, but I can’t see the connection to the description of Truss in this story, in fact I think you’ve missed a connection in the importance of the description’s of her clothing to the story.
Ok. You can find some examples of male MPs clothing being brought up but it is exclusively by way of criticism (Sunak’s trainers, Corbyn being scruffy). But when was the last time you read a piece on a male MP that made reference to how smart they are or described their outfit?
The serious article on Truss felt the need to describe her clothing! Why? What value did that bring to the article? How was it relevant? Oh a necklace she wore from her husband! Yeah and so what?
Do you see articles talking about the watch Rishi’s wife bought him or his hand made shoes or Saville Road suit (making all that up BTW).
It is double standards for men and women. Oh yeah, it may be nice to compliment her attire but it added no value to the article.
And that was just one example that happened on the day it was posted.
Here is what you posted from the description, "Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman”.
The necklace is a key part of the description, it tells the reader how important it is to her and she is wearing it again now.
I think you may have over reacted, there is nothing degrading or harmful here, the writer describing the scene for the reader is perfectly acceptable and supports the article.
It's just a journalistic device that uses a description of appearance to help subjects come alive for readers. Those details create an image and useful information about a person’s character. It's standard practice, and used all the time for M and F.
"Exactly  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
This has been interesting to read.
I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed.
To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing.
Clearly I disagree and anyone who cares to research it will find plenty of examples. Theresa May’s shoes come to mind. Happy to concede my use of “never” in relation to menswear was not accurate but I will revise and stick to “rarely” and continue to assert that womenswear is “very often”. Clothing was only one example. My point was about women MPs being treated differently by the media compared to male MPs. “Blair’s Babes” being another example. I stand by that but it is becoming increasingly tangential to the topic of this thread so won’t bang on any further.
I understand that what you’re describing has happened, but I can’t see the connection to the description of Truss in this story, in fact I think you’ve missed a connection in the importance of the description’s of her clothing to the story.
Ok. You can find some examples of male MPs clothing being brought up but it is exclusively by way of criticism (Sunak’s trainers, Corbyn being scruffy). But when was the last time you read a piece on a male MP that made reference to how smart they are or described their outfit?
The serious article on Truss felt the need to describe her clothing! Why? What value did that bring to the article? How was it relevant? Oh a necklace she wore from her husband! Yeah and so what?
Do you see articles talking about the watch Rishi’s wife bought him or his hand made shoes or Saville Road suit (making all that up BTW).
It is double standards for men and women. Oh yeah, it may be nice to compliment her attire but it added no value to the article.
And that was just one example that happened on the day it was posted.
Here is what you posted from the description, "Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman”.
The necklace is a key part of the description, it tells the reader how important it is to her and she is wearing it again now.
I think you may have over reacted, there is nothing degrading or harmful here, the writer describing the scene for the reader is perfectly acceptable and supports the article.
It's just a journalistic device that uses a description of appearance to help subjects come alive for readers. Those details create an image and useful information about a person’s character. It's standard practice, and used all the time for M and F.
Exactly "It really isn’t. Go find a comparable example in a similarly otherwise serious piece that is about a man. If the necklace is important then why reference the navy suit and cream blouse? As I have said, do they mention the jewellery male MPs wear? But again, this was ONE example that was published on the day. It isn’t the whole story/theme it is just a live example of the point. I will give you another example… In 2017, a Daily Mail front page ran the headline, “Never mind Brexit, who won Legs-it?”, next to a photograph of Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon and former British prime minister Theresa May wearing skirts. There’s plenty more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!) You gave an example only to debunk your own example
I chose Luton because its south as opposed to your North. And because there are at least 2 men from that town who many would recognise as gobshites.
As far as working class goes, I'm sure we can find 'upper class', JRM or Boris Johnson aren't working class.
I think Rishi’s trainers are outliers lol
I still believe what I said in my opening post though. People like Rayner are perceived a certain way because of their gender, their “class”, their origins.
If you perceive that way, then you're speaking about yourself. Don't throw me into the mix with you.
Whose talking about you? Look at my first post. I specifically made the point this was nit about you and that I was only referencing the word gobshite as it was a good example.
I think you spend so much time on here arguing with people that you think everyone is therefore having a dig or arguing with you! They aren’t!
Because I wrote 'me', you thought I was being specific about myself. As you said, this wasn't about 'me'.
I was speaking for anyone who thinks the same way as 'me'.
You have been given plenty of examples of men's attire being focused on but refuse to admit you may be wrong. I know we jest that you're always right but this is extreme.
LOLZ that is a poor attempt from you! You literally said:
“Don't throw me into the mix with you.”
It can’t possibly mean anything other than “me” as in you Feisty. Come on my friend that is very poor."Poor attempt in your mind because your always right
You started this by saying people have a view of her because she's a woman and have gone on to talk about how the media may describe people because they're women. The article was written by a woman ffs.
Are you speaking about MP's specifically because it's not clear. Men often have their appearance commented on, especially celebrities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
This has been interesting to read.
I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed.
To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing.
Clearly I disagree and anyone who cares to research it will find plenty of examples. Theresa May’s shoes come to mind. Happy to concede my use of “never” in relation to menswear was not accurate but I will revise and stick to “rarely” and continue to assert that womenswear is “very often”. Clothing was only one example. My point was about women MPs being treated differently by the media compared to male MPs. “Blair’s Babes” being another example. I stand by that but it is becoming increasingly tangential to the topic of this thread so won’t bang on any further.
I understand that what you’re describing has happened, but I can’t see the connection to the description of Truss in this story, in fact I think you’ve missed a connection in the importance of the description’s of her clothing to the story.
Ok. You can find some examples of male MPs clothing being brought up but it is exclusively by way of criticism (Sunak’s trainers, Corbyn being scruffy). But when was the last time you read a piece on a male MP that made reference to how smart they are or described their outfit?
The serious article on Truss felt the need to describe her clothing! Why? What value did that bring to the article? How was it relevant? Oh a necklace she wore from her husband! Yeah and so what?
Do you see articles talking about the watch Rishi’s wife bought him or his hand made shoes or Saville Road suit (making all that up BTW).
It is double standards for men and women. Oh yeah, it may be nice to compliment her attire but it added no value to the article.
And that was just one example that happened on the day it was posted.
Here is what you posted from the description, "Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman”.
The necklace is a key part of the description, it tells the reader how important it is to her and she is wearing it again now.
I think you may have over reacted, there is nothing degrading or harmful here, the writer describing the scene for the reader is perfectly acceptable and supports the article.
And you are doing what you always do and ignoring the wider theme and focusing on a specific. As I said, and you ignored, the journalist would not have commented on something a male MP was wearing in the same way, such as a watch.
Thanks again for the critic….
Now going back to the topic you started, you introduced the specific, I have then looked at it, you failed to associate the necklace with her determination that lends it self to the story.
This is a strange hill to die on…."Which hill are you on  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
This has been interesting to read.
I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed.
To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing.
Clearly I disagree and anyone who cares to research it will find plenty of examples. Theresa May’s shoes come to mind. Happy to concede my use of “never” in relation to menswear was not accurate but I will revise and stick to “rarely” and continue to assert that womenswear is “very often”. Clothing was only one example. My point was about women MPs being treated differently by the media compared to male MPs. “Blair’s Babes” being another example. I stand by that but it is becoming increasingly tangential to the topic of this thread so won’t bang on any further.
I understand that what you’re describing has happened, but I can’t see the connection to the description of Truss in this story, in fact I think you’ve missed a connection in the importance of the description’s of her clothing to the story.
Ok. You can find some examples of male MPs clothing being brought up but it is exclusively by way of criticism (Sunak’s trainers, Corbyn being scruffy). But when was the last time you read a piece on a male MP that made reference to how smart they are or described their outfit?
The serious article on Truss felt the need to describe her clothing! Why? What value did that bring to the article? How was it relevant? Oh a necklace she wore from her husband! Yeah and so what?
Do you see articles talking about the watch Rishi’s wife bought him or his hand made shoes or Saville Road suit (making all that up BTW).
It is double standards for men and women. Oh yeah, it may be nice to compliment her attire but it added no value to the article.
And that was just one example that happened on the day it was posted.
Here is what you posted from the description, "Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman”.
The necklace is a key part of the description, it tells the reader how important it is to her and she is wearing it again now.
I think you may have over reacted, there is nothing degrading or harmful here, the writer describing the scene for the reader is perfectly acceptable and supports the article.
It's just a journalistic device that uses a description of appearance to help subjects come alive for readers. Those details create an image and useful information about a person’s character. It's standard practice, and used all the time for M and F.
Exactly
It really isn’t. Go find a comparable example in a similarly otherwise serious piece that is about a man.
If the necklace is important then why reference the navy suit and cream blouse? As I have said, do they mention the jewellery male MPs wear?
But again, this was ONE example that was published on the day. It isn’t the whole story/theme it is just a live example of the point.
I will give you another example…
In 2017, a Daily Mail front page ran the headline, “Never mind Brexit, who won Legs-it?”, next to a photograph of Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon and former British prime minister Theresa May wearing skirts.
There’s plenty more."Irrelevant comparison in your Sturgeon and May example, I have acknowledged gutter press story lines exist and the Truss descriptor isn't that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!) You gave an example only to debunk your own example
I chose Luton because its south as opposed to your North. And because there are at least 2 men from that town who many would recognise as gobshites.
As far as working class goes, I'm sure we can find 'upper class', JRM or Boris Johnson aren't working class.
I think Rishi’s trainers are outliers lol
I still believe what I said in my opening post though. People like Rayner are perceived a certain way because of their gender, their “class”, their origins.
If you perceive that way, then you're speaking about yourself. Don't throw me into the mix with you.
Whose talking about you? Look at my first post. I specifically made the point this was nit about you and that I was only referencing the word gobshite as it was a good example.
I think you spend so much time on here arguing with people that you think everyone is therefore having a dig or arguing with you! They aren’t!
Because I wrote 'me', you thought I was being specific about myself. As you said, this wasn't about 'me'.
I was speaking for anyone who thinks the same way as 'me'.
You have been given plenty of examples of men's attire being focused on but refuse to admit you may be wrong. I know we jest that you're always right but this is extreme.
LOLZ that is a poor attempt from you! You literally said:
“Don't throw me into the mix with you.”
It can’t possibly mean anything other than “me” as in you Feisty. Come on my friend that is very poor.
Poor attempt in your mind because your always right
You started this by saying people have a view of her because she's a woman and have gone on to talk about how the media may describe people because they're women. The article was written by a woman ffs.
Are you speaking about MP's specifically because it's not clear. Men often have their appearance commented on, especially celebrities."Did you mean “you’re always right”
We are talking about an MP right? A female MP yes? In a politics forum? And the example that just happened to get published the day after I made that point was about a woman MP. I am talking about the media and how they handle reporting on female politicians. I have not said the gender of the journalist matters have I? The media does what the media does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!) You gave an example only to debunk your own example
I chose Luton because its south as opposed to your North. And because there are at least 2 men from that town who many would recognise as gobshites.
As far as working class goes, I'm sure we can find 'upper class', JRM or Boris Johnson aren't working class.
I think Rishi’s trainers are outliers lol
I still believe what I said in my opening post though. People like Rayner are perceived a certain way because of their gender, their “class”, their origins.
If you perceive that way, then you're speaking about yourself. Don't throw me into the mix with you.
Whose talking about you? Look at my first post. I specifically made the point this was nit about you and that I was only referencing the word gobshite as it was a good example.
I think you spend so much time on here arguing with people that you think everyone is therefore having a dig or arguing with you! They aren’t!
Because I wrote 'me', you thought I was being specific about myself. As you said, this wasn't about 'me'.
I was speaking for anyone who thinks the same way as 'me'.
You have been given plenty of examples of men's attire being focused on but refuse to admit you may be wrong. I know we jest that you're always right but this is extreme.
LOLZ that is a poor attempt from you! You literally said:
“Don't throw me into the mix with you.”
It can’t possibly mean anything other than “me” as in you Feisty. Come on my friend that is very poor.
Poor attempt in your mind because your always right
You started this by saying people have a view of her because she's a woman and have gone on to talk about how the media may describe people because they're women. The article was written by a woman ffs.
Are you speaking about MP's specifically because it's not clear. Men often have their appearance commented on, especially celebrities."Of course they do! I remember when Tory MP Steve Baker announced a couple of years ago he was going to run for PM. Photos/articles circulated with Baker wearing a white shirt and grey suit jacket, with a black cord necklace and two large silver charms seen around his neck. Meanwhile Tory MP Robert Halfon owns about 30 watches. Only the other week he was talking about his Promaster — one of a limited edition of 5,000 — in a most interesting article. He says he is not alone in the Commons when it comes to a love of watches. This continuing attempt to create a row over nothing is beyond belief now! One particular poster seems bizarrely to have veered from misogyny to misandry in the same thread, just to be 'right' and now doesn't even bother to listen to the other side. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
This has been interesting to read.
I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed.
To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing.
Clearly I disagree and anyone who cares to research it will find plenty of examples. Theresa May’s shoes come to mind. Happy to concede my use of “never” in relation to menswear was not accurate but I will revise and stick to “rarely” and continue to assert that womenswear is “very often”. Clothing was only one example. My point was about women MPs being treated differently by the media compared to male MPs. “Blair’s Babes” being another example. I stand by that but it is becoming increasingly tangential to the topic of this thread so won’t bang on any further.
I understand that what you’re describing has happened, but I can’t see the connection to the description of Truss in this story, in fact I think you’ve missed a connection in the importance of the description’s of her clothing to the story.
Ok. You can find some examples of male MPs clothing being brought up but it is exclusively by way of criticism (Sunak’s trainers, Corbyn being scruffy). But when was the last time you read a piece on a male MP that made reference to how smart they are or described their outfit?
The serious article on Truss felt the need to describe her clothing! Why? What value did that bring to the article? How was it relevant? Oh a necklace she wore from her husband! Yeah and so what?
Do you see articles talking about the watch Rishi’s wife bought him or his hand made shoes or Saville Road suit (making all that up BTW).
It is double standards for men and women. Oh yeah, it may be nice to compliment her attire but it added no value to the article.
And that was just one example that happened on the day it was posted.
Here is what you posted from the description, "Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman”.
The necklace is a key part of the description, it tells the reader how important it is to her and she is wearing it again now.
I think you may have over reacted, there is nothing degrading or harmful here, the writer describing the scene for the reader is perfectly acceptable and supports the article.
It's just a journalistic device that uses a description of appearance to help subjects come alive for readers. Those details create an image and useful information about a person’s character. It's standard practice, and used all the time for M and F.
Exactly
It really isn’t. Go find a comparable example in a similarly otherwise serious piece that is about a man.
If the necklace is important then why reference the navy suit and cream blouse? As I have said, do they mention the jewellery male MPs wear?
But again, this was ONE example that was published on the day. It isn’t the whole story/theme it is just a live example of the point.
I will give you another example…
In 2017, a Daily Mail front page ran the headline, “Never mind Brexit, who won Legs-it?”, next to a photograph of Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon and former British prime minister Theresa May wearing skirts.
There’s plenty more.
Irrelevant comparison in your Sturgeon and May example, I have acknowledged gutter press story lines exist and the Truss descriptor isn't that.
"There you go again! The article in Truss was ONE example that ironically got published the day after I made a general point. It was a useful illustration of the point being made. As always you focus down on the minutiae of one aspect of the point someone is making rather then pull back out and explore the broader theme. Was the Truss example the best? I don’t know. But it still fell into the sane territory. Try this… 1. “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” 2. “Truss is wearing the gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” Why is the first necessary or relevant to the article? Why not just write it like the second point? You also ignored my points on watches, suits, shoes because it doesn’t happen. Another poster thinks it does but I say if so it is so very rare I am not aware of it. As for dying on a hill? Nope. I had already said way up the thread it was becoming a tangential point away from the thread. But several posters didn’t want to let it go so here we are. Another poster also seems to think there is some weird kind of victory to be had because, like an adult, I conceded that saying “never” was wrong. Some people get pleasure from odd things | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
This has been interesting to read.
I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed.
To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing.
Clearly I disagree and anyone who cares to research it will find plenty of examples. Theresa May’s shoes come to mind. Happy to concede my use of “never” in relation to menswear was not accurate but I will revise and stick to “rarely” and continue to assert that womenswear is “very often”. Clothing was only one example. My point was about women MPs being treated differently by the media compared to male MPs. “Blair’s Babes” being another example. I stand by that but it is becoming increasingly tangential to the topic of this thread so won’t bang on any further.
I understand that what you’re describing has happened, but I can’t see the connection to the description of Truss in this story, in fact I think you’ve missed a connection in the importance of the description’s of her clothing to the story.
Ok. You can find some examples of male MPs clothing being brought up but it is exclusively by way of criticism (Sunak’s trainers, Corbyn being scruffy). But when was the last time you read a piece on a male MP that made reference to how smart they are or described their outfit?
The serious article on Truss felt the need to describe her clothing! Why? What value did that bring to the article? How was it relevant? Oh a necklace she wore from her husband! Yeah and so what?
Do you see articles talking about the watch Rishi’s wife bought him or his hand made shoes or Saville Road suit (making all that up BTW).
It is double standards for men and women. Oh yeah, it may be nice to compliment her attire but it added no value to the article.
And that was just one example that happened on the day it was posted.
Here is what you posted from the description, "Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman”.
The necklace is a key part of the description, it tells the reader how important it is to her and she is wearing it again now.
I think you may have over reacted, there is nothing degrading or harmful here, the writer describing the scene for the reader is perfectly acceptable and supports the article.
It's just a journalistic device that uses a description of appearance to help subjects come alive for readers. Those details create an image and useful information about a person’s character. It's standard practice, and used all the time for M and F.
Exactly
It really isn’t. Go find a comparable example in a similarly otherwise serious piece that is about a man.
If the necklace is important then why reference the navy suit and cream blouse? As I have said, do they mention the jewellery male MPs wear?
But again, this was ONE example that was published on the day. It isn’t the whole story/theme it is just a live example of the point.
I will give you another example…
In 2017, a Daily Mail front page ran the headline, “Never mind Brexit, who won Legs-it?”, next to a photograph of Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon and former British prime minister Theresa May wearing skirts.
There’s plenty more.
Irrelevant comparison in your Sturgeon and May example, I have acknowledged gutter press story lines exist and the Truss descriptor isn't that.
There you go again! The article in Truss was ONE example that ironically got published the day after I made a general point. It was a useful illustration of the point being made. As always you focus down on the minutiae of one aspect of the point someone is making rather then pull back out and explore the broader theme. Was the Truss example the best? I don’t know. But it still fell into the sane territory.
Try this…
1. “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman”
2. “Truss is wearing the gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman”
Why is the first necessary or relevant to the article? Why not just write it like the second point?
You also ignored my points on watches, suits, shoes because it doesn’t happen. Another poster thinks it does but I say if so it is so very rare I am not aware of it.
As for dying on a hill? Nope. I had already said way up the thread it was becoming a tangential point away from the thread. But several posters didn’t want to let it go so here we are. Another poster also seems to think there is some weird kind of victory to be had because, like an adult, I conceded that saying “never” was wrong. Some people get pleasure from odd things "You provided the example in what could be described as outrage, you are way off the mark and will not / can't let go, it is unlike you but here we are. Let's leave it there before you become overly personal for no gain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting piece in The Telegraph today on Liz Truss today. While it is a serious article it soon mentions… “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman” So fucking what? Who cares what she is wearing! I rest my case .Many people care what she is wearing . An extremely successfull politician who has achieved things in life that many will never even come close to.
Married to a successfull husband as well as having two children .
Taking pride in your appearance is hardly something to be sneared at.
Had she remained as PM the country would be in a much better state now
Anyone hoping to be successfull at a job interview will pay attention to their experience
And Pat totally misses the point of the post and several that preceded it!
Pat, why do the media never mention what male politicians are wearing?
Never? Only last week, they were discussing Rishi's Adidas Samba trainers and 'too short' long trousers.
From Michael Foot's donkey jacket at the Cenotaph to David Linden, the MP for Glasgow East, attending the Commons wearing blue jeans and a three-quarter zip jumper, I see no evidence of what you say.
Already covered Rishi’s trainers. I am prepared to have a bet with you that it is mentioned a LOT more when talking about women politicians then men.
I'm not a betting man and in any event, how would it be judged!
You dismissed Rishi’s trainers as outliers but I gave you 2 further examples to suggest 'never' was an extreme word to use. From JRM's allegedly 'old-fashioned' attire to Corbyn's jumpers, the exposed vests and beige Harrington jackets (not to mention commie caps) I firmly believe there is no extra scrutiny going on re female MPs attire compared to male counterparts. You're looking it seems to create a mysoginy row where none existed.
We will have to agree to disagree. My observation is that it happens a lot with female MPs but at very best very infrequently with male MPs and when it is mentioned in relation to male MPs it is usually to insult them whereas with female MPs it is just par for the course to bring it up regardless. You brought up Michael Foot so not exactly a recent example.
Not just me saying it…
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/02/female-mps-100-years-clothing-style-newspapers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/order-politics-dressing-parliament-female-mps-get-cold-shoulder/
I've read those articles and they do little to support your position. Indeed, the Telegraph article says 'Men aren’t immune from getting stick over their sartorial choices' and gives even more examples I hadn't thought of. And Truss wasn't exactly getting stick.
I remember reading that Ian Blackford looked distinguished in a kilt and formal jacket during Commons tributes to Prince Philip. I just think it's even stevens and I've given plenty of examples. As you say, let's agree to disagree, I dislike arguments on gender /misogyny being stoked for no reason. I won't be commenting on this alleged imbalance any further as it doesn't exist in my mind. And you've had more than enough examples from me, whilst offering very little back.
This has been interesting to read.
I’m not sure why describing her clothing was taken badly, it painted a picture of Truss for the readers mind. If the story had mentioned she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, I would have pictured casual and relaxed.
To answer the original question who cares what she is wearing, I don’t think there was any malice in the description and it helped position the scenario of the interview and the person they were interviewing.
Clearly I disagree and anyone who cares to research it will find plenty of examples. Theresa May’s shoes come to mind. Happy to concede my use of “never” in relation to menswear was not accurate but I will revise and stick to “rarely” and continue to assert that womenswear is “very often”. Clothing was only one example. My point was about women MPs being treated differently by the media compared to male MPs. “Blair’s Babes” being another example. I stand by that but it is becoming increasingly tangential to the topic of this thread so won’t bang on any further.
I understand that what you’re describing has happened, but I can’t see the connection to the description of Truss in this story, in fact I think you’ve missed a connection in the importance of the description’s of her clothing to the story.
Ok. You can find some examples of male MPs clothing being brought up but it is exclusively by way of criticism (Sunak’s trainers, Corbyn being scruffy). But when was the last time you read a piece on a male MP that made reference to how smart they are or described their outfit?
The serious article on Truss felt the need to describe her clothing! Why? What value did that bring to the article? How was it relevant? Oh a necklace she wore from her husband! Yeah and so what?
Do you see articles talking about the watch Rishi’s wife bought him or his hand made shoes or Saville Road suit (making all that up BTW).
It is double standards for men and women. Oh yeah, it may be nice to compliment her attire but it added no value to the article.
And that was just one example that happened on the day it was posted.
Here is what you posted from the description, "Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman”.
The necklace is a key part of the description, it tells the reader how important it is to her and she is wearing it again now.
I think you may have over reacted, there is nothing degrading or harmful here, the writer describing the scene for the reader is perfectly acceptable and supports the article.
It's just a journalistic device that uses a description of appearance to help subjects come alive for readers. Those details create an image and useful information about a person’s character. It's standard practice, and used all the time for M and F.
Exactly
It really isn’t. Go find a comparable example in a similarly otherwise serious piece that is about a man.
If the necklace is important then why reference the navy suit and cream blouse? As I have said, do they mention the jewellery male MPs wear?
But again, this was ONE example that was published on the day. It isn’t the whole story/theme it is just a live example of the point.
I will give you another example…
In 2017, a Daily Mail front page ran the headline, “Never mind Brexit, who won Legs-it?”, next to a photograph of Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon and former British prime minister Theresa May wearing skirts.
There’s plenty more.
Irrelevant comparison in your Sturgeon and May example, I have acknowledged gutter press story lines exist and the Truss descriptor isn't that.
There you go again! The article in Truss was ONE example that ironically got published the day after I made a general point. It was a useful illustration of the point being made. As always you focus down on the minutiae of one aspect of the point someone is making rather then pull back out and explore the broader theme. Was the Truss example the best? I don’t know. But it still fell into the sane territory.
Try this…
1. “Truss is impeccably groomed in navy trouser suit with a cream blouse and that gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman”
2. “Truss is wearing the gold-circle necklace she wore throughout her leadership campaign like a talisman”
Why is the first necessary or relevant to the article? Why not just write it like the second point?
You also ignored my points on watches, suits, shoes because it doesn’t happen. Another poster thinks it does but I say if so it is so very rare I am not aware of it.
As for dying on a hill? Nope. I had already said way up the thread it was becoming a tangential point away from the thread. But several posters didn’t want to let it go so here we are. Another poster also seems to think there is some weird kind of victory to be had because, like an adult, I conceded that saying “never” was wrong. Some people get pleasure from odd things
You provided the example in what could be described as outrage, you are way off the mark and will not / can't let go, it is unlike you but here we are.
Let's leave it there before you become overly personal for no gain."You see outrage where I just see irony that proved my point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!) You gave an example only to debunk your own example
I chose Luton because its south as opposed to your North. And because there are at least 2 men from that town who many would recognise as gobshites.
As far as working class goes, I'm sure we can find 'upper class', JRM or Boris Johnson aren't working class.
I think Rishi’s trainers are outliers lol
I still believe what I said in my opening post though. People like Rayner are perceived a certain way because of their gender, their “class”, their origins.
If you perceive that way, then you're speaking about yourself. Don't throw me into the mix with you.
Whose talking about you? Look at my first post. I specifically made the point this was nit about you and that I was only referencing the word gobshite as it was a good example.
I think you spend so much time on here arguing with people that you think everyone is therefore having a dig or arguing with you! They aren’t!
Because I wrote 'me', you thought I was being specific about myself. As you said, this wasn't about 'me'.
I was speaking for anyone who thinks the same way as 'me'.
You have been given plenty of examples of men's attire being focused on but refuse to admit you may be wrong. I know we jest that you're always right but this is extreme.
LOLZ that is a poor attempt from you! You literally said:
“Don't throw me into the mix with you.”
It can’t possibly mean anything other than “me” as in you Feisty. Come on my friend that is very poor.
Poor attempt in your mind because your always right
You started this by saying people have a view of her because she's a woman and have gone on to talk about how the media may describe people because they're women. The article was written by a woman ffs.
Are you speaking about MP's specifically because it's not clear. Men often have their appearance commented on, especially celebrities.
Of course they do! I remember when Tory MP Steve Baker announced a couple of years ago he was going to run for PM. Photos/articles circulated with Baker wearing a white shirt and grey suit jacket, with a black cord necklace and two large silver charms seen around his neck.
Meanwhile Tory MP Robert Halfon owns about 30 watches. Only the other week he was talking about his Promaster — one of a limited edition of 5,000 — in a most interesting article. He says he is not alone in the Commons when it comes to a love of watches.
This continuing attempt to create a row over nothing is beyond belief now! One particular poster seems bizarrely to have veered from misogyny to misandry in the same thread, just to be 'right' and now doesn't even bother to listen to the other side.
"Oh dear it feels more like you want a fight as you couldn’t leave it? You are now using false equivalence to try for the “win” Robert Halfon voluntarily talking about his love of watches is not remotely the same as the media dropping in comments on female MPs attire. Search “Steve Baker necklace” and you get one article and a couple of Twitter/X posts. Try searching “Theresa May Shoes” you get a tonne including Getty Images offering 274 photos. Yadda yadda all the same though. And where have *I* claimed misogyny? Go back and actually read the posts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!) You gave an example only to debunk your own example
I chose Luton because its south as opposed to your North. And because there are at least 2 men from that town who many would recognise as gobshites.
As far as working class goes, I'm sure we can find 'upper class', JRM or Boris Johnson aren't working class.
I think Rishi’s trainers are outliers lol
I still believe what I said in my opening post though. People like Rayner are perceived a certain way because of their gender, their “class”, their origins.
If you perceive that way, then you're speaking about yourself. Don't throw me into the mix with you.
Whose talking about you? Look at my first post. I specifically made the point this was nit about you and that I was only referencing the word gobshite as it was a good example.
I think you spend so much time on here arguing with people that you think everyone is therefore having a dig or arguing with you! They aren’t!
Because I wrote 'me', you thought I was being specific about myself. As you said, this wasn't about 'me'.
I was speaking for anyone who thinks the same way as 'me'.
You have been given plenty of examples of men's attire being focused on but refuse to admit you may be wrong. I know we jest that you're always right but this is extreme.
LOLZ that is a poor attempt from you! You literally said:
“Don't throw me into the mix with you.”
It can’t possibly mean anything other than “me” as in you Feisty. Come on my friend that is very poor.
Poor attempt in your mind because your always right
You started this by saying people have a view of her because she's a woman and have gone on to talk about how the media may describe people because they're women. The article was written by a woman ffs.
Are you speaking about MP's specifically because it's not clear. Men often have their appearance commented on, especially celebrities.
Of course they do! I remember when Tory MP Steve Baker announced a couple of years ago he was going to run for PM. Photos/articles circulated with Baker wearing a white shirt and grey suit jacket, with a black cord necklace and two large silver charms seen around his neck.
Meanwhile Tory MP Robert Halfon owns about 30 watches. Only the other week he was talking about his Promaster — one of a limited edition of 5,000 — in a most interesting article. He says he is not alone in the Commons when it comes to a love of watches.
This continuing attempt to create a row over nothing is beyond belief now! One particular poster seems bizarrely to have veered from misogyny to misandry in the same thread, just to be 'right' and now doesn't even bother to listen to the other side.
Oh dear it feels more like you want a fight as you couldn’t leave it?
You are now using false equivalence to try for the “win”
Robert Halfon voluntarily talking about his love of watches is not remotely the same as the media dropping in comments on female MPs attire.
Search “Steve Baker necklace” and you get one article and a couple of Twitter/X posts. Try searching “Theresa May Shoes” you get a tonne including Getty Images offering 274 photos.
Yadda yadda all the same though.
And where have *I* claimed misogyny? Go back and actually read the posts."I already did. You proclaimed "our culture lauds men and condemns women" while admitting "I too probably have those prejudices". I suggest you meant mysogyny and I can't be alone as the next poster (Feisty) quite rightly admonished you by saying "all you've done there is say we're all misogynistic". In a weak retort you said "I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and Northern". I've never seen class and geographic roots mixed up in such a crass and patronising way. Having lost the room on daft mysogyny accusations, you then tried to change the narrative to misandry. Yet you've been provided with numerous examples of positive male MP attire stories. Never mind being on a hill, you're in a hole and you keep digging. Dying either way, to be honest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!) You gave an example only to debunk your own example
I chose Luton because its south as opposed to your North. And because there are at least 2 men from that town who many would recognise as gobshites.
As far as working class goes, I'm sure we can find 'upper class', JRM or Boris Johnson aren't working class.
I think Rishi’s trainers are outliers lol
I still believe what I said in my opening post though. People like Rayner are perceived a certain way because of their gender, their “class”, their origins.
If you perceive that way, then you're speaking about yourself. Don't throw me into the mix with you.
Whose talking about you? Look at my first post. I specifically made the point this was nit about you and that I was only referencing the word gobshite as it was a good example.
I think you spend so much time on here arguing with people that you think everyone is therefore having a dig or arguing with you! They aren’t!
Because I wrote 'me', you thought I was being specific about myself. As you said, this wasn't about 'me'.
I was speaking for anyone who thinks the same way as 'me'.
You have been given plenty of examples of men's attire being focused on but refuse to admit you may be wrong. I know we jest that you're always right but this is extreme.
LOLZ that is a poor attempt from you! You literally said:
“Don't throw me into the mix with you.”
It can’t possibly mean anything other than “me” as in you Feisty. Come on my friend that is very poor.
Poor attempt in your mind because your always right
You started this by saying people have a view of her because she's a woman and have gone on to talk about how the media may describe people because they're women. The article was written by a woman ffs.
Are you speaking about MP's specifically because it's not clear. Men often have their appearance commented on, especially celebrities.
Of course they do! I remember when Tory MP Steve Baker announced a couple of years ago he was going to run for PM. Photos/articles circulated with Baker wearing a white shirt and grey suit jacket, with a black cord necklace and two large silver charms seen around his neck.
Meanwhile Tory MP Robert Halfon owns about 30 watches. Only the other week he was talking about his Promaster — one of a limited edition of 5,000 — in a most interesting article. He says he is not alone in the Commons when it comes to a love of watches.
This continuing attempt to create a row over nothing is beyond belief now! One particular poster seems bizarrely to have veered from misogyny to misandry in the same thread, just to be 'right' and now doesn't even bother to listen to the other side.
Oh dear it feels more like you want a fight as you couldn’t leave it?
You are now using false equivalence to try for the “win”
Robert Halfon voluntarily talking about his love of watches is not remotely the same as the media dropping in comments on female MPs attire.
Search “Steve Baker necklace” and you get one article and a couple of Twitter/X posts. Try searching “Theresa May Shoes” you get a tonne including Getty Images offering 274 photos.
Yadda yadda all the same though.
And where have *I* claimed misogyny? Go back and actually read the posts.
I already did. You proclaimed "our culture lauds men and condemns women" while admitting "I too probably have those prejudices". I suggest you meant mysogyny and I can't be alone as the next poster (Feisty) quite rightly admonished you
by saying "all you've done there is say we're all misogynistic".
In a weak retort you said "I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and Northern". I've never seen class and geographic roots mixed up in such a crass and patronising way.
Having lost the room on daft mysogyny accusations, you then tried to change the narrative to misandry. Yet you've been provided with numerous examples of positive male MP attire stories.
Never mind being on a hill, you're in a hole and you keep digging. Dying either way, to be honest. "Wow you really cannot leave it! Raw nerve perhaps? And yet you ignore all the examples or counter points I have provided without comment and continue to assert that only your examples hold any weight even when they have been undermined. Your tone is aggressive and insulting and indicates that it is you who wants a fight rather than a discussion. I am done on this point. I stand by what I say as I see sufficient evidence to support it. If you feel you have “won” then enjoy your moment, whatever joy that gives you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC now finally but reluctantly covering this, but have led with the Prime Minster being accused of smearing a working class woman. Not sure if that's hilarious or depressing. Rayner is on £100,000+ per year with her shadow cabinet + MP salary. On what planet is that considered working class?" Oh wow now you are arguing social class is purely based on income! I know a few trades who’d like a chat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!) You gave an example only to debunk your own example
I chose Luton because its south as opposed to your North. And because there are at least 2 men from that town who many would recognise as gobshites.
As far as working class goes, I'm sure we can find 'upper class', JRM or Boris Johnson aren't working class.
I think Rishi’s trainers are outliers lol
I still believe what I said in my opening post though. People like Rayner are perceived a certain way because of their gender, their “class”, their origins.
If you perceive that way, then you're speaking about yourself. Don't throw me into the mix with you.
Whose talking about you? Look at my first post. I specifically made the point this was nit about you and that I was only referencing the word gobshite as it was a good example.
I think you spend so much time on here arguing with people that you think everyone is therefore having a dig or arguing with you! They aren’t!
Because I wrote 'me', you thought I was being specific about myself. As you said, this wasn't about 'me'.
I was speaking for anyone who thinks the same way as 'me'.
You have been given plenty of examples of men's attire being focused on but refuse to admit you may be wrong. I know we jest that you're always right but this is extreme.
LOLZ that is a poor attempt from you! You literally said:
“Don't throw me into the mix with you.”
It can’t possibly mean anything other than “me” as in you Feisty. Come on my friend that is very poor.
Poor attempt in your mind because your always right
You started this by saying people have a view of her because she's a woman and have gone on to talk about how the media may describe people because they're women. The article was written by a woman ffs.
Are you speaking about MP's specifically because it's not clear. Men often have their appearance commented on, especially celebrities.
Did you mean “you’re always right”
We are talking about an MP right? A female MP yes? In a politics forum? And the example that just happened to get published the day after I made that point was about a woman MP. I am talking about the media and how they handle reporting on female politicians. I have not said the gender of the journalist matters have I? The media does what the media does."I wasn't exactly sure because you started on her being a woman and being insulted and then switched to 'non insulting describing words'. With regards to the journalist, you're first message was about misogynistic views and now you're saying it doesn't matter about gender. I'm really not sure what you point is tbh. Apart from being the spelling police that is, I fully understood that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!) You gave an example only to debunk your own example
I chose Luton because its south as opposed to your North. And because there are at least 2 men from that town who many would recognise as gobshites.
As far as working class goes, I'm sure we can find 'upper class', JRM or Boris Johnson aren't working class.
I think Rishi’s trainers are outliers lol
I still believe what I said in my opening post though. People like Rayner are perceived a certain way because of their gender, their “class”, their origins.
If you perceive that way, then you're speaking about yourself. Don't throw me into the mix with you.
Whose talking about you? Look at my first post. I specifically made the point this was nit about you and that I was only referencing the word gobshite as it was a good example.
I think you spend so much time on here arguing with people that you think everyone is therefore having a dig or arguing with you! They aren’t!
Because I wrote 'me', you thought I was being specific about myself. As you said, this wasn't about 'me'.
I was speaking for anyone who thinks the same way as 'me'.
You have been given plenty of examples of men's attire being focused on but refuse to admit you may be wrong. I know we jest that you're always right but this is extreme.
LOLZ that is a poor attempt from you! You literally said:
“Don't throw me into the mix with you.”
It can’t possibly mean anything other than “me” as in you Feisty. Come on my friend that is very poor.
Poor attempt in your mind because your always right
You started this by saying people have a view of her because she's a woman and have gone on to talk about how the media may describe people because they're women. The article was written by a woman ffs.
Are you speaking about MP's specifically because it's not clear. Men often have their appearance commented on, especially celebrities.
Did you mean “you’re always right”
We are talking about an MP right? A female MP yes? In a politics forum? And the example that just happened to get published the day after I made that point was about a woman MP. I am talking about the media and how they handle reporting on female politicians. I have not said the gender of the journalist matters have I? The media does what the media does.
I wasn't exactly sure because you started on her being a woman and being insulted and then switched to 'non insulting describing words'.
With regards to the journalist, you're first message was about misogynistic views and now you're saying it doesn't matter about gender.
I'm really not sure what you point is tbh.
Apart from being the spelling police that is, I fully understood that. "It doesn’t matter. I thought my point was clear but I am not sure how to explain it differently. It’s multi-faceted but bottom line is I believe generally female MPs are treated differently by the media than male MPs (there are some outliers but I think this is generally true). In Rayner’s case this is exacerbated by her being Northern and Working Class (by background at least). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can understand why people have a negative view of Rayner and why she might be on the receiving end of insults like gobshite (note this is not a dig at Feisty just referencing that word as a perfect example)… 1. She’s a woman. 2. She a brash northern woman. 3. She’s outspoken. 4. She’s working class. 5. She doesn’t speak with a nice accent. The undercurrent is “she must be thick” or “woman know your place”. Our culture still, in the 21st Century, lauds men and condemns women for having similar attributes. A man is driven or principled, a woman (particularly if she is working class) is pushy and aggressive (or a gobshite). I don’t much like her either but can’t say why other than I too probably have those prejudices rooted deep into my psyche. If she is found to have done wrong then good riddance to bad rubbish (though what a shame as it is fuel for that prejudice). If she is found to have done no wrong then let’s hope there are some apologies heading her way. I must respectfully disagree. All you've done there is say we're all misogynistic because the world tells you so. Who will be apologising to her if she's found to have done no wrong? Did she ever apologise for calling people 'scum'? I didn’t say we are all misogynistic just that there remains that undertone and that it is exacerbated by her being common and northern. That's bollocks. She could be a man from Luton. Another gobshite. It isn’t bollocks (nice male oriented expletive there ha ha). Not saying a man cannot be a gobshite (though interesting you picked Luton - another working class bastion). I am just commenting on what I observe. There are always outliers but you cannot tell me men and women in politics (or other walks of life actually) are treated the same way, even now (historically they weren’t obviously). Just one example…When May and Truss were PM the media regularly commented on their clothing. Not so male PMs (though we had Trainers mentioned last week so maybe that is changing!) You gave an example only to debunk your own example
I chose Luton because its south as opposed to your North. And because there are at least 2 men from that town who many would recognise as gobshites.
As far as working class goes, I'm sure we can find 'upper class', JRM or Boris Johnson aren't working class.
I think Rishi’s trainers are outliers lol
I still believe what I said in my opening post though. People like Rayner are perceived a certain way because of their gender, their “class”, their origins.
If you perceive that way, then you're speaking about yourself. Don't throw me into the mix with you.
Whose talking about you? Look at my first post. I specifically made the point this was nit about you and that I was only referencing the word gobshite as it was a good example.
I think you spend so much time on here arguing with people that you think everyone is therefore having a dig or arguing with you! They aren’t!
Because I wrote 'me', you thought I was being specific about myself. As you said, this wasn't about 'me'.
I was speaking for anyone who thinks the same way as 'me'.
You have been given plenty of examples of men's attire being focused on but refuse to admit you may be wrong. I know we jest that you're always right but this is extreme.
LOLZ that is a poor attempt from you! You literally said:
“Don't throw me into the mix with you.”
It can’t possibly mean anything other than “me” as in you Feisty. Come on my friend that is very poor.
Poor attempt in your mind because your always right
You started this by saying people have a view of her because she's a woman and have gone on to talk about how the media may describe people because they're women. The article was written by a woman ffs.
Are you speaking about MP's specifically because it's not clear. Men often have their appearance commented on, especially celebrities.
Did you mean “you’re always right”
We are talking about an MP right? A female MP yes? In a politics forum? And the example that just happened to get published the day after I made that point was about a woman MP. I am talking about the media and how they handle reporting on female politicians. I have not said the gender of the journalist matters have I? The media does what the media does.
I wasn't exactly sure because you started on her being a woman and being insulted and then switched to 'non insulting describing words'.
With regards to the journalist, you're first message was about misogynistic views and now you're saying it doesn't matter about gender.
I'm really not sure what you point is tbh.
Apart from being the spelling police that is, I fully understood that.
It doesn’t matter. I thought my point was clear but I am not sure how to explain it differently. It’s multi-faceted but bottom line is I believe generally female MPs are treated differently by the media than male MPs (there are some outliers but I think this is generally true). In Rayner’s case this is exacerbated by her being Northern and Working Class (by background at least)."You initially spoke of 'culture' ie. the populace, not the media. I called her a gobshite, not the media. Yes she's northern and working class, as am I, it has nothing to do with any 'undercurrent'. Rayner is a gobshite because she's a gobby shite who is imo hypocritical. She loves to call out others to resign (before investigations) but clearly doesn't abide by her own rules. As it turns out, her husband may not have paid CGT on his property either. If that's true then not only should she be sacked, she should be prosecuted for fraud. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
