Jo Cox Street Parties
Discussion
castroses said:
What's the odds on Brendan standing for MP in his deceased wife's seat at the next general election? He'll cash in (literally) on the sympathy vote. Odious little man.
The seat's filled, some soap actress who won Corbyn's favour got it.freakybacon said:
Unlikely unless ex-actress and now our constituency MP Tracy Brabin quits. We copped Cox on a woman only shortlist too, so even then Brendan Cox would have to fight that. Having said that, woman-only-shortlists never stopped Jack Dromey
Are you saying Jack doesn't look nice in a skirt? transphobe! 
danllama said:
TTwiggy said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Agreed. but this is just another example of the liberal lefts high level of bias and selectivity, when it comes to public/street demonstrations.
Where they cherry pick and choose who and what they will demonstrate/party for.
No demonstrations, or street parties, against those who practice FMG, and who treat women as worse than second class citizens, or advocate the whipping of women in public, or the stoning or throwing off of buildings of gays.
No demonstrations or street parties against leaders of regimes with appalling humans rights records, or known acts of terrorism.
No demonstrations or street party`s held for Lee Rigsby, killed by religious terrorists, who tried to hack his head off in a London street
Yet mention the words Trump or Brexit, and democratically held elections, and certain highly selective individuals are frothing at the mouth to get out on the streets and protest for all they are worth.
This is why no one with a brain, and a memory takes any notice of the biased highly selective dupes.
You're a very angry man aren't you? While I am ambiguous as to the merit in this plan by the late MP's husband, it is only fair to point out that he was not married to anybody or anything that you list in your diatribe above. As such, he's hardly compelled to campaign about them. Where they cherry pick and choose who and what they will demonstrate/party for.
No demonstrations, or street parties, against those who practice FMG, and who treat women as worse than second class citizens, or advocate the whipping of women in public, or the stoning or throwing off of buildings of gays.
No demonstrations or street parties against leaders of regimes with appalling humans rights records, or known acts of terrorism.
No demonstrations or street party`s held for Lee Rigsby, killed by religious terrorists, who tried to hack his head off in a London street
Yet mention the words Trump or Brexit, and democratically held elections, and certain highly selective individuals are frothing at the mouth to get out on the streets and protest for all they are worth.
This is why no one with a brain, and a memory takes any notice of the biased highly selective dupes.
Oh, and it's Lee Rigby. Rigsby was the character in Rising Damp.
danllama said:
He's right though.
No he's not. This odd idea that if you object/protest/campaign on one issue you automatically have to battle every wrong in the world is absurd. As I said, I may question Mr Cox's motives but what's undeniable is that he was married to Joe Cox and that therefore this is something rather close to him. He doesn't have to show the same level of concern for everything else that's wrong with the world TTwiggy said:
danllama said:
He's right though.
No he's not. This odd idea that if you object/protest/campaign on one issue you automatically have to battle every wrong in the world is absurd. As I said, I may question Mr Cox's motives but what's undeniable is that he was married to Joe Cox and that therefore this is something rather close to him. He doesn't have to show the same level of concern for everything else that's wrong with the world Your view point is indefensible, so why do you try to defend it with weasel words? the usual biased selective rubbish one expects from the biased selective left.
Only recently`certain' countries did far worse than Trump, and banned Israelis from entering their countries, why did we not see street marches, and protests over that? Face facts, if it had not been for the US assistance in WW2 this country would have become a Nazi province, and then we really would be seeing disgusting racial behavior in every country they took over, but now selective, biased idiots want to ban the US`s democratically elected leader from coming to the UK. Why weren't they demonstrating when the leader of China visited the UK? China has a far worse human rights record.
Pan Pan Pan said:
As usual weasel words from someone who cannot handle the truth, and shies away from it like a vampire shies away from sunlight. and tries to deflect attention away from the truth of the matter.
Your view point is indefensible, so why do you try to defend it with weasel words? the usual biased selective rubbish one expects from the biased selective left.
Only recently`certain' countries did far worse than Trump, and banned Israelis from entering their countries, why did we not see street marches, and protests over that? Face facts, if it had not been for the US assistance in WW2 this country would have become a Nazi province, and then we really would be seeing disgusting racial behavior in every country they took over, but now selective, biased idiots want to ban the US`s democratically elected leader from coming to the UK. Why weren't they demonstrating when the leader of China visited the UK? China has a far worse human rights record.
The fYour view point is indefensible, so why do you try to defend it with weasel words? the usual biased selective rubbish one expects from the biased selective left.
Only recently`certain' countries did far worse than Trump, and banned Israelis from entering their countries, why did we not see street marches, and protests over that? Face facts, if it had not been for the US assistance in WW2 this country would have become a Nazi province, and then we really would be seeing disgusting racial behavior in every country they took over, but now selective, biased idiots want to ban the US`s democratically elected leader from coming to the UK. Why weren't they demonstrating when the leader of China visited the UK? China has a far worse human rights record.
k are you on about you blithering moron?What you've just vomited onto the page has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject in hand.
TTwiggy said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
As usual weasel words from someone who cannot handle the truth, and shies away from it like a vampire shies away from sunlight. and tries to deflect attention away from the truth of the matter.
Your view point is indefensible, so why do you try to defend it with weasel words? the usual biased selective rubbish one expects from the biased selective left.
Only recently`certain' countries did far worse than Trump, and banned Israelis from entering their countries, why did we not see street marches, and protests over that? Face facts, if it had not been for the US assistance in WW2 this country would have become a Nazi province, and then we really would be seeing disgusting racial behavior in every country they took over, but now selective, biased idiots want to ban the US`s democratically elected leader from coming to the UK. Why weren't they demonstrating when the leader of China visited the UK? China has a far worse human rights record.
The fYour view point is indefensible, so why do you try to defend it with weasel words? the usual biased selective rubbish one expects from the biased selective left.
Only recently`certain' countries did far worse than Trump, and banned Israelis from entering their countries, why did we not see street marches, and protests over that? Face facts, if it had not been for the US assistance in WW2 this country would have become a Nazi province, and then we really would be seeing disgusting racial behavior in every country they took over, but now selective, biased idiots want to ban the US`s democratically elected leader from coming to the UK. Why weren't they demonstrating when the leader of China visited the UK? China has a far worse human rights record.
k are you on about you blithering moron?What you've just vomited onto the page has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject in hand.
TTwiggy said:
techiedave said:
Careful Twiggy you know the new rules and despite you being a long standing valued contributor I will enforce them if it proves necessary
Fair enough. But he chose to get personal.TTwiggy said:
techiedave said:
Careful Twiggy you know the new rules and despite you being a long standing valued contributor I will enforce them if it proves necessary
Fair enough. But he chose to get personal.del mar said:
PurpleAki said:
Her deification has annoyed me.
She was an ardent remainer who wanted to bring in more refugees, yet her own constituency voted leave, so she clearly wasn't the perfect MP she's been portrayed as.
In the recent vote on Article 50 she would have more than likely voted NO, against her party and her constituents wishes.
Those that did that have been pilloried by the press and public, but you can't speak ill of the dead can you...
The general consensus is that her husband is pretty loathsome, but she must've have shared his values and outlook, to be happily married to him.
On the anniversary of her death he should be taking their children away for the weekend, perhaps with his and Jo's parents, somewhere quiet to escape the inevitable media circus in order to remember her with dignity in private.
Instead, he will be all over the news in the weeks prior, being paid for interviews , railroading The Big Lunch, and foisting his children into the limelight and pushing his political agenda at every turn.
He and his '2 days of national celebration' can do one as far as I'm concerned. I only hope the kids come through it reasonably unscathed.
Do you think he is looking for a spot on a Z list celebrity TV show ?She was an ardent remainer who wanted to bring in more refugees, yet her own constituency voted leave, so she clearly wasn't the perfect MP she's been portrayed as.
In the recent vote on Article 50 she would have more than likely voted NO, against her party and her constituents wishes.
Those that did that have been pilloried by the press and public, but you can't speak ill of the dead can you...
The general consensus is that her husband is pretty loathsome, but she must've have shared his values and outlook, to be happily married to him.
On the anniversary of her death he should be taking their children away for the weekend, perhaps with his and Jo's parents, somewhere quiet to escape the inevitable media circus in order to remember her with dignity in private.
Instead, he will be all over the news in the weeks prior, being paid for interviews , railroading The Big Lunch, and foisting his children into the limelight and pushing his political agenda at every turn.
He and his '2 days of national celebration' can do one as far as I'm concerned. I only hope the kids come through it reasonably unscathed.
Randy Winkman said:
TTwiggy said:
techiedave said:
Careful Twiggy you know the new rules and despite you being a long standing valued contributor I will enforce them if it proves necessary
Fair enough. But he chose to get personal.superlightr said:
if Blair was murdered - would there be street parties for him do you think?
If there would be some parties would they be for his wonderful life he led or that he got what he deserved?
No.If there would be some parties would they be for his wonderful life he led or that he got what he deserved?
It's a lefty trait to rejoice over the death of someone with a different political opinion to "the correct one"
The Thatcher pictures earlier up this thread make me sick. Especially since the rent-a-mob weren't ever affected by anything she did and were fed lies (aka Fake News) that she stole milk and destroyed Coal mining (neither or which are actually true)
http://www.bruceonpolitics.com/2016/05/03/lefties-...
techiedave said:
TTwiggy said:
techiedave said:
Careful Twiggy you know the new rules and despite you being a long standing valued contributor I will enforce them if it proves necessary
Fair enough. But he chose to get personal.princealbert23 said:
zygalski said:
Oakey said:
Do you think people would be holding annual street parties if Thatcher had been killed by the IRA?... actually, don't answer that...
Looks like 5 nutters & about 50 members of the press. But whatever satisfies you, I guess. Which one is you?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff