Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westminstenders: 10 day count down

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 03/12/2019 17:19

10 days to go...

... Wake me up when the shit show is over.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
37
TheElementsSong · 04/12/2019 11:42

Anyone who politicises themselves and comes from any sphere of influence, should rightly be up for scrutiny, not just have their pasts ignored and not addressed.

Yes.

EpicShitDippedBatBiscuit · 04/12/2019 11:44

“Hugh Grant isn't the Prime Minister, or in the Cabinet or even in politics”

I’m afraid I somewhat disagree. He is using his platform of power and celebrity, to campaign and influence politics directly. Despite not being a politician himself. When you do that, you willingly become part of the process and Imo, are therefore open to scrutiny of your own value systems and behaviours.

Greykitten · 04/12/2019 11:45

Personally, I would love "moral fibre" and a history of irresponsible and abusive relationships with women, partners and children to be more of a factor in this election.

And because I'm not a great big fucking hypocrite I'd be happy to apply this to both sides.

If people like epicshit cared about this sort of behaviour, polling would look rather different.

TheElementsSong · 04/12/2019 11:46

So now let's scrutinise the actual Prime Minister and those surrounding him, being someones who are politicised and have influence. Would we agree that BlowJob's affairs, illegitimate children, lies, corruption, pretence at speaking Chinese, and so on, are indicative of poor moral fibre? Furthermore, these are things he has done somewhat more recently than 25 years ago? Furthermore, that BlowJob's "political influence" is on a somewhat larger and more significant scale than Hugh Grant's?

Fair's fair, and all.

EpicShitDippedBatBiscuit · 04/12/2019 11:48

“If people like epicshit cared about this sort of behaviour, polling would look rather different.”

Again, missing my point.

“So now let's scrutinise the actual Prime Minister and those surrounding him, being someones who are politicised and have influence.”

You mean you haven’t already?? ShockGrin

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 04/12/2019 11:48

Our Tory ex-MP wouldn't have had to climb a fence to escape from the hustings I was at. He had a police escort. (They looked very bored, but they may be carefully trained to do that.)

EpicShitDippedBatBiscuit · 04/12/2019 11:49

“Furthermore, that BlowJob's "political influence" is on a somewhat larger and more significant scale than Hugh Grant's?”

Can’t disagree with this. Same goes for Jezzbollah! Although, I am fully aware that you are not all Jez fans...

ContinuityError · 04/12/2019 11:49

Q: What’s the difference between Boris Johnson and Hugh Grant?

A: One pretends to be the Prime Minister and the other is an actor.

Icantreachthepretzels · 04/12/2019 11:49

I just find it highly IRONIC considering the exact same approach has been repeatedly used to discredit people on the ‘other’ side, for distasteful and innapropriate behaviour, whilst simultaneously upholding others with similarly atrocious backgrounds as if they are a paragon of virtue.

But it comes down to what role they play, what they did wrong, how long ago and what they're doing now.

All situations are not equal.

An elected official should be held to a higher standard than a private citizen, even if that citizen is well know. There is an element of hypocrisy involved in politicians evading tax, claiming expenses and taking drugs. They are making the policy that will punish you for doing exactly the same as them, whilst they get away scot free. Hugh Grant has no hand in the making of public decency laws. Even if actions took place before they became politicians (and we believe they stopped the moment they were elected) they are still responsible for creating policy around things that they thought were absolutely fine to do themselves, but will throw the book at an ordinary person for doing the same.

Then - if they are found to have done something dodgy in the past (like conspiring to beat up a journalist) - and are currently cheerfully overseeing crippling austerity or a rise in hate crimes, then it all can be taken as a whole: to paint a picture of a person who is morally corrupt, lacks a conscience and believes in harsh rules for others and nor rules for themselves.

However, if they are now campaigning against the above - warning people of the disaster headed their way (despite being rich enough to ride out a catastrophic brexit perfectly comfortably, rich enough to live abroad if needs must and rich enough for private health insurance) then you can remember the bad thing they did, but also accept that maybe they have moved past that, grown up, changed.

I'd like to think anybody can change and I hate to think that anybody was forever damned by their actions 25 years ago, if they now seem to be well beyond all that.

The 'other side' are not well beyond all that. They're still doing it - it's part of a pattern of who they are. Yes, Boris is having things he wrote back in the 90s thrown in his face - but 'letter boxes and bank robbers' was not 25 years ago.

That seems an obvious difference to me - and not in the least an ironic bout of hypocrisy. No one is morally pure, everyone has made a mistake or done something wrong ... not everyone continues to do the same, and not everyone is then responsible for policy around their wrongdoing.

pretty simple stuff.

TheElementsSong · 04/12/2019 11:50

You mean you haven’t already??

You mean scrutiny shouldn't be ongoing? For someone who is seeking more power and influence to be granted by the public? Hmm

thecatfromjapan · 04/12/2019 11:50

Not sure I'm so zero sum about that political scrutiny idea.

Are all canvassers signing up to have their private lives dragged over?

Are all councillors fair game to have their families dragged into the public arena?

Even though they don't have the political protection and advantages of high-level politicians?

Does the moral bar - which often means trial by a hostile media - preclude the less privileged and non- mainstream?

Given the lack of a level moral playing field mean women are particularly deterred from taking in a public role in politics?

Yes, Hugh Grant is lending his fame but, even so, is it right to expect more of him than from an actual politician given that he is, in fact, a civilian, albeit a famous one?

I don't have straight or easy answers to these questions. I'm only putting them here to point out that there aren't easy answers.

In maths, you get questions like '2 + 2 =' and the answer is correct or incorrect.

Once you enter the realm of moral philosophy and ethics it's trickier. And, in fact, the search to find answers is more a question of digging down to find the foundations of what you already believe, and prodding them to see if they are firm, congruent, etc.

EpicShitDippedBatBiscuit · 04/12/2019 11:51

Anyhoo. I enjoyed my little ‘sojourn’ thanks for having me and indulging my arguments. 😉

thecatfromjapan · 04/12/2019 11:53

Anyway, others have put it better.

I, for one, am more concerned about Johnson because his past and present actions indicate there will be an extraordinary level of dishonesty at the heart of political process in the UK if he is elected.

Greykitten · 04/12/2019 11:55

Again, missing my point.

What is your point?

That Hugh Grant should be held to account for past sexual misconduct (i don't disagree) but that Boris Johnson should get a free pass for his history of marital infidelity, unknown number of kids, shagging someone while funnelling hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money to her business, and having the cops called by neighbours during a violent fight with his partner?

You look like an epic hypocrite.

TheElementsSong · 04/12/2019 11:56

I'm more than delighted to scrutinise any squirrels presented to me for scrutiny. Including Corbyn the useless courgette.

But as cat and pretzels point out, the level of scrutiny depends on certain things. And forgive me for considering the fucking Prime Minister and his ongoing issues to be in need of more critical evaluation than most other individuals, seeing as he is currently seeking increased endorsement by the citizenry.

TokyoSushi · 04/12/2019 11:56

Late PMK, postal vote is done, I'm not happy about it but feel satisfied that I've done all that I can.

EpicShitDippedBatBiscuit · 04/12/2019 11:57

“You look like an epic hypocrite.”

Awww, so lovely! Thank you! I really love how nice and friendly you all are. Stick to it, it’s a wonderful virtue.

EpicShitDippedBatBiscuit · 04/12/2019 11:57

Byeeee! 👋 😘

mrslaughan · 04/12/2019 11:58

Hugh Grant isn't endorsing a particular person or even party (see spat on Twitter with Lib Dem's when they claimed he was endorsing them) he is encouraging people to think how they vote, to essentially avoid another Tory government.

As an aside I have huge respect for HG for his constant support of the backed off campaign- and not letting the Leveson enquiry stop where it is, and try and get the government to enforce its findings.

DGRossetti · 04/12/2019 11:58

None of us is the same person we were 10 years ago. Older people more so.

What you do with that knowledge is up to you. You can ignore it. You can think about it and try to factor it into your dealings with those around you. You can argue that isn't the case and that we are all the same people we were 10 years ago.

It's only within the last 15 or so years that there has been an ability to set an opinion in the granite of the internet.

Interestingly enough - and possibly proof that God does exist - the Christian liturgy even has a prayer for that. (Prayers being the religious equivalent of "apps" Grin).

...and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those that trespass against us ...

indistinct · 04/12/2019 12:00

@epicshit so come in point out a moral failing in an anti-tory campaigner and when the room starts warming up to pointing out the considerable moral failings of tory politicians, government ministers and the prime minister himself you decide to lope off. Whereever you're off to, hope you find your backbone.

mrslaughan · 04/12/2019 12:00

I guess @EpicShitDippedBatBiscuit doesn't do robust debate🤔

Sorry we didn't just kiss your arse and agree with you...... not!

Dusty01 · 04/12/2019 12:01

I saw this Just - if this was on Newsnight, why is the BBC not raising it in the actual news? I'm sure that not that many watch Newsnight do they? People need to be made aware of these things.

BBC Newsnight
@BBCNewsnight
· 13h
We took a closer look at p48 of the Tory manifesto...

@maitlis: Is this a shifting away from a legal framework, to a political framework?

@LordCFalconer: It is... so if Mr Johnson becomes PM again, he won't be restrained by the courts from acting unlawfully

#Newsnight | #GE19

twitter.com/i/status/1201933751611203584

ListeningQuietly · 04/12/2019 12:01

Am working in an area that would in past elections have been a sea of blue posters
not a single one
interesting

DryIce · 04/12/2019 12:01

I am far more concerned with the current and recent behaviour of the people actually governing our nation than I am the questionable decisions made by an actor when I was in primary school