Tomorrows Mail On Sunday

[Darran]

They’re taking the piss.

https://twitter.com/kayburley/status/1518487860336279552?s=21&t=u9Bv8TEG-XRwEZToyWeN0w

 

[Pegojack]

They’re taking the piss.

https://twitter.com/kayburley/status/1518487860336279552?s=21&t=u9Bv8TEG-XRwEZToyWeN0w

What's surprising about this? Nadine Dorries is as thick as two short ones, the fact that she copied and pasted her leader's e-mail is hardly world shattering. Original thought is beyond her. They really are the scum of the earth, and anyone who votes for them on May 5 needs to take a long, hard look at themselves.

 

[monmouth]

Its yet another dead cat. A particularly disgusting and rancid one, but it's given the criminal cunt a chance to act all innocent and outraged (trying and failing to quote Lear and desperately trying not to smirk). Also helped take the focus off everything else and dog whistle the Old Gammon twats (male and female) using Rayner as the stooge rather than BBC/Brown people/Archbishops/Europe. Expect more of the same before May 5th. No surprise really if It were all thought up by him and his crew from the start. Hopefully that's what will come out. That would be sweet.

 

[AceJack]

That's only a very short step from saying that rape victims were asking for it by being women and wearing feminine clothing. It's a real shame that people with views like that are able to breed and further pollute the gene pool.

It isn’t any step from saying that to be fair.

Neither was the article.

The woman on the LBC show was quite spectacularly stupid. I have no doubt where her vote goes.
Btw - the picture she was looking as for ‘proof’ was a Angela Rayner sitting opposite Philip Schofield and Holly.

The article though, to make sure people don’t miss all of what it said, was not only misogynistic. It also made fun of the vast majority of posters on this forum. By mocking people who do not have Johnson’s background. And saying that if you don’t have that background you need to fall back on ‘other’ skills. Which I assume means being a prostitute for a woman and a wide boy con man for a man.

Think about that in a few weeks time. That’s what they think of us. And I don’t mean ‘Tories’. I mean this particular incarnation of degenerates that passes for Tories.

In almost every article about Rayner its mentioned that she left school and had a kid at 16. Why? Can you imagine the uproar if Rayner had 6 or 7 kids by 3 different men and was currently living with a lover 20 years her junior?

 

[Sirjohnalot]

No surprise that this horrible rag runs a story like this, it’s perfect tactic for the Tory party, ‘anonymously’ brief the paper then feign outrage.

We will see if they are really taking it seriously by seeing what the pay do about it. The paper obviously won’t reveal its sources and there’s nothing to speaker can do to stop the press reporting (nor should they) but Johnson could instigate a full in enquiry to see what happened, but of course he won’t, he’s made his sound bite and that’ll be it.

I’m quite lucky practicing on the ‘Northern Circuit’ as a lot of the barristers up here are from similar backgrounds to me, but there are some and certainly down South are from the type of background that Johnson stems from. They’re from a different world, kids in private school, daddy’s a judge etc, have no comprehension of normal people. Criminal law does attract people more like me as opposed to something like commercial where all the city types work.

I’m not surprised they’re going after someone like Rayners, she’s everything they hate a ‘gobby, working class, Northern woman’.

They’re desperate.

That's only a very short step from saying that rape victims were asking for it by being women and wearing feminine clothing. It's a real shame that people with views like that are able to breed and further pollute the gene pool.

It isn’t any step from saying that to be fair.

Neither was the article.

The woman on the LBC show was quite spectacularly stupid. I have no doubt where her vote goes.
Btw - the picture she was looking as for ‘proof’ was a Angela Rayner sitting opposite Philip Schofield and Holly.

The article though, to make sure people don’t miss all of what it said, was not only misogynistic. It also made fun of the vast majority of posters on this forum. By mocking people who do not have Johnson’s background. And saying that if you don’t have that background you need to fall back on ‘other’ skills. Which I assume means being a prostitute for a woman and a wide boy con man for a man.

Think about that in a few weeks time. That’s what they think of us. And I don’t mean ‘Tories’. I mean this particular incarnation of degenerates that passes for Tories.

 

[dickythorpe]

I think she's marvelous.