Frumius Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 He resigned for 'personal reasons', which is politicians' code for playing away with a secretary or such like (in his case it is a female civil servant). Rumour has it that he was shopped by a member of Balls' staff - which is very plausible, given the track record of the scheming sewer rat Balls. Wrong! What is code for his wife is having an affair with her body guard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frumius Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 As I posted on another thread, Balls is a nasty piece of work and not half as bright as he thinks he is. The only difference between him and Alan Johnson in terms of their understanding of economics is that Johnson knew nothing about the subject and virtually admitted it, whereas Balls thinks he understands it but doesn't. I look forward to him blinking his way through expositions of 'post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory' in parliament. There could hardly be a better example of jargon camouflaging ignorance and stupidity. Wrong again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitch_1980 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I find it interesting how the johnson story is not in the top 6 stories on the bbc website, yet you have the coulson story top and the headline "We are united on deficit - Balls " in 5th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptowngirl Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Wrong! What is code for his wife is having an affair with her body guard? Not neccesarily. The 2 events would not be mutually exclusive. She wouldn't be the first wife to seek revenge for a husband playing away from home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 The BBC is reporting that his wife was having an affair with a Police protection officer. The officer is facing suspension over the affair. A case of Alan struggling with his brief while plod struggles with his wife's briefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordChaverly Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Not neccesarily. The 2 events would not be mutually exclusive. She wouldn't be the first wife to seek revenge for a husband playing away from home. You make a very good point here, Uptowngirl. I suspect this is a case of retaliatory adultery (similar to what Robin Cook's wife did when she discovered he was canoodling with Gaynor). Unfortunately, some posters on this thread appear to lack the mental agility to understand that events can have causes as well as consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptowngirl Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 You make a very good point here, Uptowngirl. I suspect this is a case of retaliatory adultery (similar to what Robin Cook's wife did when she discovered he was canoodling with Gaynor). Unfortunately, some posters on this thread appear to lack the mental agility to understand that events can have causes as well as consequences. It has all become very fashionable even down to Toyota Yaris adverts. Not everyone goes as far as Lorena Bobbitt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 As I posted on another thread, Balls is a nasty piece of work and not half as bright as he thinks he is. The only difference between him and Alan Johnson in terms of their understanding of economics is that Johnson knew nothing about the subject and virtually admitted it, whereas Balls thinks he understands it but doesn't. I look forward to him blinking his way through expositions of 'post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory' in parliament. There could hardly be a better example of jargon camouflaging ignorance and stupidity. This may be true, but what Balls has is balls and he will not be afraid to attack the coalition and get his point across at all costs. Even if 95% of what he says is balls, 90% of the electorate will still appreciate and identify with attacks on the coalition, especially with regards tax rises and cuts. Alan Johnson was no attack dog, and in this climate the Shadow Chancellor has a golden opportunity to attack the coalition and their policies. Will people recognise him as the architect of Labours disasterous economic policies? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigthumb Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Balls. Will people recognise him as the architect of Labours disasterous economic policies? I don't think so. I think you just did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I did indeed. Will everyone else? Or will they see someone attack the coalition cuts and tax rises and think "hmmm this guy has a point..."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.