The next 5 years with Labour?
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Red hair.
That's literally it.
Some of you lot really are stuck in the dark ages aren't you.
I’d agreeThat's literally it.
Some of you lot really are stuck in the dark ages aren't you.
S600BSB said:
valiant said:
Replaced by Heidi Alexander.
Ex-London deputy mayor for transport and deputy chair of TfL so should be a decent fit in the DoT.
Hair is a sensible colour too. Ex-London deputy mayor for transport and deputy chair of TfL so should be a decent fit in the DoT.
chrispmartha said:
119 said:
chrispmartha said:
pheonix478 said:
chrispmartha said:
What has anyone’s appearance especially hair colour got to do with it?
If Kier Starmer dressed as Ronald McDonald would you be fine with that?But the fact you equate a woman's hair colour to that speaks volumes.
But you knew that.
Gordon Hill said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Red hair.
That's literally it.
Some of you lot really are stuck in the dark ages aren't you.
Yes but we always have you to educate us with your forward thinking and enlightenment, we should count ourselves lucky that you're here.That's literally it.
Some of you lot really are stuck in the dark ages aren't you.
Forward thinking and enlightenment?
Not really.
A woman has dyed hair and some of you seem to think that alone says something about her ability to do a job.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Gordon Hill said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Red hair.
That's literally it.
Some of you lot really are stuck in the dark ages aren't you.
Yes but we always have you to educate us with your forward thinking and enlightenment, we should count ourselves lucky that you're here.That's literally it.
Some of you lot really are stuck in the dark ages aren't you.
Forward thinking and enlightenment?
Not really.
A woman has dyed hair and some of you seem to think that alone says something about her ability to do a job.
Whether it's something they should be judged on or whether it's worth taking a stand, none the less, to change perceptions is a separate and valid issue.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 29th November 17:31
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Gordon Hill said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Red hair.
That's literally it.
Some of you lot really are stuck in the dark ages aren't you.
Yes but we always have you to educate us with your forward thinking and enlightenment, we should count ourselves lucky that you're here.That's literally it.
Some of you lot really are stuck in the dark ages aren't you.
Forward thinking and enlightenment?
Not really.
A woman has dyed hair and some of you seem to think that alone says something about her ability to do a job.
pheonix478 said:
chrispmartha said:
119 said:
chrispmartha said:
pheonix478 said:
chrispmartha said:
What has anyone’s appearance especially hair colour got to do with it?
If Kier Starmer dressed as Ronald McDonald would you be fine with that?But the fact you equate a woman's hair colour to that speaks volumes.
But you knew that.
It’s 2024
Rufus Stone said:
milesgiles said:
You plead guilty when you are bang to rights not when you have made an innocent mistake
That's a very naive view.If my house was burgled and I initially reported that the stolen items included an expensive watch I thought I'd left on the table, then subsequently found it in a cupboard & updated the police/insurers asap there is absolutely no way I would plead guilty.
In the scenario above, don't think it would get to the stage where I was interviewed by the police, had to take legal advice then appear in court.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Gordon Hill said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Red hair.
That's literally it.
Some of you lot really are stuck in the dark ages aren't you.
Yes but we always have you to educate us with your forward thinking and enlightenment, we should count ourselves lucky that you're here.That's literally it.
Some of you lot really are stuck in the dark ages aren't you.
Forward thinking and enlightenment?
Not really.
A woman has dyed hair and some of you seem to think that alone says something about her ability to do a job.
I think generally it sounds like some people are suggesting that they see brightly coloured hair as an indicator that someone shows poor judgement.
Would it be fair to say that Haigh isn't currently managing to dissuade those people of that bias?
chrispmartha said:
pheonix478 said:
chrispmartha said:
119 said:
chrispmartha said:
pheonix478 said:
chrispmartha said:
What has anyone’s appearance especially hair colour got to do with it?
If Kier Starmer dressed as Ronald McDonald would you be fine with that?But the fact you equate a woman's hair colour to that speaks volumes.
But you knew that.
It’s 2024
There's a scale, from a minor tweak to colour/coverage of grey through to glaringly vibrant and unnatural colours.
If you're under 25, or working in the performing arts, you get a bye. Tbh, everyone I've ever met who doesn't meet those criteria has been a bit militant and also very useless. From the purple haired headteacher at my kid's primary school (who finally got found out and sacked half way through my son being there) to the teal flattop sporting PMO lead at a corporate gig (similar outcome). Both tried the tribunal and union route to no success.
My daughter is 19, and as student activist as you can get. Currently wearing (so I'm told, I'm colourblind) 'forest green' hair. She's the first to admit she's only doing it for a bit of fun whilst at uni, and even used the word she hates more than any, 'normal', when describing what she'll go back to in a year or two before doing anything like caring about career.
If you can 'out woke' a 19 year old non-binary pansexual psychology student, I'll be very impressed.
chrispmartha said:
I think the forum is jumping the shark to be honest.
We've had hair colour and trouser colour all being indicators of ability to do a job today alone.Hilarious as it is that they actually mean it there's also a serious side to it about attitudes which I find pretty grim.
Seems to me the big takeaway from the Haigh situation is to underline what a Starmer is.
If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?
She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.
None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.
Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?
Off the scale.
Starmer is. If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?
She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.
None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.
Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?
Off the scale.
Wombat3 said:
Seems to me the big takeaway from the Haigh situation is to underline what a Starmer is.
If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?
She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.
None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.
Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?
Off the scale.
And if he had you’d have had a go at him for standing by someone who committed fraud. Starmer is. If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?
She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.
None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.
Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?
Off the scale.
Starmer derangement syndrome.
Wombat3 said:
Seems to me the big takeaway from the Haigh situation is to underline what a Starmer is.
If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?
She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.
None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.
Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?
Off the scale.
Starmer is. If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?
She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.
None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.
Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?
Off the scale.
chrispmartha said:
Wombat3 said:
Seems to me the big takeaway from the Haigh situation is to underline what a Starmer is.
If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?
She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.
None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.
Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?
Off the scale.
And if he had you’d have had a go at him for standing by someone who committed fraud. Starmer is. If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?
She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.
None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.
Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?
Off the scale.
Starmer derangement syndrome.
Wombat3 said:
Seems to me the big takeaway from the Haigh situation is to underline what a Starmer is.
If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?
She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.
None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.
Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?
Off the scale.
A good point, he should either:- Starmer is. If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?
She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.
None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.
Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?
Off the scale.
State he knew the full facts and lay out why his decision to include her was correct.
Or
State he didn't know and deal with appropriately (could be to defend her position or to berate her).
Either would seem appropriate to me unless she's so unimportant he doesn't consider it worth his time.
LimmerickLad said:
chrispmartha said:
Wombat3 said:
Seems to me the big takeaway from the Haigh situation is to underline what a Starmer is.
If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?
She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.
None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.
Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?
Off the scale.
And if he had you’d have had a go at him for standing by someone who committed fraud. Starmer is. If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?
She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.
None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.
Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?
Off the scale.
Starmer derangement syndrome.
It’s actually hilarious how some are acting on here.
chrispmartha said:
LimmerickLad said:
chrispmartha said:
Wombat3 said:
Seems to me the big takeaway from the Haigh situation is to underline what a Starmer is.
If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?
She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.
None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.
Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?
Off the scale.
And if he had you’d have had a go at him for standing by someone who committed fraud. Starmer is. If he knew about her conviction as alledged then why did he not stand by her?
She might well have tendered her resignation to try & deflect, but he didn't have to accept it, or, if he did then it should have come with a published letter stating that he didn't want to but respected her wishes.
None of the above, just jettisoned her with 4 lines of platitudes.
Her judgement is clearly questionable....but his?
Off the scale.
Starmer derangement syndrome.
It’s actually hilarious how some are acting on here.
chrispmartha said:
Doesn’t alter my point. He would have been vilified on here whatever he did.
It’s actually hilarious how some are acting on here.
If he hadn't acted so pious in opposition as if his sIt’s actually hilarious how some are acting on here.
t literally didn't stink, then I think this would be chalked down to - MP's, what are they like ? You open up a holier than thou position, then can't be surprised when its flung back in your face.
Idiotic, IMO.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff