Reply to: Question Time Last Night

[Drewster]

You were referring to 'honest politicians' being an oxymoron and I was responding to that. There is no misrepresentation in that at all. How you can call that blatant misrepresentation ?

You quoted me "Blah Blah"

You omitted
They were killing "Our Guys". The Belgrano had the potential to attack us.
"We" stopped it!

You quoted me "Blah Blah"

ie You cut out a big chunk of what I said.... and then "argued" with the gist of what you had quoted.

You didn't in your "quote" indicate that you were paraphrasing what I said in order to concentrate on a particular point (that you disagreed with).

Deliberately cutting out a (pertinent) block of text/meaning (without acknowledgement) meets my definition of blatant misrepresentation....

[Cyberman]

Strictly speaking, Cyber started it by talking about 'feathering their nests'. But that could include Major feathering Edwina's nest I suppose.

I don't think the word means corrupt. Literally it means cheap, vulgar and tasteless, which I always thought was a reference to snouts in the trough but not against the law. Jacqui Smith, that sort of thing.

Does sleaze include sexual pecadildoes as well? Even with classy birds?

.. and I thought that fiddling expenses was illegal. Silly me.

[Doggy Styles]

Doggy, I thought we were talking sleaze? I'm not fooled by any of them. Politicians are largely self serving scum.

Strictly speaking, Cyber started it by talking about 'feathering their nests'. But that could include Major feathering Edwina's nest I suppose.

I don't think the word means corrupt. Literally it means cheap, vulgar and tasteless, which I always thought was a reference to snouts in the trough but not against the law. Jacqui Smith, that sort of thing.

Does sleaze include sexual pecadildoes as well? Even with classy birds?

[Cyberman]

Doggy, I thought we were talking sleaze? I'm not fooled by any of them. Politicians are largely self serving scum.

.. and I was standing up for the politicians with principles, who do actually exist in all parties. It is very unfair to taint every politician just because of an HMG that seem to have made a virtue out of their lies, deception and blatant fraud since 1997.

[Bagpuss]

Doggy, I thought we were talking sleaze? I'm not fooled by any of them. Politicians are largely self serving scum.

[Cyberman]

If you quote me please try not to misrepresent me quite so blatently!

I think we were (originally) in semi-agreement

You were referring to 'honest politicians' being an oxymoron and I was responding to that. There is no misrepresentation in that at all. How you can call that blatant misrepresentation ?

[Doggy Styles]

I don't know, wasn't married Major shagging married Currie while Prime minister, and telling us all we should get back to moralistic family basics?

How is that feathering his own nest?

Anyway, he deserved a peerage for that.

[Bagpuss]

I don't know, wasn't married Major shagging married Currie while Prime minister, and telling us all we should get back to moralistic family basics?

If you believe there is much honesty on either side, you are as daft as cyber Tory looks.

[BoredBloke]

I could reel off a lot more from HMG, and don't forget the recent Lords debacle of cash for changes to the Law.
Some of the scum have even returned to cabinet, such as Mandelson and Blunkett. The Labour front bench really are a lowly bunch, and if it starts there, you can quite safely bet that duplicity runs throughout their ranks.

Why are they so against public scrutiny of expenses I wonder!!

Add to that Hain and his dodgy donations and Smith with her 2nd home expenses being spent on her 1st home bills. The difference between a lot of the Tory sleaze merchants and this lot are that in a number of cases the Tory ones were relatively unknown back benchers rather than cabinet ministers and when found out they had a tendancy to step down.

[Cyberman]

And...

Graham Riddick
David Tredinnick
Neil Hamilton
Jonathan Aitken
Derick Conway

...not trying to say the Tory's are any worse than labour for these sort of Shenanigans, but you do seem to look at things with Blue tinted spectacles!

I could reel off a lot more from HMG, and don't forget the recent Lords debacle of cash for changes to the Law.
Some of the scum have even returned to cabinet, such as Mandelson and Blunkett. The Labour front bench really are a lowly bunch, and if it starts there, you can quite safely bet that duplicity runs throughout their ranks.

Why are they so against public scrutiny of expenses I wonder!!

[TheBigD]

The Tories have had a few, but nothing like Labour, with names such as Archer and Parkinson springing to mind.

And...

Graham Riddick
David Tredinnick
Neil Hamilton
Jonathan Aitken
Derick Conway
David Mellor

...not trying to say the Tory's are any worse than labour for these sort of Shenanigans, but you do seem to look at things with Blue tinted spectacles!

[Drewster]

I don't have a mind.

I takes liberties

If you quote me please try not to misrepresent me quite so blatently!

I think we were (originally) in semi-agreement

[Cyberman]

I agree about the oxy-moron

I don't agree, because not all politicians are 'feathering their nests'. There are politicians with principles such as Robin Cook, Tony Benn, Michael Heseltine, Margaret Thatcher, William Hague, Ken Clarke etc.

Unfortunately for the current HMG, most of the principled variety tend to be on the Tory side. Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Blunkett, Jowell, Harman, Straw, and Jackie Smith to name just a few, have all been caught out for being somewhat less than honest. Then of course we had Robert Maxwell, a couple of decades ago !!

The Tories have had a few, but nothing like Labour, with names such as Archer and Parkinson springing to mind.

[Cyberman]

I agree about the oxy-moron


I am not "sure" we were/are particularly justified in claiming the Falklands as "ours" or that we should have spent millions sending a Task Force or even that "war" is justified - but given that those decisions had been made "shooting" the Belgrano was "right"

The fact of whether the Falklands was ours or not was immaterial. The citizens on the Falklands were British and deserved our support. If you let a country just march in and take your territory, don't be surprised when another country takes liberties, such as Spain over Gibraltar.

[Drewster]

Honesty in Politics now there is an Oxy-Moron (as opposed to a CyberMoron)

The sinking of the Belgrano in May 1982 remains one of the most controversial aspects of the Falklands conflict: more than 300 members of the crew died when the submarine Conqueror torpedoed it.

Margaret Thatcher, then Prime Minister, defended the decision to sink the vessel and dismissed claims that it was outside and heading away from a 200-mile exclusion zone which had been imposed around the Falklands by the British.

I agree about the oxy-moron

However the "Rules of Engagement" never said "We won't shoot them if they don't come within 200 miles"......

They were killing "Our Guys". The Belgrano had the potential to attack us.
"We" stopped it!

I am not "sure" we were/are particularly justified in claiming the Falklands as "ours" or that we should have spent millions sending a Task Force or even that "war" is justified - but given that those decisions had been made "shooting" the Belgrano was "right"