Yup.
Because Labout voters don’t do any of that 
That’s enough and plenty more than any of your others. Having your house / business burgled is not petty.
Dave the smackhead?
Never left town
Never got a GCSE
Never worked
Steals for a living
The conversation is obviously a silly one. Dave has a lot of problems here! One thing I don’t know is how old he is. The comparison is a 70 year old Tory voter.
Is Dave a similar age, and he has been like this his whole life?
If so, then of course he has done a lot more harm to the country.
Or is Dave just a few years out of high school, not even into his 20s yet? If so maybe he can see it is going nowhere, and that course correction is still possible, such that he might get the help he needs, find a job, and go on to live a fruitful life for the next 50 years?
At that point it’s a case of misspent youth, but a nice story of redemption.
On a personal note I lean to the left, slightly, politically, but it feels like hyperbole to say the lifetime Tory voter does more damage than poor Dave.
If it is just a device to get you thinking, then I would have thought the opposite could equally be true, and a Tory could easily look at a period of Labour rule, and pick out things they don’t like, ideologically, and make the claim that Labour was ruining the country too.
2 Likes
My point exactly.
To be honest, the characterisations are pretty superficial and distasteful. The older Tory voter may have contributed in many other ways through volunteering, charity work, parenthood etc. The addict has a disease, and is a victim themself.
Maybe we should be more aware of making judgements about others and have more empathy in such discussions.
Mascot’s statement was hyperbolic, but it’s true that very few of us are innocent.
1 Like
Where did I say anything about Tory voters?
Where did I say you did?
You weren’t quoted.
You don’t need to participate in every exchange.
Sorry, only 75% of Daily Mail readers vote Tory
To be fair, no one said anything about Tories. Daily Mail reason boomers yes. You leapt to the conclusion we’re on about Tories.
The only conclusion “leapt to” here, is you concluding that I didn’t read the post I quoted.
Apologies - the bit you originally quoted chopped off the Tories bit!
I removed the Tory bit because I probably agree with it.
But it’s arrogant and ill informed for anyone to suggest that the other points could ever be determined by political leanings
I probably kicked off the Tory line by stating that the Daily Mail reader would have likely voted conservative and / or voted for Brexit. I think statistics would likely back that up.
As with regards to damage to the UK it’s ultimately down to how you want to measure things. Take your pick and I bet you could get any range of answers.
i love this place.
lets be pedantic about a debate about an off the cuff comment about a make believe couple of characterisations.
long may it continue.
1 Like
Partygate report out.
The greased piglet is finally skewered.
Edit :
This is what the report summary says about what the committee concluded.
We established that Mr Johnson:
a) had knowledge of the Covid rules and guidance.
b) had knowledge of breaches of the rules and guidance that occurred in No 10.
c) misled the house:
i) when he said that guidance was followed completely in No 10, that the rules and guidance were followed at all times, that events in No 10 were within the rules and guidance, and that the rules and guidance had been followed at all times when he was present at gatherings.
ii) when he failed to tell the house about his own knowledge of the gatherings where rules or guidance had been broken.
iii) when he said that he relied on repeated assurances that the rules had not been broken. The assurances he received were not accurately represented by him to the house, nor were they appropriate to be cited to the house as an authoritative indication of No 10’s compliance with Covid restrictions.
iv) when he gave the impression that there needed to be an investigation by Sue Gray before he could answer questions when he had personal knowledge that he did not reveal.
v) when he purported to correct the record but instead continued to mislead the house and, by his continuing denials, this committee.
d) was deliberately disingenuous when he tried to reinterpret his statements to the house to avoid their plain meaning and reframe the clear impression that he intended to give, namely
i) when he advanced unsustainable interpretations of the rules and guidance to advance the argument that the lack of social distancing at gatherings was permissible within the exceptions which allowed for gatherings, and
ii) when he advanced legally impermissible reasons to justify the gatherings.
Johnson’s response this morning ; “It’s a lie.”
8 Likes
‘It’s a lie.’
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA
1 Like
I think it is noticeable that they advised that he should not receive a former members pass which is usually seen as routine for former MPs, let alone PMs.
They are clearly sick of the sight of him and his charlatanism.
4 Likes
His defence basically boils down to ; “I didn’t believe I was breaking any rules and since that is what I believed then it’s impossible for you to find me guilty.”
