The other day Bob Piper decided to have a pop at James Cleverly for making the rather benign comment on ConservativeHome that:
"I am not convinced women, especially mothers, are as willing as men to put their families into second place to fight an election."
There is nothing particularly controversial in James' comment, but Bob has decided that it's evidence of revolting nasty Tories who all hate women. You can probably bet that had James made a comment about black people in politics he would've been accused of being racist too.
What I do wonder though is why I cannot find anything on Bob's blog about his concern for the subjugated women around the world. Funny that, Tories are nasty and revolting, whilst Iran doesn't get a mention. Go figure.
16 comments:
I had a good chortle at his presumption that anyone who isn't a socialist is such because they don't understand it.....
Croydonian... I didn't presume anything of the sort. Clearly you are unable to understand logic, so I will take the trouble to explain for you. dizzy gave a facile definition of socialism which wouldn't stand serious analysis anywhere, but that is OK because I suspect he was being humerous (I mean, I HOPE he was being humerous). I gave an equally cynical riposte and it is a shame you appear not to either understand nor appreciate that. Perhaps you're in the wrong line of business.
As for Iranian society and women, dizzy, you are absolutely right. I suspect in over 2 years of blogging I haven't mentioned it. Nor, incidentally, to my knowledge have I blogged about fishing, Big Ron Atkinson, the state of the polar ice caps or the slight corn I have got on my left little toe. Please don't take this silence as assuming I do not have an opinion on all these things because it is another example of your patronising views.
I'm not being patronising Bob, I'm being condescending because I'm better than you.
As to you saying that I'm assuming you don't have an opinion on the subjugatioon fo wemn in Iranian society because you've not written about it, I didn't realise the point I was making was as subtle as it appears to have been.
You see I searched through your blog and read many things about your opinions on terrorism, muslims and those matter of foreign affairs that involve the Middle East. Not once do I recall you complaining about the nastiness or revolting nature of the regimes there.
I guess what I'm saying is it puts your attitude towards James' benign observation in context. If you really cared about women's rights that much then the words of an ordinary working family guy living in south London would be the least of your worries.
Why would you expect Bob to say anything about wimmin’s rights, FFS even the wimmin Labour MPs say sweet fanny Adams about Prescott’s behaviour. Hypocrites resorting to smears and phoney moral outrage, pathetic.
10 out of 10 for irrelevance anyway, asnonymous.
Now I can die happy - I've been patronised by a tankie. Since being patronising is the order of the day, buy a dictionary - you can't spell 'humourous'. And the norm is to capitalise proper names and words starting sentences, so that's two strikes. Or maybe my concerning myself with correct grammar is 'bourgeois'.
As to my line of business, I'll have to ask my boss - oh, that's me: I'm self-employed and I'll do whatever I damned well please. If you are referring to blogging, I was unaware that the vanguard element is responsible for doling out blogging licences.
croydonian pedant, please tell dizzy about the 'norm' to capitalise proper names because you both seem to fail to appreciate it... so that's one strike I'll take back. Please, if you are going to die happy... don't wait, do it while you are.
Bob - you're scaring the kids. Get back in your cage! ;-)
Bob, "croydoian" and "dizzy" are handles, they're not proper names. On the incredibale edible interweb super roadway, people have handles and nicks, often they have numbers in them too as I have had many times when I used to frequent channels of h4x0r repute.
dizzy... I never said they were proper names... go tell croybloodydonian! Can we have pistols at just past dawn... I'm never at my best first thing in the morning.
Since you have issued the challenge, it falls to me to select the weapons. I choose wits, although you appear to be somewhat underarmed in this respect.
Having seen your failure to understand anything vaguely witty, I'll take that challenge anyday, although as a tory you must have some sense of humour to keep you going all these years I suppose.
Bob, is there any particular reason you've not responded to my points last night about your faux concern for women rights?
You seem to have confused wit in the sense of verbal dexterity with wit in the sense of humour, which rather proves my point.
Meanwhile, back at the plot, I see Sandwell MBC Labour group only manages 32.6% female councillors and 25% of its MPs. If the Labour party has been so successful in bringing about social justice, equality, cakes and ale and a New Jerusalem etc etc, why is the majority of the population so woefully under represented by the People's Party?
And rather amusingly the log in page for councillors (linked above)includes this footer: "Rough Guide To Drinking. A major new campaign to raise awareness of the potential dangers of drinking gets under way in Sandwell this week." Is there something we should know about Sandwell councillors spend their time?
Well I know I spend a fair bit of my spare time doing a bit of rough drinking, but it isn't really a secret. As for the wit & wit point, I'm afraid you also prove my point. Don't you actually do irony?
New Labour are addressing the issue of under representation of women in local authorities. In fact in Sandwell, where a winnable seat becomes vacant it has to go to a woman candidate if the other councillors are male. You cannot adjust the imbalance by throwing elected councillors off the council, that would be treating the electorate who had elected those councillors with contempt.
dizzy, (sorry about the lack of a capital letter there, croydoian will be along with his grammar lessons again now I suppose) I fail to see how failing to mention something shows a lack of concern... I did answer the point. If I trawl through your blog and find no condemnation of the holocaust, can I assume you are therefore in favour of it? You are making a rather silly point.
Post a Comment