Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mike52

Harriet Harman

14 posts in this topic

Mods please feel free to move this post to any other thread you wish to. I'm not a fan of Harriet Harman, dislike her attitude towards this world and I'm not happy with the current governments idea of over regulation of life style choices. However I don't think that some posters are doing the site a favour by their frequent personal derogatory remarks about Ms Harmans looks, sexuality etc. Can we please keep comments to ones that are based upon logical arguements against Ms Harmans thoughts. I think she has lost the arguements already, however we need to constantly show that we are the sensible ones in this case, simply slagging off Harriet Harman will achieve nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd go further and suggest HH should be off topic. Every point has been made, sometimes with a lack of thought and sensitivity to the complexities of the relationship between our little world and the big one out there.

Posts that are in a minority, those with a lack of thought and sensitivity, are the ones that will be used against us and the larger group of ladies and users who would never post or, in punters cases, post a review .

The argument is won, let's move on with grace, dignity, acceptance of difference and respect.

Enough please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd go further and suggest HH should be off topic.

* Emails Gordon Brown with that excellent suggestion *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mods please feel free to move this post to any other thread you wish to. I'm not a fan of Harriet Harman, dislike her attitude towards this world and I'm not happy with the current governments idea of over regulation of life style choices. However I don't think that some posters are doing the site a favour by their frequent personal derogatory remarks about Ms Harmans looks, sexuality etc. Can we please keep comments to ones that are based upon logical arguements against Ms Harmans thoughts. I think she has lost the arguements already, however we need to constantly show that we are the sensible ones in this case, simply slagging off Harriet Harman will achieve nothing.

She ought to be kept in legislation and legalities, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole idea of New labour telling people that paying for sex is against the law is another of the stupidity of this bloody party.

John_P_Reid says:

October 2, 2009 at 6:40 pm

Actually at the last election labour home sec's David Blunkett and charles Clarke and police minister Hazel Blears wanted to allow women to set up their own brothels out of the way(as did alan jonson), but it was Harman on becoming deputy laeder who introduced this idea and she's old labour compared to them

http://www.labourhome.org/?p=7657

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd go further and suggest HH should be off topic. Every point has been made, sometimes with a lack of thought and sensitivity to the complexities of the relationship between our little world and the big one out there.

Posts that are in a minority, those with a lack of thought and sensitivity, are the ones that will be used against us and the larger group of ladies and users who would never post or, in punters cases, post a review .

The argument is won, let's move on with grace, dignity, acceptance of difference and respect.

Enough please.

I don't like the personal abuse any more than you but feelings run high sometimes and this Board is a mouthpiece for people within the industry, albeit with limits.

The argument has not been won. Points have been made perhaps ad nauseam. But she is attacking Punternet, us and the WG's. She has power too. We fight with what we've got.

BTW where I come from respect is something you have to earn. By her combination of ignorance of the industry, malice towards all men, and callous disregard for WG's welfare, or the fate of trafficked victims, and unscrupulous scrambling for power, she has done much to ensure that she will never get the respect you seem to think she deserves.

Enough you say. I agree. Enough with the moral high ground schtick. This is now a fist fight. Official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the old days when policy changes were canvassed in debates in halls and clubs around the country a certain degree of heckling / abuse was considered the norm when a politician entered the fray of public opinion.

These days the non consultation approach of neo fascist new labour idealists has to be discussed on the web (otherwise our democracy would be dead)

and a degree of name calling is, I would have thought, acceptable to old labour style politicians-

One only has to look atthe disorderly riot that PM questions conjures from our leaders to see that vulgar abuse is but par for the course.

We hear much about millionaire footballers being called on to set an example, whythen should our gravy train politicians not be called on to set an example for children and others when their antics are broadcast live on tv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
she makes me sick in her winging and her looks! You've lost the election so why bother trying to convince hard right wingers to vote for you to prove your hard on crime,its a joke,give up ! retire on your huge bloody undeserving pension!:D

Banned after 16 posts - is this a record? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, my mind is still boggling over "her winging and her looks" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know, my mind is still boggling over "her winging and her looks" :D

i think its fair to say that he means whinging or her ( lack of ) looks.

perhaps if she held the moral high ground on say...... her expenses i might just might pay attention and respect her views. but considering she and other mps have milked the system to line their own pockets then she goes into the ignore box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned after 16 posts - is this a record? :D
The Mods are in a pre-holiday mood these days. He never should have made it past 3!:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel very strongly about Harriet Harman's efforts and what they represent:

so on that basis I feel we should comment:

People like HH seek to restrict personal liberties for the sake of something they believe in. Unfortunately her outlook looks like a personal agenda and is thus undemocratic.

I have plenty of time for real feminists: let's have some workingclass ones: please Harriet to give us some of those agendas, Labour MP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Mods are in a pre-holiday mood these days. He never should have made it past 3!:)

A comparison of GR77's posts (those few that remain - he did have nearly 30 at one point :D) and the previous output of the already banned zagato would reveal some remarkable similarities.

Neither "identity" was very successful in observing normal forum etiquette, hence the short shelf life.

In response to Vindaloo's question, the shortest lived Pnet member that I am aware of was zero posts approved, and about 40 minutes from activating account to being banned. If you are stupid enough to think that "Whorepuncher" is a good idea as a username, think again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are stupid enough to think that "Whorepuncher" is a good idea as a username, think again.
That's so disgusting that it's funny. We do draw some tossers here!:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0