MP resigns over white van/English flag tweet

[carinaman]

I've not followed her career, but searching on her name came across comments online that she's one of those that milks moral outrage and gets offended by proxy on behalf of others. If that's the case she can't whine too much if her Tweet has got the same sort of reaction some think she's prone to.

She's a Barrister in her 50s, not teenage PCC Paris Brown.

Perhaps Emily Thornham former shadow Attorney General and former Teenage PCC Paris Brown should appear on the same TV interview show? Perhaps Ali G could interview them together on the same programme, or they could appear on the same panel on QT?

Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 25th November 15:24

[NoNeed]

Why was Millipede so angry? could it be that he doesn't want the public to see the snobbish face of his party? Because if that is the case then he couldn't have done anymore to higlight it.

[eccles]

Digga said:

eccles said:

I think you are the one who is disconnected with reality and reason if you think people don't make judgements on first impressions, we all do it.

And if you are a representative of the law of this land it is your job - your moral and legal duty to exercise the strictest self-control in this regard.

Do you really want barristers making these sort of snap judgements [sic] about people?

She was working as an MP at the time, and yes as I said before, whatever job you're in, you make initial judgements of people from first impressions. Why on earth do you think we dress certain way for certain occasions? Life is all about impressions and how we present ourselves to others.

[NoNeed]

eccles said:

Digga said:

eccles said:

I think you are the one who is disconnected with reality and reason if you think people don't make judgements on first impressions, we all do it.

And if you are a representative of the law of this land it is your job - your moral and legal duty to exercise the strictest self-control in this regard.

Do you really want barristers making these sort of snap judgements [sic] about people?

She was working as an MP at the time, and yes as I said before, whatever job you're in, you make initial judgements of people from first impressions. Why on earth do you think we dress certain way for certain occasions? Life is all about impressions and how we present ourselves to others.

She was the shadow justice minister and should be able to withold such judgments and preconceptions about people.

[smegmore]

NoNeed said:

Why was Millipede so angry? could it be that he doesn't want the public to see the snobbish face of his party? Because if that is the case then he couldn't have done anymore to higlight it.

She showed the political elite in its true colours, labour/libdem/tory, only the tie colour changes.

[Digga]

NoNeed said:

eccles said:

Digga said:

eccles said:

I think you are the one who is disconnected with reality and reason if you think people don't make judgements on first impressions, we all do it.

And if you are a representative of the law of this land it is your job - your moral and legal duty to exercise the strictest self-control in this regard.

Do you really want barristers making these sort of snap judgements [sic] about people?

She was working as an MP at the time, and yes as I said before, whatever job you're in, you make initial judgements of people from first impressions. Why on earth do you think we dress certain way for certain occasions? Life is all about impressions and how we present ourselves to others.

She was the shadow justice minister and should be able to withold such judgments and preconceptions about people.

Totally. Those in the legal profession are supposed to base their judgements on facts, not knee-jerk reactions. In order to do that, one really has to set-aside the element of human nature that tends to reach snap decisions, to suspend prejudices. If, in public life, she demonstrates a clear incapability to so do, it asks very serious questions about her suitability to a role where she is liable to be making life-changing decisions about people.

[BlackLabel]

From todays PMQs:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30212162

Edited by BlackLabel on Wednesday 26th November 14:10

[ReallyReallyGood]

lol, Labour pwned.

[Art0ir]

NoNeed said:

Why was Millipede so angry? could it be that he doesn't want the public to see the snobbish face of his party? Because if that is the case then he couldn't have done anymore to higlight it.

Milliband's reaction certainly said much more about the state of the Labour party than the stupid tweet ever could have.

[carinaman]

BBC News Website said:

David Cameron remarked on the quiet Labour benches and implied it was due to Emily Thornberry being absent, suggesting she was probably taking pictures of people's homes.

Perhaps the former Shadow AG could get a job with the Daily Mail doing the property price information for their stories, save getting them from an online registry?

Shame riffing off of Shakespeare may have been undermined by students using it to complain to Teaco about the lack of Popcorn at one of their shops.

Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 26th November 16:17

[smegmore]

BlackLabel said:

From todays PMQs:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30212162

Edited by BlackLabel on Wednesday 26th November 14:10

[carinaman]

Radio 4's Now Show compared the Freedom of Speech angle following the killings in Paris last week with the outcry over Emily Thornberry's Tweet of the image of the flags during the Rochester Byelection.

[Mr_B]

carinaman said:

Radio 4's Now Show compared the Freedom of Speech angle following the killings in Paris last week with the outcry over Emily Thornberry's Tweet of the image of the flags during the Rochester Byelection.

No freedom of speech problem there, she just exposed herself to being very unpopular in what she was clearly trying to suggest with that freedom of speech. Totally different thing.

[eccles]

carinaman said:

Radio 4's Now Show compared the Freedom of Speech angle following the killings in Paris last week with the outcry over Emily Thornberry's Tweet of the image of the flags during the Rochester Byelection.

A quite valid comparison in my eyes.

[NicD]

eccles said:

A quite valid comparison in my eyes.

in what sense valid?

The tweet was deemed inappropriate for an MP, what has that to do with free speech?

[eccles]

NicD said:

eccles said:

A quite valid comparison in my eyes.

in what sense valid?

The tweet was deemed inappropriate for an MP, what has that to do with free speech?

And a cartoon showing some religious bloke is deemed inappropriate by people who follow him. In just about every walk of life we are restricted by what we can say, yet some get hot and bothered about it a lot more than others.
The other comparison made on the now show and on the last leg was the number of world leaders in Paris for the march to show support for freedom of speech that had journalists and bloggers locked up.

[JensenA]

NicD said:

eccles said:

A quite valid comparison in my eyes.

in what sense valid?

The tweet was deemed embarrasing inappropriate for the Labour Party MP, because that's what Labour really think of working class White Van men with Union Jacks hanging from the windows

[NicD]

JensenA said:

NicD said:

eccles said:

A quite valid comparison in my eyes.

in what sense valid?

The tweet was deemed embarrasing inappropriate for the Labour Party MP, because that's what Labour really think of working class White Van men with Union Jacks hanging from the windows

Quite!

[Guybrush]

NicD said:

JensenA said:

NicD said:

eccles said:

A quite valid comparison in my eyes.

in what sense valid?

The tweet was deemed embarrasing inappropriate for the Labour Party MP, because that's what Labour really think of working class White Van men with Union Jacks hanging from the windows

Quite!

Yes - it embarrassed Millibland, that's why.

[hairyben]

eccles said:

NicD said:

eccles said:

A quite valid comparison in my eyes.

in what sense valid?

The tweet was deemed inappropriate for an MP, what has that to do with free speech?

And a cartoon showing some religious bloke is deemed inappropriate by people who follow him. In just about every walk of life we are restricted by what we can say, yet some get hot and bothered about it a lot more than others.
The other comparison made on the now show and on the last leg was the number of world leaders in Paris for the march to show support for freedom of speech that had journalists and bloggers locked up.

MP's and satirical publications have quite fundamentally different objectives; because a drill-seargent shouts abuse at and insults his charges does that make it okay for a child carer to act the same?