Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now this may not be news after her catastrophic budget but apparently RR has edited her online CV which used to claim she was a top economist but now admits she worked in 'retail banking' - so basically a call centre. She had previously made the false claim of being a teenage chess champion. Should she resign for being economical with the truth ?" Buck already posted this outrage piece from Guido Fawkes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now this may not be news after her catastrophic budget but apparently RR has edited her online CV which used to claim she was a top economist but now admits she worked in 'retail banking' - so basically a call centre. She had previously made the false claim of being a teenage chess champion. Should she resign for being economical with the truth ? Buck already posted this outrage piece from Guido Fawkes. " You can hate on Guido and think he peddles a load of shit but you can't deny the facts. Care to comment on the actual post? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now this may not be news after her catastrophic budget but apparently RR has edited her online CV which used to claim she was a top economist but now admits she worked in 'retail banking' - so basically a call centre. She had previously made the false claim of being a teenage chess champion. Should she resign for being economical with the truth ?" All politicians lie (apparently) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The truth will out." As long as people are outraged. That's all that matters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The truth will out. As long as people are outraged. That's all that matters." That’s the sad thing these days though, people are less and less ‘outraged’ as you term it, at politicians falsifying things, it’s just the norm and seems to be nothing more than expected, a sad reflection of the calibre of politician in Parliament today and a sad reflection on society that we tolerate it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The truth will out. As long as people are outraged. That's all that matters. That’s the sad thing these days though, people are less and less ‘outraged’ as you term it, at politicians falsifying things, it’s just the norm and seems to be nothing more than expected, a sad reflection of the calibre of politician in Parliament today and a sad reflection on society that we tolerate it. " I disagree. People are directed to be outraged by things like someone changing what their LinkedIn profile says. While at the same time being directed to ignore or support the government giving their pals multi million pounds contracts for their PPE start up businesses. Or supporting the mass slaughter of innocent men women and children. Or pandering to fossil fuel company profits etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The truth will out. As long as people are outraged. That's all that matters. That’s the sad thing these days though, people are less and less ‘outraged’ as you term it, at politicians falsifying things, it’s just the norm and seems to be nothing more than expected, a sad reflection of the calibre of politician in Parliament today and a sad reflection on society that we tolerate it. I disagree. People are directed to be outraged by things like someone changing what their LinkedIn profile says. While at the same time being directed to ignore or support the government giving their pals multi million pounds contracts for their PPE start up businesses. Or supporting the mass slaughter of innocent men women and children. Or pandering to fossil fuel company profits etc. " This could be a more balanced view by not missing out that left and right go down their respective paths in terms of directing, it is not a one way street. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The truth will out. As long as people are outraged. That's all that matters. That’s the sad thing these days though, people are less and less ‘outraged’ as you term it, at politicians falsifying things, it’s just the norm and seems to be nothing more than expected, a sad reflection of the calibre of politician in Parliament today and a sad reflection on society that we tolerate it. I disagree. People are directed to be outraged by things like someone changing what their LinkedIn profile says. While at the same time being directed to ignore or support the government giving their pals multi million pounds contracts for their PPE start up businesses. Or supporting the mass slaughter of innocent men women and children. Or pandering to fossil fuel company profits etc. " You're saying liars should be allowed to govern? There's no need for the whataboutery, unless we're saying politicians blatantly lying to further their careers is cool. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The truth will out. As long as people are outraged. That's all that matters. That’s the sad thing these days though, people are less and less ‘outraged’ as you term it, at politicians falsifying things, it’s just the norm and seems to be nothing more than expected, a sad reflection of the calibre of politician in Parliament today and a sad reflection on society that we tolerate it. I disagree. People are directed to be outraged by things like someone changing what their LinkedIn profile says. While at the same time being directed to ignore or support the government giving their pals multi million pounds contracts for their PPE start up businesses. Or supporting the mass slaughter of innocent men women and children. Or pandering to fossil fuel company profits etc. " I don’t see anyone being directed how to respond to the situations you have illustrated, I see people who have disengaged from the whole political process because they are fed up with ALL the shit that politicians engage in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The truth will out. As long as people are outraged. That's all that matters. That’s the sad thing these days though, people are less and less ‘outraged’ as you term it, at politicians falsifying things, it’s just the norm and seems to be nothing more than expected, a sad reflection of the calibre of politician in Parliament today and a sad reflection on society that we tolerate it. I disagree. People are directed to be outraged by things like someone changing what their LinkedIn profile says. While at the same time being directed to ignore or support the government giving their pals multi million pounds contracts for their PPE start up businesses. Or supporting the mass slaughter of innocent men women and children. Or pandering to fossil fuel company profits etc. This could be a more balanced view by not missing out that left and right go down their respective paths in terms of directing, it is not a one way street. " I deliberately didn't discuss left and right. There's obviously more to mention from the right as we've just had 14 years of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The truth will out. As long as people are outraged. That's all that matters. That’s the sad thing these days though, people are less and less ‘outraged’ as you term it, at politicians falsifying things, it’s just the norm and seems to be nothing more than expected, a sad reflection of the calibre of politician in Parliament today and a sad reflection on society that we tolerate it. I disagree. People are directed to be outraged by things like someone changing what their LinkedIn profile says. While at the same time being directed to ignore or support the government giving their pals multi million pounds contracts for their PPE start up businesses. Or supporting the mass slaughter of innocent men women and children. Or pandering to fossil fuel company profits etc. I don’t see anyone being directed how to respond to the situations you have illustrated, I see people who have disengaged from the whole political process because they are fed up with ALL the shit that politicians engage in. " The article in Guido Fawkes where this story originated, is an example of an attempt to direct people to be outraged about something. Although I do agree. A large portion of the electorate are not engaged. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The truth will out. As long as people are outraged. That's all that matters. That’s the sad thing these days though, people are less and less ‘outraged’ as you term it, at politicians falsifying things, it’s just the norm and seems to be nothing more than expected, a sad reflection of the calibre of politician in Parliament today and a sad reflection on society that we tolerate it. I disagree. People are directed to be outraged by things like someone changing what their LinkedIn profile says. While at the same time being directed to ignore or support the government giving their pals multi million pounds contracts for their PPE start up businesses. Or supporting the mass slaughter of innocent men women and children. Or pandering to fossil fuel company profits etc. You're saying liars should be allowed to govern? There's no need for the whataboutery, unless we're saying politicians blatantly lying to further their careers is cool." "Directing outrage" is all cool as long as it's a left wing issue. In that case, breaking public property, protesting outside in groups during pandemic, everything is perfectly fine. If it's against something that the left wingers support, it's just unnecessary outrage triggered by "far-right". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The truth will out. As long as people are outraged. That's all that matters. That’s the sad thing these days though, people are less and less ‘outraged’ as you term it, at politicians falsifying things, it’s just the norm and seems to be nothing more than expected, a sad reflection of the calibre of politician in Parliament today and a sad reflection on society that we tolerate it. I disagree. People are directed to be outraged by things like someone changing what their LinkedIn profile says. While at the same time being directed to ignore or support the government giving their pals multi million pounds contracts for their PPE start up businesses. Or supporting the mass slaughter of innocent men women and children. Or pandering to fossil fuel company profits etc. You're saying liars should be allowed to govern? There's no need for the whataboutery, unless we're saying politicians blatantly lying to further their careers is cool. "Directing outrage" is all cool as long as it's a left wing issue. In that case, breaking public property, protesting outside in groups during pandemic, everything is perfectly fine. If it's against something that the left wingers support, it's just unnecessary outrage triggered by "far-right"." post of the day spot on | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now this may not be news after her catastrophic budget but apparently RR has edited her online CV which used to claim she was a top economist but now admits she worked in 'retail banking' - so basically a call centre. She had previously made the false claim of being a teenage chess champion. Should she resign for being economical with the truth ? All politicians lie (apparently) " Let’s stick to actual examples instead of trying the “they all lie” lie as a get out of jail free card. She lied. Tried to big herself up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The truth will out. As long as people are outraged. That's all that matters. That’s the sad thing these days though, people are less and less ‘outraged’ as you term it, at politicians falsifying things, it’s just the norm and seems to be nothing more than expected, a sad reflection of the calibre of politician in Parliament today and a sad reflection on society that we tolerate it. I disagree. People are directed to be outraged by things like someone changing what their LinkedIn profile says. While at the same time being directed to ignore or support the government giving their pals multi million pounds contracts for their PPE start up businesses. Or supporting the mass slaughter of innocent men women and children. Or pandering to fossil fuel company profits etc. You're saying liars should be allowed to govern? There's no need for the whataboutery, unless we're saying politicians blatantly lying to further their careers is cool. "Directing outrage" is all cool as long as it's a left wing issue. In that case, breaking public property, protesting outside in groups during pandemic, everything is perfectly fine. If it's against something that the left wingers support, it's just unnecessary outrage triggered by "far-right".post of the day spot on " Ridiculous post of the day, that deliberately misses the point by a country mile. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The truth will out. As long as people are outraged. That's all that matters. That’s the sad thing these days though, people are less and less ‘outraged’ as you term it, at politicians falsifying things, it’s just the norm and seems to be nothing more than expected, a sad reflection of the calibre of politician in Parliament today and a sad reflection on society that we tolerate it. I disagree. People are directed to be outraged by things like someone changing what their LinkedIn profile says. While at the same time being directed to ignore or support the government giving their pals multi million pounds contracts for their PPE start up businesses. Or supporting the mass slaughter of innocent men women and children. Or pandering to fossil fuel company profits etc. You're saying liars should be allowed to govern? There's no need for the whataboutery, unless we're saying politicians blatantly lying to further their careers is cool. "Directing outrage" is all cool as long as it's a left wing issue. In that case, breaking public property, protesting outside in groups during pandemic, everything is perfectly fine. If it's against something that the left wingers support, it's just unnecessary outrage triggered by "far-right".post of the day spot on Ridiculous post of the day, that deliberately misses the point by a country mile. " Yet another emotionally driven meaningless remarks without any evidence or rational arguments. Is getting outraged about a politician lying in the about their experience and getting into a coveted position wrong? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The truth will out. As long as people are outraged. That's all that matters. That’s the sad thing these days though, people are less and less ‘outraged’ as you term it, at politicians falsifying things, it’s just the norm and seems to be nothing more than expected, a sad reflection of the calibre of politician in Parliament today and a sad reflection on society that we tolerate it. I disagree. People are directed to be outraged by things like someone changing what their LinkedIn profile says. While at the same time being directed to ignore or support the government giving their pals multi million pounds contracts for their PPE start up businesses. Or supporting the mass slaughter of innocent men women and children. Or pandering to fossil fuel company profits etc. You're saying liars should be allowed to govern? There's no need for the whataboutery, unless we're saying politicians blatantly lying to further their careers is cool. "Directing outrage" is all cool as long as it's a left wing issue. In that case, breaking public property, protesting outside in groups during pandemic, everything is perfectly fine. If it's against something that the left wingers support, it's just unnecessary outrage triggered by "far-right".post of the day spot on Ridiculous post of the day, that deliberately misses the point by a country mile. Yet another " Poor start. Let's try to keep on thread. " emotionally driven" Factually driven. " meaningless " Meaning was clear. " remarks without any evidence " The evidence was your post that missed the point by a country mile. As mentioned. " or rational arguments. " No arguments needed. I was pointing out how your post completely missed the point. " Is getting outraged about a politician lying in the about their experience and getting into a coveted position wrong?" You've clearly understood the point, but are trying to swerve it and make it about something else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PA news agency fact check states :- A LinkedIn page which appears to belong to Ms Reeves says that she worked at the Bank of England between September 2000 and December 2006. The Bank of England confirmed to the PA news agency that Ms Reeves worked for them during the dates on the LinkedIn page. This includes a stint with the British Embassy in Washington DC, which was a secondment from the UK’s central bank – and which Ms Reeves talked about in a video posted to X, formerly Twitter, in August 2023. Some of Ms Reeves’s time at the Bank can also be charted through papers she contributed to during her employment there. In a December 2005 paper she is listed as part of the Bank’s structural economic analysis division, which matches the detail on the LinkedIn page. She is also thanked for her contributions to a December 2001 speech by Charlie Bean, who was the Bank of England’s chief economist at the time" Did they fact check her time at HBOS. That's what seems to be in question here. Her time at BOE is irrelevant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The truth will out. As long as people are outraged. That's all that matters. That’s the sad thing these days though, people are less and less ‘outraged’ as you term it, at politicians falsifying things, it’s just the norm and seems to be nothing more than expected, a sad reflection of the calibre of politician in Parliament today and a sad reflection on society that we tolerate it. I disagree. People are directed to be outraged by things like someone changing what their LinkedIn profile says. While at the same time being directed to ignore or support the government giving their pals multi million pounds contracts for their PPE start up businesses. Or supporting the mass slaughter of innocent men women and children. Or pandering to fossil fuel company profits etc. You're saying liars should be allowed to govern? There's no need for the whataboutery, unless we're saying politicians blatantly lying to further their careers is cool. "Directing outrage" is all cool as long as it's a left wing issue. In that case, breaking public property, protesting outside in groups during pandemic, everything is perfectly fine. If it's against something that the left wingers support, it's just unnecessary outrage triggered by "far-right".post of the day spot on Ridiculous post of the day, that deliberately misses the point by a country mile. Yet another Poor start. Let's try to keep on thread. emotionally driven Factually driven. meaningless Meaning was clear. remarks without any evidence The evidence was your post that missed the point by a country mile. As mentioned. or rational arguments. No arguments needed. I was pointing out how your post completely missed the point. Is getting outraged about a politician lying in the about their experience and getting into a coveted position wrong? You've clearly understood the point, but are trying to swerve it and make it about something else. " Can you articulate which part of your "point" I misunderstood. I am pretty sure everyone in this thread knows what you were trying to do. This is what you said: "People are directed to be outraged by things like someone changing what their LinkedIn profile says." Isn't this totally invalidating the real problem? You have rephrased the situation conveniently ignoring the actual problem, which is a politician lying about their work experience. Again, if you can actually articulate an argument, please go ahead. If you just want to repeat meaningless remarks, please don't waste everyone's time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PA news agency fact check states :- A LinkedIn page which appears to belong to Ms Reeves says that she worked at the Bank of England between September 2000 and December 2006. The Bank of England confirmed to the PA news agency that Ms Reeves worked for them during the dates on the LinkedIn page. This includes a stint with the British Embassy in Washington DC, which was a secondment from the UK’s central bank – and which Ms Reeves talked about in a video posted to X, formerly Twitter, in August 2023. Some of Ms Reeves’s time at the Bank can also be charted through papers she contributed to during her employment there. In a December 2005 paper she is listed as part of the Bank’s structural economic analysis division, which matches the detail on the LinkedIn page. She is also thanked for her contributions to a December 2001 speech by Charlie Bean, who was the Bank of England’s chief economist at the time Did they fact check her time at HBOS. That's what seems to be in question here. Her time at BOE is irrelevant." Give them time. The fact they fact checked guido fawkes for the above false claims means I’ll take what he says with a very large pinch of scepticism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PA news agency fact check states :- A LinkedIn page which appears to belong to Ms Reeves says that she worked at the Bank of England between September 2000 and December 2006. The Bank of England confirmed to the PA news agency that Ms Reeves worked for them during the dates on the LinkedIn page. This includes a stint with the British Embassy in Washington DC, which was a secondment from the UK’s central bank – and which Ms Reeves talked about in a video posted to X, formerly Twitter, in August 2023. Some of Ms Reeves’s time at the Bank can also be charted through papers she contributed to during her employment there. In a December 2005 paper she is listed as part of the Bank’s structural economic analysis division, which matches the detail on the LinkedIn page. She is also thanked for her contributions to a December 2001 speech by Charlie Bean, who was the Bank of England’s chief economist at the time Did they fact check her time at HBOS. That's what seems to be in question here. Her time at BOE is irrelevant. Give them time. The fact they fact checked guido fawkes for the above false claims means I’ll take what he says with a very large pinch of scepticism." Didn’t HBOS go bust and had to be compulsorily acquired by Lloyds by order of the regulators? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PA news agency fact check states :- A LinkedIn page which appears to belong to Ms Reeves says that she worked at the Bank of England between September 2000 and December 2006. The Bank of England confirmed to the PA news agency that Ms Reeves worked for them during the dates on the LinkedIn page. This includes a stint with the British Embassy in Washington DC, which was a secondment from the UK’s central bank – and which Ms Reeves talked about in a video posted to X, formerly Twitter, in August 2023. Some of Ms Reeves’s time at the Bank can also be charted through papers she contributed to during her employment there. In a December 2005 paper she is listed as part of the Bank’s structural economic analysis division, which matches the detail on the LinkedIn page. She is also thanked for her contributions to a December 2001 speech by Charlie Bean, who was the Bank of England’s chief economist at the time Did they fact check her time at HBOS. That's what seems to be in question here. Her time at BOE is irrelevant. Give them time. The fact they fact checked guido fawkes for the above false claims means I’ll take what he says with a very large pinch of scepticism." From what I can see, that fact check wasn't on a post Guido made. It was on a post by Emily Sheffield. Feel free to fact check me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PA news agency fact check states :- A LinkedIn page which appears to belong to Ms Reeves says that she worked at the Bank of England between September 2000 and December 2006. The Bank of England confirmed to the PA news agency that Ms Reeves worked for them during the dates on the LinkedIn page. This includes a stint with the British Embassy in Washington DC, which was a secondment from the UK’s central bank – and which Ms Reeves talked about in a video posted to X, formerly Twitter, in August 2023. Some of Ms Reeves’s time at the Bank can also be charted through papers she contributed to during her employment there. In a December 2005 paper she is listed as part of the Bank’s structural economic analysis division, which matches the detail on the LinkedIn page. She is also thanked for her contributions to a December 2001 speech by Charlie Bean, who was the Bank of England’s chief economist at the time Did they fact check her time at HBOS. That's what seems to be in question here. Her time at BOE is irrelevant. Give them time. The fact they fact checked guido fawkes for the above false claims means I’ll take what he says with a very large pinch of scepticism." Labour has already responded saying that "Ms Reeves worked in retail banking covering various areas drawing on her background as an economist. Her LinkedIn has been updated to reflect that." Not sure what a fact checker is going to add to that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PA news agency fact check states :- A LinkedIn page which appears to belong to Ms Reeves says that she worked at the Bank of England between September 2000 and December 2006. The Bank of England confirmed to the PA news agency that Ms Reeves worked for them during the dates on the LinkedIn page. This includes a stint with the British Embassy in Washington DC, which was a secondment from the UK’s central bank – and which Ms Reeves talked about in a video posted to X, formerly Twitter, in August 2023. Some of Ms Reeves’s time at the Bank can also be charted through papers she contributed to during her employment there. In a December 2005 paper she is listed as part of the Bank’s structural economic analysis division, which matches the detail on the LinkedIn page. She is also thanked for her contributions to a December 2001 speech by Charlie Bean, who was the Bank of England’s chief economist at the time Did they fact check her time at HBOS. That's what seems to be in question here. Her time at BOE is irrelevant. Give them time. The fact they fact checked guido fawkes for the above false claims means I’ll take what he says with a very large pinch of scepticism. Labour has already responded saying that "Ms Reeves worked in retail banking covering various areas drawing on her background as an economist. Her LinkedIn has been updated to reflect that." Not sure what a fact checker is going to add to that" I guess she could have drawn on her background as an economist if she was employed to operate the tea trolley. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The truth will out. As long as people are outraged. That's all that matters. That’s the sad thing these days though, people are less and less ‘outraged’ as you term it, at politicians falsifying things, it’s just the norm and seems to be nothing more than expected, a sad reflection of the calibre of politician in Parliament today and a sad reflection on society that we tolerate it. I disagree. People are directed to be outraged by things like someone changing what their LinkedIn profile says. While at the same time being directed to ignore or support the government giving their pals multi million pounds contracts for their PPE start up businesses. Or supporting the mass slaughter of innocent men women and children. Or pandering to fossil fuel company profits etc. You're saying liars should be allowed to govern? There's no need for the whataboutery, unless we're saying politicians blatantly lying to further their careers is cool. "Directing outrage" is all cool as long as it's a left wing issue. In that case, breaking public property, protesting outside in groups during pandemic, everything is perfectly fine. If it's against something that the left wingers support, it's just unnecessary outrage triggered by "far-right".post of the day spot on Ridiculous post of the day, that deliberately misses the point by a country mile. Yet another Poor start. Let's try to keep on thread. emotionally driven Factually driven. meaningless Meaning was clear. remarks without any evidence The evidence was your post that missed the point by a country mile. As mentioned. or rational arguments. No arguments needed. I was pointing out how your post completely missed the point. Is getting outraged about a politician lying in the about their experience and getting into a coveted position wrong? You've clearly understood the point, but are trying to swerve it and make it about something else. Can you articulate which part of your "point" I misunderstood. I am pretty sure everyone in this thread knows what you were trying to do. This is what you said: "People are directed to be outraged by things like someone changing what their LinkedIn profile says." Isn't this totally invalidating the real problem? You have rephrased the situation conveniently ignoring the actual problem, which is a politician lying about their work experience. Again, if you can actually articulate an argument, please go ahead. If you just want to repeat meaningless remarks, please don't waste everyone's time." All of it. You missed all of the point of the back and forth between the other fella and I. Let's try to get back on track instead of the standard personal attacks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rachel Reeves = Proven Liar Chancellor 'economic' with her CV: Rachel Reeves edits her online qualifications from having experience as 'economist' to say she was in 'retail banking'" If you're this upset about someone updating their LinkedIn profile, you must have been absolutely apoplectic with rage when the last government were in power. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think she should resign It’s thoroughly dishonest to cheat on a cv and then change it " It seems to be in her DNA, not taxing working people and a budget for growth springs to mind. Oh well, it is the will of the people after all... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rachel Reeves = Proven Liar Chancellor 'economic' with her CV: Rachel Reeves edits her online qualifications from having experience as 'economist' to say she was in 'retail banking' If you're this upset about someone updating their LinkedIn profile, you must have been absolutely apoplectic with rage when the last government were in power. " Please underline any part of my text where I said I was upset? It appears that you are telling lies when you accused me of being upset. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rachel Reeves = Proven Liar Chancellor 'economic' with her CV: Rachel Reeves edits her online qualifications from having experience as 'economist' to say she was in 'retail banking' If you're this upset about someone updating their LinkedIn profile, you must have been absolutely apoplectic with rage when the last government were in power. " If it isn’t important why has she bothered to change it after some limited media coverage? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rachel Reeves = Proven Liar Chancellor 'economic' with her CV: Rachel Reeves edits her online qualifications from having experience as 'economist' to say she was in 'retail banking' If you're this upset about someone updating their LinkedIn profile, you must have been absolutely apoplectic with rage when the last government were in power. " Not a single person in the thread is updated because she updated her LinkedIn profile. Who are you arguing with? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rachel Reeves = Proven Liar Chancellor 'economic' with her CV: Rachel Reeves edits her online qualifications from having experience as 'economist' to say she was in 'retail banking' If you're this upset about someone updating their LinkedIn profile, you must have been absolutely apoplectic with rage when the last government were in power. " Yes, people were very angry with the previous government, as was demonstrated by their significant losses at the ballot box, people had hoped however, that a new government would bring a better approach and attitude, it appears that that was just wishful thinking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The truth will out. As long as people are outraged. That's all that matters." I mean, the truth kind of matters | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now this may not be news after her catastrophic budget but apparently RR has edited her online CV which used to claim she was a top economist but now admits she worked in 'retail banking' - so basically a call centre. She had previously made the false claim of being a teenage chess champion. Should she resign for being economical with the truth ? All politicians lie (apparently) " No apparently about it If I was on fire howling in pain, and a politician pointed and shouted 'good god man, you're on fire' I'd immediately doubt the fact I was on fire | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rachel Reeves = Proven Liar Chancellor 'economic' with her CV: Rachel Reeves edits her online qualifications from having experience as 'economist' to say she was in 'retail banking' If you're this upset about someone updating their LinkedIn profile, you must have been absolutely apoplectic with rage when the last government were in power. Please underline any part of my text where I said I was upset?" Then maybe you'd like to clarify what you mean? " It appears that you are telling lies when you accused me of being upset." What on earth are you talking about here? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rachel Reeves = Proven Liar Chancellor 'economic' with her CV: Rachel Reeves edits her online qualifications from having experience as 'economist' to say she was in 'retail banking' If you're this upset about someone updating their LinkedIn profile, you must have been absolutely apoplectic with rage when the last government were in power. If it isn’t important why has she bothered to change it after some limited media coverage?" I don't know, who said it's not important? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rachel Reeves = Proven Liar Chancellor 'economic' with her CV: Rachel Reeves edits her online qualifications from having experience as 'economist' to say she was in 'retail banking' If you're this upset about someone updating their LinkedIn profile, you must have been absolutely apoplectic with rage when the last government were in power. Yes, people were very angry with the previous government, as was demonstrated by their significant losses at the ballot box, people had hoped however, that a new government would bring a better approach and attitude, it appears that that was just wishful thinking. " My implication is that the same people who are outraged by this, were not bothered by all the sleaze, lies and nonsense from the last government. And people voted for them over and over. They only lost in the last election because they over hyped the hysteria over immigrants, so this element defected to the extreme Tories. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rachel Reeves = Proven Liar Chancellor 'economic' with her CV: Rachel Reeves edits her online qualifications from having experience as 'economist' to say she was in 'retail banking' If you're this upset about someone updating their LinkedIn profile, you must have been absolutely apoplectic with rage when the last government were in power. If it isn’t important why has she bothered to change it after some limited media coverage? I don't know, who said it's not important?" You seem very keen to downplay the issue. Surely it’s a matter of public interest and some import when the Chancellor of the Exchequer embellishes her employment experience and her CV. It’s not really clear why she should have done it in the first place. Or why she has changed it now. There is no specific job description for the role she is currently doing so why has she lied? She isn’t that credible anyway. This probably explains why. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
The award for the strawman argument of the year goes to... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rachel Reeves = Proven Liar Chancellor 'economic' with her CV: Rachel Reeves edits her online qualifications from having experience as 'economist' to say she was in 'retail banking' If you're this upset about someone updating their LinkedIn profile, you must have been absolutely apoplectic with rage when the last government were in power. If it isn’t important why has she bothered to change it after some limited media coverage? I don't know, who said it's not important? You seem very keen to downplay the issue. " I'm not. I was making a point to another chap, comparing it to the lack of outrage for much bigger issues, which I mentioned in my post. " Surely it’s a matter of public interest and some import when the Chancellor of the Exchequer embellishes her employment experience and her CV. It’s not really clear why she should have done it in the first place. Or why she has changed it now. There is no specific job description for the role she is currently doing so why has she lied? She isn’t that credible anyway. This probably explains why." You're allowed to be concerned about whatever you want to be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rachel Reeves = Proven Liar Chancellor 'economic' with her CV: Rachel Reeves edits her online qualifications from having experience as 'economist' to say she was in 'retail banking' If you're this upset about someone updating their LinkedIn profile, you must have been absolutely apoplectic with rage when the last government were in power. If it isn’t important why has she bothered to change it after some limited media coverage? I don't know, who said it's not important? You seem very keen to downplay the issue. I'm not. I was making a point to another chap, comparing it to the lack of outrage for much bigger issues, which I mentioned in my post. Surely it’s a matter of public interest and some import when the Chancellor of the Exchequer embellishes her employment experience and her CV. It’s not really clear why she should have done it in the first place. Or why she has changed it now. There is no specific job description for the role she is currently doing so why has she lied? She isn’t that credible anyway. This probably explains why. You're allowed to be concerned about whatever you want to be." I’m not concerned. I’ve never expected Starmer, Reeves or the rest of the gang to be anything other than incompetent buffoons. I can’t say I’m surprised at all at anything we are finding out about them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’ve never expected Starmer, Reeves or the rest of the gang to be anything other than incompetent buffoons. I can’t say I’m surprised at all at anything we are finding out about them." Second home flipper Rayner holidaying in donors £18m New York pad while lecturing us on the merits of affordable housing Free clothes for Starmer, Reeves and co while taking a few hundred quid of 10 million pensioners U turn on green energy investment, U turn on university fee increase Chancellor with fraudulent CV | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’ve never expected Starmer, Reeves or the rest of the gang to be anything other than incompetent buffoons. I can’t say I’m surprised at all at anything we are finding out about them. Second home flipper Rayner holidaying in donors £18m New York pad while lecturing us on the merits of affordable housing " The Tories must be laughing their arses off with all the hysteria surrounding Labour, when they themselves were 1000 times worse and no one could say boo about it. " Free clothes for Starmer, Reeves and co while taking a few hundred quid of 10 million pensioners " 780,000 has suddenly morphed into 10 million. " U turn on green energy investment, U turn on university fee increase Chancellor with fraudulent CV " "Fraudulent CV". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’ve never expected Starmer, Reeves or the rest of the gang to be anything other than incompetent buffoons. I can’t say I’m surprised at all at anything we are finding out about them. Second home flipper Rayner holidaying in donors £18m New York pad while lecturing us on the merits of affordable housing The Tories must be laughing their arses off with all the hysteria surrounding Labour, when they themselves were 1000 times worse and no one could say boo about it. Free clothes for Starmer, Reeves and co while taking a few hundred quid of 10 million pensioners 780,000 has suddenly morphed into 10 million. U turn on green energy investment, U turn on university fee increase Chancellor with fraudulent CV "Fraudulent CV". "Out of interest, when, if ever, will you cease with the blaming and slagging off the Tories and concentrate on the Labour government? I understand that they're only a few months into their term but should things not be improving in a couple of years time, I'm interested to know if you will attach any blame to them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’ve never expected Starmer, Reeves or the rest of the gang to be anything other than incompetent buffoons. I can’t say I’m surprised at all at anything we are finding out about them. Second home flipper Rayner holidaying in donors £18m New York pad while lecturing us on the merits of affordable housing The Tories must be laughing their arses off with all the hysteria surrounding Labour, when they themselves were 1000 times worse and no one could say boo about it. Free clothes for Starmer, Reeves and co while taking a few hundred quid of 10 million pensioners 780,000 has suddenly morphed into 10 million. U turn on green energy investment, U turn on university fee increase Chancellor with fraudulent CV "Fraudulent CV".
Out of interest, when, if ever, will you cease with the blaming and slagging off the Tories and concentrate on the Labour government? I understand that they're only a few months into their term but should things not be improving in a couple of years time, I'm interested to know if you will attach any blame to them? "I have been critical of Labour. And this government. Just think the same people who were defending the brutal austerity cuts are now suddenly interested in means tested winter fuel allowance. If the Tories had brought that in, the same people would be defending it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories must be laughing their arses off with all the hysteria surrounding Labour, when they themselves were 1000 times worse and no one could say boo about it." Where do you get that idea? This forum used to be chock full of people criticising the Tories. At one point anyone that mentioned Labour got accused of 'whataboutery', because the majority of posters here didn't want to hear that, they just wanted to bash the Tories. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lying on a CV can actually be a criminal offence if it is done to gain financial advantage. I wonder if the police will take time off from investigating hurty words to feel Rachel's collar? " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’ve never expected Starmer, Reeves or the rest of the gang to be anything other than incompetent buffoons. I can’t say I’m surprised at all at anything we are finding out about them. Second home flipper Rayner holidaying in donors £18m New York pad while lecturing us on the merits of affordable housing The Tories must be laughing their arses off with all the hysteria surrounding Labour, when they themselves were 1000 times worse and no one could say boo about it. Free clothes for Starmer, Reeves and co while taking a few hundred quid of 10 million pensioners 780,000 has suddenly morphed into 10 million. U turn on green energy investment, U turn on university fee increase Chancellor with fraudulent CV "Fraudulent CV".
Out of interest, when, if ever, will you cease with the blaming and slagging off the Tories and concentrate on the Labour government? I understand that they're only a few months into their term but should things not be improving in a couple of years time, I'm interested to know if you will attach any blame to them?
I have been critical of Labour. And this government.
Just think the same people who were defending the brutal austerity cuts are now suddenly interested in means tested winter fuel allowance. If the Tories had brought that in, the same people would be defending it."Have you tried reform? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Should she resign for being economical with the truth ?" See? Economist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Should she resign for being economical with the truth ? See? Economist." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories must be laughing their arses off with all the hysteria surrounding Labour, when they themselves were 1000 times worse and no one could say boo about it. Where do you get that idea? This forum used to be chock full of people criticising the Tories. At one point anyone that mentioned Labour got accused of 'whataboutery', because the majority of posters here didn't want to hear that, they just wanted to bash the Tories." 
And those same people who defended austerity, are now attacking means tested winter fuel allowance.
If it had been the Tories. They would have defended it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’ve never expected Starmer, Reeves or the rest of the gang to be anything other than incompetent buffoons. I can’t say I’m surprised at all at anything we are finding out about them. Second home flipper Rayner holidaying in donors £18m New York pad while lecturing us on the merits of affordable housing The Tories must be laughing their arses off with all the hysteria surrounding Labour, when they themselves were 1000 times worse and no one could say boo about it. Free clothes for Starmer, Reeves and co while taking a few hundred quid of 10 million pensioners 780,000 has suddenly morphed into 10 million. U turn on green energy investment, U turn on university fee increase Chancellor with fraudulent CV "Fraudulent CV".
Out of interest, when, if ever, will you cease with the blaming and slagging off the Tories and concentrate on the Labour government? I understand that they're only a few months into their term but should things not be improving in a couple of years time, I'm interested to know if you will attach any blame to them?
I have been critical of Labour. And this government.
Just think the same people who were defending the brutal austerity cuts are now suddenly interested in means tested winter fuel allowance. If the Tories had brought that in, the same people would be defending it.
Have you tried reform?"Nah, I'm not into blaming foreigners for everything. And I know what science it. Thanks though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only thing that matters is that Rachel Reeves is the first female chancellor, part of a government with a huge majority, she is doing a great job under difficult circumstances. Delivering for the people " See my comment above. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only thing that matters is that Rachel Reeves is the first female chancellor, part of a government with a huge majority, she is doing a great job under difficult circumstances. Delivering for the people See my comment above." It’s want the country wants, see the election in July | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only thing that matters is that Rachel Reeves is the first female chancellor, part of a government with a huge majority, she is doing a great job under difficult circumstances. Delivering for the people See my comment above. It’s want the country wants, see the election in July " Most of the Country doesn't know what it wants and the ones that do are the problem apparently | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only thing that matters is that Rachel Reeves is the first female chancellor, part of a government with a huge majority, she is doing a great job under difficult circumstances. Delivering for the people See my comment above. It’s want the country wants, see the election in July Most of the Country doesn't know what it wants and the ones that do are the problem apparently " Ah well, people obviously need a better education then something else labour will deliver | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only thing that matters is that Rachel Reeves is the first female chancellor, part of a government with a huge majority, she is doing a great job under difficult circumstances. Delivering for the people " Economic insight and the ability to deliver growth are what truly matters. In the absence of those core capabilities, I would agree that focusing on surface level achievements like ‘firsts’ is perhaps the best option as you point out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only thing that matters is that Rachel Reeves is the first female chancellor, part of a government with a huge majority, she is doing a great job under difficult circumstances. Delivering for the people See my comment above. It’s want the country wants, see the election in July Most of the Country doesn't know what it wants and the ones that do are the problem apparently Ah well, people obviously need a better education then something else labour will deliver " All hail labour You'd make a fantastic North Korean citizen. Such loyalty | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only thing that matters is that Rachel Reeves is the first female chancellor, part of a government with a huge majority, she is doing a great job under difficult circumstances. Delivering for the people See my comment above. It’s want the country wants, see the election in July Most of the Country doesn't know what it wants and the ones that do are the problem apparently Ah well, people obviously need a better education then something else labour will deliver All hail labour You'd make a fantastic North Korean citizen. Such loyalty " Thank you, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only thing that matters is that Rachel Reeves is the first female chancellor, part of a government with a huge majority, she is doing a great job under difficult circumstances. Delivering for the people See my comment above. It’s want the country wants, see the election in July Most of the Country doesn't know what it wants and the ones that do are the problem apparently Ah well, people obviously need a better education then something else labour will deliver All hail labour You'd make a fantastic North Korean citizen. Such loyalty Thank you, "Well, never change  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only thing that matters is that Rachel Reeves is the first female chancellor, part of a government with a huge majority, she is doing a great job under difficult circumstances. Delivering for the people Economic insight and the ability to deliver growth are what truly matters. In the absence of those core capabilities, I would agree that focusing on surface level achievements like ‘firsts’ is perhaps the best option as you point out. " Although I value your opinion it is not in line with electorate, they are the true judges | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only thing that matters is that Rachel Reeves is the first female chancellor, part of a government with a huge majority, she is doing a great job under difficult circumstances. Delivering for the people See my comment above. It’s want the country wants, see the election in July Most of the Country doesn't know what it wants and the ones that do are the problem apparently Ah well, people obviously need a better education then something else labour will deliver All hail labour You'd make a fantastic North Korean citizen. Such loyalty Thank you,
Well, never change "Thanks again, I really appreciate your support | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only thing that matters is that Rachel Reeves is the first female chancellor, part of a government with a huge majority, she is doing a great job under difficult circumstances. Delivering for the people See my comment above. It’s want the country wants, see the election in July Most of the Country doesn't know what it wants and the ones that do are the problem apparently Ah well, people obviously need a better education then something else labour will deliver All hail labour You'd make a fantastic North Korean citizen. Such loyalty Thank you,
Well, never change
Thanks again, I really appreciate your support "She’s a proven liar and needs to do decent thing and resign. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only thing that matters is that Rachel Reeves is the first female chancellor, part of a government with a huge majority, she is doing a great job under difficult circumstances. Delivering for the people See my comment above. It’s want the country wants, see the election in July Most of the Country doesn't know what it wants and the ones that do are the problem apparently Ah well, people obviously need a better education then something else labour will deliver All hail labour You'd make a fantastic North Korean citizen. Such loyalty Thank you,
Well, never change
Thanks again, I really appreciate your support
She’s a proven liar and needs to do decent thing and resign. "You condemn Trump for being deceitful in another thread. But it’s ok if the people you support do it ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only thing that matters is that Rachel Reeves is the first female chancellor, part of a government with a huge majority, she is doing a great job under difficult circumstances. Delivering for the people See my comment above. It’s want the country wants, see the election in July Most of the Country doesn't know what it wants and the ones that do are the problem apparently Ah well, people obviously need a better education then something else labour will deliver All hail labour You'd make a fantastic North Korean citizen. Such loyalty Thank you,
Well, never change
Thanks again, I really appreciate your support
She’s a proven liar and needs to do decent thing and resign. "Seconded. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
