Sally Bercow – the new Marie Antoinette?

Sally Bercow – the new Marie Antoinette?

Author
Discussion

RedLeicester

6,869 posts

246 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
Regiment said:
I believe she's been mis-quoted completely by the site and some people on here need to understand what she actually put and not what you all wanted her to put
Really? She misquoted herself in her own Tweet? Wow, that's spin, impressive.

rah1888

1,547 posts

188 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
RedLeicester said:
Regiment said:
I believe she's been mis-quoted completely by the site and some people on here need to understand what she actually put and not what you all wanted her to put
Really? She misquoted herself in her own Tweet? Wow, that's spin, impressive.
I could be wrong, but I think Regiment was being sarcastic.

RedLeicester

6,869 posts

246 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
ststicks. Monday morning whoosh for me then! hehe

KrazyIvan

4,341 posts

176 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
I see she still looks like a dogs AreSoul, which is good seen as how both spew out useless ste.


Amateurish

7,753 posts

223 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
Seems like a fair enough comment, TBH. st news for the workers laid off. But we sell fewer jets to Gaddafi and other despots. Swings and roundabouts.

Regiment

2,799 posts

160 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
RedLeicester said:
Really? She misquoted herself in her own Tweet? Wow, that's spin, impressive.
If you read what she's put and what the news article on the link is saying, it's 2 completely different things.

She ignorantly said that it's a good thing people are buying less weapons, the news artcles states that she said it's a good thing 3000 people have lost their jobs. 2 completely different things.

I say she ignorantly says that because her point is wrong and that it just means that 3000 people have lost their jobs because other countries are going elsewhere for their weapons.

edit: The quotes are below

Sally Bewcow: "Just seen news about BAE axing 3000 jobs. Awful 4 those concerned but surely fact
that weapon sales are slowing down is a *good* thing, no?" - this means it's awful that 3000 jobs have gone but that it's good that weapon sales are slowing down.

Sally Bercow: "Loss of 3000 BAE Jobs “A Good Thing”" - this means that it's good that 3000 people at BAE have lost their jobs.

As you can clearly see, it's 2 completely different things.

Edited by Regiment on Monday 26th September 12:18

unrepentant

21,270 posts

257 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
: cough: Decoy : cough: : cough: marriage of convenience

Victor McDade

4,395 posts

183 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
Amateurish said:
Seems like a fair enough comment, TBH. st news for the workers laid off. But we sell fewer jets to Gaddafi and other despots. Swings and roundabouts.
If we don't sell them then someone else will. The problem does not go away, we just don't profit from it.

bigandclever

13,794 posts

239 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
unrepentant said:
: cough: Decoy : cough: : cough: marriage of convenience
Stop mumbling into your beard.

RedLeicester

6,869 posts

246 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
Regiment said:
RedLeicester said:
Really? She misquoted herself in her own Tweet? Wow, that's spin, impressive.
If you read what she's put and what the news article on the link is saying, it's 2 completely different things.

She ignorantly said that it's a good thing people are buying less weapons, the news artcles states that she said it's a good thing 3000 people have lost their jobs. 2 completely different things.

I say she ignorantly says that because her point is wrong and that it just means that 3000 people have lost their jobs because other countries are going elsewhere for their weapons.

edit: The quotes are below

Sally Bewcow: "Just seen news about BAE axing 3000 jobs. Awful 4 those concerned but surely fact
that weapon sales are slowing down is a *good* thing, no?" - this means it's awful that 3000 jobs have gone but that it's good that weapon sales are slowing down.

Sally Bercow: "Loss of 3000 BAE Jobs “A Good Thing”" - this means that it's good that 3000 people at BAE have lost their jobs.

As you can clearly see, it's 2 completely different things.
I read the twitter comment - I didn't read the article.

Amateurish

7,753 posts

223 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
Victor McDade said:
Amateurish said:
Seems like a fair enough comment, TBH. st news for the workers laid off. But we sell fewer jets to Gaddafi and other despots. Swings and roundabouts.
If we don't sell them then someone else will. The problem does not go away, we just don't profit from it.
What kind of a moral justification is that? Just because some other nation does it, and profits from it, doesn't mean we should.

I've heard North Korea exports nuclear tech to Iran. Maybe we should get a piece of that action as well?

Regiment

2,799 posts

160 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
RedLeicester said:
I read the twitter comment - I didn't read the article.
Oh ok smile

RedLeicester

6,869 posts

246 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
Regiment said:
RedLeicester said:
I read the twitter comment - I didn't read the article.
Oh ok smile
I don't need the meeeeja to tell me what to think, that's what my evil public school edukashun was for. hehe

Lost_BMW

12,955 posts

177 months

Tuesday 27th September 2011
quotequote all
Amateurish said:
Victor McDade said:
Amateurish said:
Seems like a fair enough comment, TBH. st news for the workers laid off. But we sell fewer jets to Gaddafi and other despots. Swings and roundabouts.
If we don't sell them then someone else will. The problem does not go away, we just don't profit from it.
What kind of a moral justification is that? Just because some other nation does it, and profits from it, doesn't mean we should.

I've heard North Korea exports nuclear tech to Iran. Maybe we should get a piece of that action as well?
So, on 'moral' grounds, you'd rather us chuck thousands here on to the job market and pass the benefits abroad for no likely benefit?

Stevenj214

4,941 posts

229 months

Tuesday 27th September 2011
quotequote all
Regiment said:
Sally Bewcow: "Just seen news about BAE axing 3000 jobs. Awful 4 those concerned but surely fact
that weapon sales are slowing down is a *good* thing, no?" - this means it's awful that 3000 jobs have gone but that it's good that weapon sales are slowing down.

Sally Bercow: "Loss of 3000 BAE Jobs “A Good Thing”" - this means that it's good that 3000 people at BAE have lost their jobs.

As you can clearly see, it's 2 completely different things.
The link has certainly spun it a bit but I wouldn't say it's 2 completely different things. They are interlinked.

Kermit power

28,672 posts

214 months

Tuesday 27th September 2011
quotequote all
Esseesse said:
We have decided to buy trains from Siemens rather than our own British Canadian company, EU laws withstanding I can't imagine the French allowing the same thing to happen.
EFA.


Victor McDade

4,395 posts

183 months

Tuesday 27th September 2011
quotequote all
Amateurish said:
Victor McDade said:
Amateurish said:
Seems like a fair enough comment, TBH. st news for the workers laid off. But we sell fewer jets to Gaddafi and other despots. Swings and roundabouts.
If we don't sell them then someone else will. The problem does not go away, we just don't profit from it.
What kind of a moral justification is that? Just because some other nation does it, and profits from it, doesn't mean we should.

I've heard North Korea exports nuclear tech to Iran. Maybe we should get a piece of that action as well?
Selling nuclear tech in such circumstances in illegal, selling fighter jets to Arab dictators is not.

How far do you take the moral argument? Should we have an arms industry at all?

ninja-lewis

4,242 posts

191 months

Tuesday 27th September 2011
quotequote all
Esseesse said:
We have decided to buy trains from Siemens rather than our own British company, EU laws withstanding I can't imagine the French allowing the same thing to happen.
Eurostar, which is half owned by SNCF, have selected Siemens as the preferred bidder for 10 new trainsets to expand the route network. Alstom, who built the French TGV and the existing Eurostar trainsets, have gone mental but so far SNCF have stuck to their guns. Partly because there is a perception that Alstom need a good kick up the backside. Mind you, Alstom also hate the fact that Bombardier build the regional trains even though the factory is in France.

Amateurish

7,753 posts

223 months

Tuesday 27th September 2011
quotequote all
Victor McDade said:
Selling nuclear tech in such circumstances in illegal, selling fighter jets to Arab dictators is not.
Well it is when you get the deal by paying bribes to various Saudi princes - or at least that was the view of the American DoJ when they fined BAE $400m.

And of course BAE leaned on the Government to close down the SFO investigation into the same deal on grounds of national security.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6180945.stm

Mobile Chicane

20,842 posts

213 months

Tuesday 27th September 2011
quotequote all
Better to say nothing and be thought an idiot, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Those PHers beloved of a certain restaurant on the South Bank... I have it on good authority that a fair proportion of the House have - erm - been there.