Mailwatch(ed) Forum

The 'Beergate' MP is under pressure from no one beyond a Tory backbench rentaquoter. Bloody MPs, how dare they have relationships?

A Labour MP is under pressure to explain why she lobbied Parliament on behalf of a trade union while in an undeclared relationship with its boss.

The Mail on Sunday can reveal that Durham MP Mary Foy is in a relationship with militant former fireman Matt Wrack, who led the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) for two decades until January.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ament.html

So now the register of members' interests should include who the said member is shagging?

Could be interesting for a number of Tories...

Cynthia Payne, anyone?

This is a nice bit of deconstruction work on a typically frothing Mail Labour-bashing headline that turns out to be the fault of…the Tories.

https://www.thepoke.com/2025/06/09/a-mi ... ting-read/

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 2:35 pm This is a nice bit of deconstruction work on a typically frothing Mail Labour-bashing headline that turns out to be the fault of…the Tories.

https://www.thepoke.com/2025/06/09/a-mi ... ting-read/

I saw this at a glance and expected it would be something that it actually is. Though classic that its a Conservative policy in place for 11 years.

mattomac wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 1:34 pm

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 2:35 pm This is a nice bit of deconstruction work on a typically frothing Mail Labour-bashing headline that turns out to be the fault of…the Tories.

https://www.thepoke.com/2025/06/09/a-mi ... ting-read/

I saw this at a glance and expected it would be something that it actually is. Though classic that its a Conservative policy in place for 11 years.

But Job Done, every "aspirational" person filling up their SUV will have glanced at that headline while waiting to pay.
They will then add this "outrage" to the hundreds of other cases they've seen.

Saw a Mail headline, something about Starmer not committing to support Trump bombing Iran.

Is that really what Mail readers want? I'd guess there were quite a lot of "faraway country" Mailites, who'd rule this out on principle. And that's before you get to all the people who have a wider view of foreign affairs but think that bombing Iran is a bad idea.

Doesn't matter. Whatever he does, he'll be wrong. As ever, who is doing a thing is more important than what's being done.

Not the banter police

Workers' rights? Down with that sort of thing

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 1:31 am Not the banter police

But it’s okay if Donald does it

In all seriousness, can anyone pinpoint roughly when the word 'banter' stopped involving wit and became cover for being an insulting git?

Vaguely around the late 1990s, when magazines like Loaded started rebranding jokes and quirky facts as "pub ammo", and Chris Evans was being hailed as a genius by some.

Without looking, here's my guess at the response: whatever happened to having a laugh, sticks and stones, bloody snowflakes, what's wrong with a compliment, back in the day if you tried anything with Bulldyke Maureen she'd give as good as she got, ooh at my age I'd be flattered, can't even show the old sitcoms any more, of course the gays are allowed to talk about their things all they like but you can't say anything about it, what did you expect from Rayner, bloody gymslip mum, foul mouthed fishwife, remember what they said about Esther McVey, of course nobody likes actual offensive language but...

It's not about the 'bants', is it? They want to undermine the bill, but they don't want to full-on tell their readers that it's because they want them to have fewer employment rights. So they'll go with deliberately confusing bullying and banter. Expect also appealing to their retired readership with a whole bunch of "I was bullied mercilessly when I started work in the 'sixties and it did me no harm' bullshit.

Yes, it's another of those irregular verbs. I banter, they bully.

And it's the standard ragebait speculation: 'accused' of 'planning to'. Accused by whom? And what evidence of 'planning' to do what she is accused of?

We need a corollary to Betteridge's Law; 'Any accusation made on a front page is invariably false and designed to provoke rage in the hard of thinking'.

Banter Police has me thinking about the old hands at the cop shop in Hot Fuzz.

'Ironic.' That's what racism and misogyny was called back then. I'm not a bigoted, sexist twat, I'm being ironic.

We have some good news from central government. What angle does the cunting shitstain take?

Britain's biggest jobless families in line for taxpayer-funded windfalls worth thousands as Labour prepares to scrap two-child cap

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... abour.html

The article itself is pure hate-speech directed at the poorest people in our society, which is no less than you'd expect from the disgusting fascist shiterag.



Edit to correct an autocorrupt 'correction' of "cunting"

One of the biggest dilemmas for any liberal government is presented by the principle that you don't punish children for the sins of their parents.

The solution to this in liberal land is complex and many-faceted, balancing many behavioral incentives and disincentives aimed at dysfunctional or uneducated or simply ill families.

In Mail land it's much simpler: Punish the kids. Little bastards. Punish them.

Its the retrospective element that was so dismal about this benefit cut but Labour can't win on this either way; heartless traitors starving kids or giving your hard earned cash to Vicky Pollard to pop out more wasters growing up on benefits.

If you want to introduce new family planning programmes for young mothers with one child that's a different matter. Even then you'll have twats like Danny Kruger and Musk poking his nose in banging on about population decline.