west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 30,815
I guess it's because Shah apologised. Although as far as I'm concerned, they should have got rid of her as well.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ken Livingston
- Thread starter kas_tippler
- Start date
Gelsons Dad
Well-Known Member
And that's pretty much lesson one for anyone who wants to work in public service. Keep your personal views to yourself.I think it does have a problem but I also think the right wing press is using it as a stick to beat Corbyn with. I would imagine there are far more Tories who have ideological sympathies with Hitler. They're just not stupid enough to show it publicly.
Politicians should keep their personal views out of, erm, politics? Fuck me. Then let's just get rid of democracy altogether. No-one seems to like it anyway.And that's pretty much lesson one for anyone who wants to work in public service. Keep your personal views to yourself.
bluemoonmatt
Well-Known Member
Oh that's ok thenI guess it's because Shah apologised. Although as far as I'm concerned, they should have got rid of her as well.
Did she say sorry for hating Jews or sorry for saying she hated Jews
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 30,815
She apologised for upsetting people and said she didn't mean it. I would say she was lying to save her job.Oh that's ok then
Did she say sorry for hating Jews or sorry for saying she hated Jews
whp.blue
Well-Known Member
Oh that's ok then
Did she say sorry for hating Jews or sorry for saying she hated Jews
only the latter is an offence
anyone can think what they want voicing those thoughts is a different matter
Gelsons Dad
Well-Known Member
Politicians should keep their personal views out of, erm, politics? Fuck me. Then let's just get rid of democracy altogether. No-one seems to like it anyway.
In a democracy one elects public servants based on how closely they and their party reflect your views. Once elected their duty to the public is to represent. Not to suddenly start expressing other contrary views. When they do so they no longer are serving the public who elected them but rather themselves. No one every got elected on a promise to serve themselves. Those who expose themselves as doing so after being elected should be removed from office.
Democracy is at the service of the electorate and by their choice. Hence the saying you get the government you deserve.
You are proposing a government and parliament of people who never express their personal views. No need for MPs then, Just a one party state. Sorted.In a democracy one elects public servants based on how closely they and their party reflect your views. Once elected their duty to the public is to represent. Not to suddenly start expressing other contrary views. When they do so they no longer are serving the public who elected them but rather themselves. No one every got elected on a promise to serve themselves. Those who expose themselves as doing so after being elected should be removed from office.
Democracy is at the service of the electorate and by their choice. Hence the saying you get the government you deserve.
kevin horlocks wand
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2016
- Messages
- 9,648
Democracy government what's that. It's None stop politics. We have labour internally with this issue to deal with. The Tories worried about their tax returns and whether they need to publish it or hide it. Btw what happened to all the millions of files and people found in Panama. Not just daves dad all the others who are really at it. Then the Euro referendum where all the divided politicians tour the country arguing their cause. Can I ask who the feck is running the country and passing laws and dealing with issues to make the country better and stronger. It's all descended into chaos.
Gelsons Dad
Well-Known Member
You are proposing a government and parliament of people who never express their personal views. No need for MPs then, Just a one party state. Sorted.
I'm proposing a government who express their views when standing for election and become public servants based on those views.
Do you think anyone expressing anti-semantic views would be allowed to stand for any party? Do you think they would be elected if they did? So the democratic process prevents these people being elected in the first place as they do not represent the population who they wish to vote for them. When these people subsequently expose themselves as having lied to the electorate they should then be removed from office.
I'm trying not to raise to your bait as I'm all too familiar with your tactics. I also have an inkling that you probably don't think there is anything wrong with the opinions we are discussing. But that's just my opinion based on your contribution to this and other similar threads and I would be happy to be proved otherwise.