Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Tonkers

The Politics Show

Recommended Posts

Brown didn't deny being on 'painkillers', went on about his eye. This was then referred to as Whitehall gossip.

More truth to the rumour that he is on anti-depressents? Marr is obviously giving it a little credibility.

Rest of interview same old stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brown didn't deny being on 'painkillers', went on about his eye. This was then referred to as Whitehall gossip.

More truth to the rumour that he is on anti-depressents? Marr is obviously giving it a little credibility.

Rest of interview same old stuff.

I would imagine most of the labour party are on anti depressants at the moment :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brown didn't deny being on 'painkillers', went on about his eye. This was then referred to as Whitehall gossip.

More truth to the rumour that he is on anti-depressents? Marr is obviously giving it a little credibility.

Rest of interview same old stuff.

He distinctly and clearly said "No" to the drugs question, then went on to the eyes answer, albeit a little over-hastily.

I have no love for Brown but I found it distinctly uncomfortable to ask the question about the eyes and Marr is going to end up being forced to issue an apology, not least under pressure from his own blind colleague reporters.

Would Blunkett have been asked if he was competent to do his job due to his lack of eyesight? Unthinkable and we ought not to discriminate.

The drigs is a legitiamate question given that we do not want an addict with his finger on the nuclear button, so that investigation was warranted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He distinctly and clearly said "No" to the drugs question, then went on to the eyes answer, albeit a little over-hastily.

I have no love for Brown but I found it distinctly uncomfortable to ask the question about the eyes and Marr is going to end up being forced to issue an apology, not least under pressure from his own blind colleague reporters.

Would Blunkett have been asked if he was competent to do his job due to his lack of eyesight? Unthinkable and we ought not to discriminate.

The drigs is a legitiamate question given that we do not want an addict with his finger on the nuclear button, so that investigation was warranted

I do not think a blind person is competent to hold such a position as home secretary. I would feel the same about a deaf or dumb person . I do not consider that discrimination . Surely its being fit for purpose. Because of my disability there are certain positions I would never consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The man is boring beyond belief. I tried my best to pay attention to the little weasel and listen to his meaning but my mind kept rebelling at the utter tedium of a man talking and talking and talking merely to stop another from talking. He fills up any space in the conversation with such volumes of tedious verbal puff that nothing of any substance can be gleaned.

I know fifty percent of the posts on this site are criticisms of our prime munster, so i'm not adding much - but jesus, this guy has to be worst asshole we have had in this role

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The drigs is a legitiamate question given that we do not want an addict with his finger on the nuclear button, so that investigation was warranted

Antidepressants are not 'addictive', and in fact I'd rather have someone on antidepressants with their finger on the nuclear button than someone with depression (although it's unlikely that depression would cause a great increase in the risk of disturbed behaviour)

Everyone gets hysterical about depression and 'mental illness' in politicians, when in actual fact a sizeable proportion of MPs have always had a mental illness of some form or another - as many of the general population do. I'd be unconcerned if a prime minister was being treated for a mild depressive illness, as long as they were given extra support while it was being treated.

Personality disorder is what people should worry about - politicians with a borderline, antisocial or narcissistic PD are dangerous and should be prevented from ever going into the business. This would of course mean that there would be very few politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not think a blind person is competent to hold such a position as home secretary. I would feel the same about a deaf or dumb person . I do not consider that discrimination . Surely its being fit for purpose. Because of my disability there are certain positions I would never consider.

Uk law says that a disabled person must be allowed to do a job if reasonable adjustments can be made. If a high powered role would mean that someone had heaps of personal assistants and secretaries, then it is a reasonable adjustment to get them to read documents, lend an arm to guide, feed the dog etc.

But this could not be done for a bus driver or paratrooper, for instance.

Why can't a blind man run the country? So long as he is sane (this is the greay area with Brown of course)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uk law says that a disabled person must be allowed to do a job if reasonable adjustments can be made. If a high powered role would mean that someone had heaps of personal assistants and secretaries, then it is a reasonable adjustment to get them to read documents, lend an arm to guide, feed the dog etc.

But this could not be done for a bus driver or paratrooper, for instance.

Why can't a blind man run the country? So long as he is sane (this is the greay area with Brown of course)

I just do not think that any position that requires an army of assistants just to perform the task is a "reasonable adjustment" . A blind person could drive a bus if it was dual controlled by an assistant. Its not economically viable and would be frowned upon by the Audit Commision because it is not value for money. The same principle must apply to anyone running the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uk law says that a disabled person must be allowed to do a job if reasonable adjustments can be made. If a high powered role would mean that someone had heaps of personal assistants and secretaries, then it is a reasonable adjustment to get them to read documents, lend an arm to guide, feed the dog etc.

But this could not be done for a bus driver or paratrooper, for instance.

Why can't a blind man run the country? So long as he is sane (this is the greay area with Brown of course)

I think I would discriminate. I would want him to be able to read all the signs around him with full capabilities, including looking people in the eye. More to the point, would the UK public discriminate at election time if his eyesight is failing completely? They should have the choice. This is the PM, and our representative on the World stage.

I was interested in the fact that Marr sees some credibility in the anti depressant rumours that were discussed on here a few weeks ago.

He was sweating like anything, does he always do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I am not sure why the drugs issue even formed part of the interview. Apart from the NuLabour supporting BBC giving GB the chance to end on a "high note".

I do not watch Andrew Marr much, but is he considered "lightweight"? He did not seem to be able to nail Brown on anything.

I am sure at some point Marr made a ham fisted attempt to rustle through his notes (presumably for some stats) when Brown was saying how wonderful the position of this country was in relation to the rest of Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just do not think that any position that requires an army of assistants just to perform the task is a "reasonable adjustment" . A blind person could drive a bus if it was dual controlled by an assistant. Its not economically viable and would be frowned upon by the Audit Commision because it is not value for money. The same principle must apply to anyone running the country.

If society and the law accepted your view, all disabled people would be confined to stay at home on benefits, unable to work - shops, retaurants, offices etc would rip out ramps and so on.

Back to the dark ages. Is that what you want?

IMO I like the fact that my taxes (or higher prices paid for goods and services) go towards making society more inclusive and helping folks to work. In my past life as a public servant I worked amongst loads of disabled folk and they often worked far harder than their able bodied colleagues (unable, for instance, to nip out all day for a fag or to wander around holding files while pretending to be busy).

IMO I believe that those people stuck at home on full benefits pretending to be disabled are the real problem - your way would give them more leeway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I would discriminate. I would want him to be able to read all the signs around him with full capabilities, including looking people in the eye. More to the point, would the UK public discriminate at election time if his eyesight is failing completely? They should have the choice. This is the PM, and our representative on the World stage.

I was interested in the fact that Marr sees some credibility in the anti depressant rumours that were discussed on here a few weeks ago.

He was sweating like anything, does he always do that?

The British people love the underdog (unlike yanks who adore winners and hate losers) hence if Gordon Brown genuinely lost his eyesight totally in the next few months, I believe he would garnish a huge amount of public sympathy (especially if some skilfull PR work was done showing him being guided around by Sarah, hugging his kids, etc).

Obviously, showing him reaching for the nuclear button instead of the bedside lightswitch in error might cause him some harm at the polls but otherwise it is his best hope.

But being addicted to drugs would be very damaging, very Jackson-Elvis-esque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The British people love the underdog (unlike yanks who adore winners and hate losers) hence if Gordon Brown genuinely lost his eyesight totally in the next few months, I believe he would garnish a huge amount of public sympathy (especially if some skilfull PR work was done showing him being guided around by Sarah, hugging his kids, etc).

Obviously, showing him reaching for the nuclear button instead of the bedside lightswitch in error might cause him some harm at the polls but otherwise it is his best hope.

But being addicted to drugs would be very damaging, very Jackson-Elvis-esque

I think the sympathy would send the votes elsewhere. Poor love, he shouldn't have to work so hard, aw.

I don't think Labour will get away with playing the underdog, worked hard for everything they've got, not after the expenses scandal. the PM also repeated that he knew nothing about it, which should also get him kicked out of office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If society and the law accepted your view, all disabled people would be confined to stay at home on benefits, unable to work - shops, retaurants, offices etc would rip out ramps and so on.

Back to the dark ages. Is that what you want?

No, not at all. Where did you get that idea from ? There are many jobs I am able to do as well as an able bodied person. Its horses for courses. I accept that some jobs could be done far better than me by an able bodied person. Society and the law does accept my view. Whats the point of a blind secretary or chef ? its a job for a person confined to a wheelchair surely. Why do you insist in forcing round pegs into square holes ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brown did his usual nonsense. Keep talking. Don't answer the question. Refuse to answer the question. Avoid the question. Move onto another question.

Remember, this is a man who continually talks about courage, honesty, and "the right thing to do".

He is a bloody disgrace.

A clue to his defective character is his body language. Particularly his hand movements. Constantly jabbing his finger at Marr, then counting down on his fingers. Both aggressive and domineering. Like a teacher lecturing an errant pupil. I would like to see Paxman let loose on him. Fat chance. Brown would run a mile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, not at all. Where did you get that idea from ? There are many jobs I am able to do as well as an able bodied person. Its horses for courses. I accept that some jobs could be done far better than me by an able bodied person. Society and the law does accept my view. Whats the point of a blind secretary or chef ? its a job for a person confined to a wheelchair surely. Why do you insist in forcing round pegs into square holes ?

You questioned the principle of "reasonable adjustments" on economic grounds - your post implied that if any adjustment for a disabled person would cost anything at all, then it should not be made.

In your world, for example, nobody in a wheelchair could ever work as an office telephonist or call-centre worker (because in your world the ramps/wheelchair friendly loos would never have been built due to the extra cost).

My argument was that since a PM (or in blunkett's case a minister) have heaps of drivers and PAs etc, it is actually almost free to make the reasonable adjustment for those same employees to assist a blind chief. But no, you would even deny the blind the chance to work as a CEO or minister because of the small extra expense. I hope you do not lose your sight or hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You questioned the principle of "reasonable adjustments" on economic grounds - your post implied that if any adjustment for a disabled person would cost anything at all, then it should not be made.

In your world, for example, nobody in a wheelchair could ever work as an office telephonist or call-centre worker (because in your world the ramps/wheelchair friendly loos would never have been built due to the extra cost).

"implied" what does that mean ? I just consider that to employ a sighted assistant to enable a blind person to drive a bus for a living was not value for money. What has that got to do with providing access for the disabled ? I think you do not understand the definition of what is reasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not think a blind person is competent to hold such a position as home secretary. I would feel the same about a deaf or dumb person . I do not consider that discrimination . Surely its being fit for purpose. Because of my disability there are certain positions I would never consider.

Abso - friggin' - loutely.

I recently got into a slanging match with the equality and diversity officer at work over the issue of ignoring poor English when marking the work of dyslexic students. Those formally diagnosed as such receive help and support from a central department of the university, including one-to-one tuition, special software and so on and so forth. The idea of that support is so that they can be assessed on the same level playing field as everyone else. But now essays and exam papers have started to trickle in with sticky labels on them asking us not to take poor English into account when determining the mark. When I queried this, the leftie idiot told me that this was now University policy and that I had no choice. My response was to ask her whether she would be prepared to travel on a bus driven by someone who is blind, because using her logic, refusing to employ a blind person as a bus driver would be discriminatory. A dyslexic person is never going to be employed in a job that requires him/her to use the written English language to a high technical standard, just as a blind person cannot drive or a tone deaf person cannot work as an audio engineer. But the PC brigade just don't seem to get this. Needless to say, most of them have never worked in the private sector (I am relatively unusual among academics in having done so for ten years before a career change).

In Blunkett's and Brown's case, I'd have thought that partial or no sight would be a very major handicap, given the amount of reading a senior politician has to do, but possibly not a complete rule-out. In fairness, I've never heard any substantive evidence to suggest that Blunkett's partial sight was an insurmountable barrier to him doing his job. He was a dishonest and incompetent politician, but there again so are most of his fully sighted counterparts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8276049.stm

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that there has been "absolutely no deterioration'" in his eyesight.

Drug issues aside, I get the impression this deranged lunatic could easily (in his own mind) swap the words "his eyesight" for "the economy".

Maybe I was unfair on Marr earlier, is it medically possible to do a reasoned interview with the deranged?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"implied" what does that mean ? I just consider that to employ a sighted assistant to enable a blind person to drive a bus for a living was not value for money. What has that got to do with providing access for the disabled ? I think you do not understand the definition of what is reasonable

I think you cannot read - my post clearly said that a blind bus driver or paratrooper could not work.

Wake up at the back of the class!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have our PM on the world stage, and the rest of the watching Universe thinking, 'Eh? Couldn't they get one who can see??!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I want to fly in the RAF in a fighter jet! Im crap at it but you have to let me because if you don't you're excluding me based on my 'not being any good at the job' disability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8276049.stm

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that there has been "absolutely no deterioration'" in his eyesight.

Drug issues aside, I get the impression this deranged lunatic could easily (in his own mind) swap the word "his eyesight" for "the economy".

Maybe I was unfair on Marr earlier, is it medically possible to do a reasoned interview with the deranged?

If Marr is on to it now, how much of Whitehall is aware of the slow worsening of Brown's condition, both his sight, his maybe out of kilter brain chemistry and his monumentally awful social skills.

Will we find out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.