Guest sibon Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 In what way does swearing at a copper make him unfit to do his job? He's the Chief Whip. In charge of party discipline. Figure the rest out for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 In what way does swearing at a copper make him unfit to do his job? If I employed you and you swore at my customer, you wouldn't even get a warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosemary19 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Having an opinion contrary to popular opinion or behaving in a childish manner on occasion doesn't mean you're unfit for office the rest of the time. It just means you've made an error. The rest of the time you could be very good at your job. Should we penalise regular people in this manner? Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 If I employed you and you swore at my customer, you wouldn't even get a warning. Eh? What's that got to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Take the case of the chief whip who had a tantrum because they wouldn't open the gates for him to cycle through. How does him resigning change anything? It doesn't. He'll still be a brat. But he'll feel justified and hard done to because he's been forced to resign. What we need is a little imagination. So instead lets use a little courage and thoughtfulness in making people be sorry for the stupid things they do. Chief Whip should have been forced to service police bicycles for a weekend using rudimentary tools and been made to do it in his pants in the street and if it wasn't up to standard then he would have to do it again the following weekend. Sorry for behaving like a child when you're an adult doesn't cut it. He'd rather resign citing loyalty to the party, than allow himself to be humiliated by a bunch of plebs. He should be sacked instead, with no pension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ousetunes Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 He's a chief whip. Admittedly he's a typical out of touch muppet with awful fashion sense. But as usual, the opposition conveniently forget a certain deputy Prime Minister landing a fist on some egg-throwing idiot's face! Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 He's the Chief Whip. In charge of party discipline. Figure the rest out for yourself. You mean political discipline, making sure they tow the party line, vote with the government etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank ryan Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I think he should resign cos he's a posh tory dick and his misery at being treated like any one else who talked to a rozzer like that (only less so - he hasn't been battered or prosecuted) would cheer me up no end. signed - a pleb who doesn't know his place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strix Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 In chief whips case he wasn't at work. What then? The thing is this knee jerk "he should resign" call is just getting tedious. It also won't resolve anything most of the time ANYBODY can be disciplined for 'bringing the company into disrepute' which applies regardless of whether a person is actually in work or not The objectionable part of this particular story is the threats and intimidation based on his position, and the implication of what could happen to the police officer he was addressing if he didn't get his way based only on his 'status'. How can anybody who behaves this way represent the people in any way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 ANYBODY can be disciplined for 'bringing the company into disrepute' which applies regardless of whether a person is actually in work or not The objectionable part of this particular story is the threats and intimidation based on his position, and the implication of what could happen to the police officer he was addressing if he didn't get his way based only on his 'status'. How can anybody who behaves this way represent the people in any way? Does he represent the people? Is he an MP? Or is he just a party or governmental employee? There is a difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.