Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To target a politician’s children is UNREASONABLE!

242 replies

Blinkingblimey · 12/09/2018 13:16

Just that. Not a fan of Rees-Mogg but no child should EVER be targeted so horribly anywhere, let alone on their doorstep. I am just so shocked that anyone thinks this is ok.

OP posts:
ImFreeToDoWhatIWant · 13/09/2018 16:11

Haven't rtft, but discussing this with friends earlier and my feeling is that for a politician to use his children to deliberately provoke protestors is equally questionable behaviour. Stupidly they fell for it and the valid points in their argument are lost. He's a master manipulator that man and comes out of it just as badly imo.

DebbysMum · 13/09/2018 16:12

I don't care who the politician is, their kids aren't fair game.

BertrandRussell · 13/09/2018 16:18

"YeTalkShiteHen why do you think JRM is a scumbag?"

Because, among other things, he profits from manufacturing abortion pills while maintaining a "principled" pro life stance.

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 13/09/2018 16:20

Because, among other things, he profits from manufacturing abortion pills while maintaining a "principled" pro life stance

Really?

Gosh thats bad...is it shares or something

YeTalkShiteHen · 13/09/2018 16:21

Does he? I didn’t know that but I’m not in the least surprised.

BertrandRussell · 13/09/2018 16:32

Yes. His investment conmany has holdings in Kalbe Farma, which manufactures abortion pills.

YeTalkShiteHen · 13/09/2018 16:34

It fits with my opinion of him tbh.

If he weren’t so “morally” (as if he has morals) opposed to abortion, I wouldn’t see a problem. However, claiming your “principles” (convenient for a man particularly) mean you are opposed to terminations, while profiting from them is the absolute definition of hypocrisy.

BertrandRussell · 13/09/2018 16:34

But even if he didn't his stance on abortion makes him a scumbag. I used to think he was at least a principled scumbag-his views were simply those of a strictly observing Catholic. But now I know he's just a acumbag.

Everanewbie · 13/09/2018 16:35

I certainly don't think he inserted himself into power to enjoy trappings. He stood for election as independently wealthy due to a) an accident of birth and b) running an extremely successful investment management firm. I don't feel that becoming an MP has too great an impact on his overall wealth.

He has his own way of doing things, and it's not to everyone's taste. He makes no apologies for who he is and his family situation, which I admire. He is who he is at the end of the day.

As for being decent and being against disabled people, well I don't think thats really the case. He's been involved in some policies that have caused teething problems, universal credit and spare room subsidy, however i don't think that stems from wanting to attack the poor, but from a desire to promote fairness, make work pay and balance the books. Not my view, but his view.

Likewise, people of another political persuasion may call Corbyn et al scumbags for hanging around with terrorists, wanting to punish success and reward laziness and failure. Again, not my view, but equally as myopic and unfair. In his mind he wants to bring peace, back the perceived persecuted and help the poor.

My view is somewhere between the two. Neither are scumbags.

Everanewbie · 13/09/2018 16:40

Because, among other things, he profits from manufacturing abortion pills while maintaining a "principled" pro life stance

That's a massive twist to the truth. His some of his funds invest in companies that among other things, manufacture said pills. Do any of you have pensions? If yes, the vast majority will contain a fund that will invest in Astrazenica, Imperial Tobacco, companies that make arms etc. etc.

YeTalkShiteHen · 13/09/2018 16:41

I certainly don't think he inserted himself into power to enjoy trappings. He stood for election as independently wealthy due to a) an accident of birth and b) running an extremely successful investment management firm. I don't feel that becoming an MP has too great an impact on his overall wealth.

Power, not wealth. I thought I’d made that clear.

As for being decent and being against disabled people, well I don't think thats really the case. He's been involved in some policies that have caused teething problems, universal credit and spare room subsidy, however i don't think that stems from wanting to attack the poor, but from a desire to promote fairness, make work pay and balance the books. Not my view, but his view

“Teething problems” is a grotesque euphemism. The reality of those “teething problems” is cutting benefits yet not creating jobs, it is putting people who are working in zero hour contract and low paid jobs further into poverty, it is cutting disability benefits (despite a firm promise that they’d be ring fenced from cuts!!!) to the point where people who are disabled and unable (NOT unwilling as Tory propaganda would have you believe) to work are in dire financial straits and unable to afford even a basic decent standard of living.

If you want to make work pay, make it pay, create jobs, job security and decent wages.

Simply cutting services, welfare and other vital areas to the bone and saying it’s for the best isn’t right, decent or fair.

But then, if you’re willing to see people living in deplorable conditions, hungry, cold, unable to access basic facilities such as hot water and cooking facilities written off as “teething problems” I suspect none of what I’ve just written will make a jot of difference.

Everanewbie · 13/09/2018 16:43

BertrandRussell would you say the same of a muslim? Ask a muslim politician on apostacy, homosexuality, abortion etc and what their religion teaches on those subjects, and whether they believe that. When i've seen Muslim politicians grilled in such away they become extremely evasive.

JRM is upfront on these things. The lack of slimyness will mean he'll never be prime minister. Remember the Liberal chap who quit when he couldn't bring himself to agree with gay marriage?

YeTalkShiteHen · 13/09/2018 16:43

That's a massive twist to the truth. His some of his funds invest in companies that among other things, manufacture said pills. Do any of you have pensions? If yes, the vast majority will contain a fund that will invest in Astrazenica, Imperial Tobacco, companies that make arms etc. etc.

Really? Because when my grandparents died, my dad and his siblings inherited vast amounts of shares/investments in various companies. They went through them all and got rid of any they morally disagreed with, donating any profit to charity. Guinness, Marlboro and a couple of pharmaceutical companies as I remember.

It’s not hard, and if it was as important to him as lecturing women on what they should and shouldn’t be doing, he would have made sure he quite literally put his money where his mouth is!

Everanewbie · 13/09/2018 16:48

YeTalkShiteHen I'm sorry, I just don't agree. I don't think JRM wants to see people in that situation. Arguably a result of his politics, but not his intention.

I think he'd have had a go at the leadership by now if it was power he wanted, or maybe a top civil service job, not sat back as a backbench MP and been crystal clear on his very euro-skeptic views, and religious views, likely debarring him from a front bench role for some time.

YeTalkShiteHen · 13/09/2018 16:50

YeTalkShiteHen I'm sorry, I just don't agree

Has he ever voted against any kind of sanctions or cuts? He voted against legislation to force landlords (he is one) “to make homes fit for human habitation”!!!!

So you can agree or disagree. The facts speak to his intentions.

YeTalkShiteHen · 13/09/2018 16:52

again, facts on how he’s voted

Scroll to the welfare part and tell me again what his intentions are.

Everanewbie · 13/09/2018 16:55

YeTalkShiteHen good for them. Ethical investing is something i'm quite passionate about, but it is a very small niche in a large market. Ethical funds tend to be either managed my positive selection, i.e. picking out firms that promote fair pay, environmental sustainability etc. or negatively, like getting rid of sex industry, tobacco, alcohol etc. Tobacco and pharmaceuticals are the mainstay of most equity income funds as they are reliable dividend payers - in theory recession proof. The fund managers can't really leverage a Glaxo into not producing certain medicines.

To push your clients towards exclusively small and volatile investments is not a successful recipe. You'd have to ask him directly whether he offers an ethical option, I don't have a clue.

Everanewbie · 13/09/2018 16:57

Again, I don't feel that these votes are evil. You'd have to ask him what his intention was on a particular bill. Maybe he didn't agree with the wording. A bit like that chap who recently voted against the 'upskirting' law. He was abused as if he wanted upskirting to be ok. That wasn't the case, he felt the bill needed more scrutiny and wasn't accurately worded.

YeTalkShiteHen · 13/09/2018 16:58

You'd have to ask him directly whether he offers an ethical option, I don't have a clue

I don’t care whether or not he does. I care that he’s espousing all his “morality” while profiting directly and considerably from the polar opposite of what he’s preaching.

YeTalkShiteHen · 13/09/2018 16:59

Again, I don't feel that these votes are evil

Ask someone affected by them.

Or don’t.

It’s clear you don’t really give a shit about the reality so I’m going to stop now.

Nice to know he has at least one fan though, I’m sure he’ll be pleased.

Everanewbie · 13/09/2018 17:03

YeTalkShiteHen I'm not a fan, I just feel that scumbag is too strong, and people spout this stuff about investments without a clue what they're talking about. I was horrified at what happended to Jo Cox and i'm worried that such vitriol and perversion of the facts festers a culture where a nutter takes it one step farther.

YeTalkShiteHen · 13/09/2018 17:05

So now because I’ve called him a scumbag (I’ve attached the definition since you seem to be confused about the meaning or severity of it), I’ve already explained I do understand investments (but thanks ever so for assuming I’m an idiot) and you’re insinuating that my calling him a scumbag will lead to violence?

I think you need a grip, here you go.

To target a politician’s children is UNREASONABLE!
Everanewbie · 13/09/2018 17:15

I don't assume anything, apologies if it came across like that. It is my area of expertise and I do get frustrated when people misrepresent this kind of thing.

JRM has said before that his beliefs are personal to him but that won't mean he'd seek to change government policy on abortion or gay marriage. Being able to separate his personal beliefs and his responsibilities to his employees and customers could be seen as admirable if viewed from a different standpoint.
Not you specifically, but the insults, the exaggeration, and the hate festers a culture that makes a small minority think that extreme actions are justified.

I'm glad we agree about the kids, at least. If I'm fortunate enough to meet Mr RM, i'll ask him about the landlord thing, and try to establish his intention. Hopefully i'll be proven right but will reserve judgement and give him a chance, same as i would any public figure.

Have a good'un YeTalkShiteHen, I'm off to make dinner. Unfortunately no nanny in this house.

Defrack · 13/09/2018 17:41

But again regardless of what he does why should his kids be shouted at and abused by adults?
Why shouldn't he be able to take his kids for a walk or a meal?

Yes he Could have taken his kids back inside, however the knobs shouting at his children could fuck off and find something better to do so his kids can have a semi normal existance

YeTalkShiteHen · 13/09/2018 18:06

Fair enough Everanewbie. I would never advocate distressing or harming children, in any way. No matter who their parents are.

Personally, I think his voting record makes his intentions abundantly clear. The one which jumped off the page at me was voting against updating the military covenant (currently not worth the paper it is written on, coming from DP who is a war veteran) yet voting for military action several times.

That speaks to wanting to send the forces into war, but not taking any care of them when they return home. Which, however you look at it, is a really uncaring thing to do.

Swipe left for the next trending thread