MP sends death threat. To herself.

[Alan Ladd]

I don't think she's just plain stupid. I think she is manipulative and dangerous and we are lucky she is so stupid. She was clearly trying to use the current heightened tensions around the Syria bombing to further her own agenda. In fact she isn't really stupid or manipulative at all, she is just simply a politician.

 

Kate, if we did something similar at work we would, rightly, get the sack. We should be able to sack MPs who commit criminal acts. No party has an edge in morality or criminality, we vote for policies.

[foxy lady]

You failed to take into account the whole sentence.

 

Where she is an MP and she posts something as true, then she is misrepresenting what has happened. Its less about the individual Rusty person, but more about her behaviour in posting untruths. The fact you cant see its wrong for an MP to post either direct lies or misreprentations for her own advantage says it all.

 

The fact that you are prepared to take the word of a person who posts abusive messages from behind an assumed name before the case has been investigated says it all. But of course this being about an MP means come May 2020 you will be able to vote for someone else.

[sgtkate]

Kate, if we did something similar at work we would, rightly, get the sack. We should be able to sack MPs who commit criminal acts. No party has an edge in morality or criminality, we vote for policies.

 

We may vote for different parties, but in general we seem to agree on many things, just like this.

 

---------- Post added 07-12-2015 at 17:44 ----------

 

The fact that you are prepared to take the word of a person who posts abusive messages from behind an assumed name before the case has been investigated says it all. But of course this being about an MP means come May 2020 you will be able to vote for someone else.

 

You didn't read the article did you? Clearly. Because if you had you'd have read she even admits that the original message from Rusty Shackleford didn't have 'Unless you die' at the bottom meaning she has admitted publically to lying to try to make his message far more menacing than it was. Are you still going to defend her?

[999tigger]

The fact that you are prepared to take the word of a person who posts abusive messages from behind an assumed name before the case has been investigated says it all. But of course this being about an MP means come May 2020 you will be able to vote for someone else.

 

She's admitted itself she doctored it. Read the article. So I dont have to take his word, its from the MP.

 

I'm astonished you still cant see the issue or the fact an MP misrepresenting/telling a lie for their own advantage is not shameful behaviour. Come May 2020 I am unlikely to be a constituent for Telford. I would rather she was able to conduct herself with a level of integrity in accordance with the position she holds. I hope shes invstigated by the Palriamentary Standards Vommissioner into whether she has broken the code of conduct.

[Quik]

The point is quite simple. There is no law against posting ficticious tripe on a Facebook page and attributing it to a non-existent person.

 

There is however a law against making death threats and sending abusive messages to real people, even if you hide behind an alias.

 

So I think I will reserve judgement on this one until the police have looked into who said what, rather than simply relying on the word of the person who posts abusive messages to MPs whilst hiding behind a false identity.

 

You seem confused as to what a 'real person' is. I'm a real person, you are a real person. My name isn't actually Quik and unless your parents were very alternativo I doubt yours is Foxy lady. But if you send me a private message on here then you the real person is sending me the real person a communication in the eyes of the law. If i then post that here or elsewhere but add a death threat to it i'm potentially exposing you to arrest, approbation and all sorts of bad.

 

Not the sort of behaviour we want from anyone let alone those who make our laws.

[Flanker7]

I do, idiocy is not entirely a leftist fault.

 

Tories dont usually do daft things, they used to have a definite propensity for sexual malfeasance. Spanking, prostitutes, that sort of thing.

 

Lib Dems have always had a hankering for illicit gay relationships, lots of Tommy Two ways if you follow.

 

The sons of industry in the Labour party have usually just been corrupt.

 

Seems like this Tory lady is a genuine crossbencher just plain stupid.

 

We expect the Tories to be corrupt, its in their DNA and expected of entrepreneurs and therefore not a big deal for capitalists. They expect everyone to conform to the mores of society and the 'proper' way to behave. That's why 'sexual malfeasance' is a no-no for them.

 

The Labourites on the other hand, have always been socially liberated and they don't mind a bit of hanky-panky. Their high morals however are highly offended by being, just (your words!), corrupt. That's why it's a no-no for them.

 

I haven't got a theory for the Lib-Dems. A larger sample is needed to extrapolate trends.

[cassity]

We expect the Tories to be corrupt, its in their DNA and expected of entrepreneurs and therefore not a big deal for capitalists. They expect everyone to conform to the mores of society and the 'proper' way to behave. That's why 'sexual malfeasance' is a no-no for them.

 

 

I dunno, Cameron likes chickens...allegedly.

[Mister M]

I dunno, Cameron likes chickens...allegedly.

 

I thought it was pigs, dead ones, that floated his boat

[MLAR]

The fact that you are prepared to take the word of a person who posts abusive messages from behind an assumed name before the case has been investigated says it all. But of course this being about an MP means come May 2020 you will be able to vote for someone else.

 

His letter wasn't even slightly offensive. It was very measured and polite.

 

Unlike the actions of Lucy Allan. They were truly offensive. She should resign and hang her head in shame for using such a serious issue to try to make political capital.

[Hogg]

Surely the naivety and ignorance demonstrated in this circumstance make the poor woman ineligible for the job of Member of Parliament. How on earth did someone of so little intelligence - so little media savvy - manage to get themselves elected? It argues that the Conservatives are very short of good candidates. The recent scandal of the suicide of Elliott Johnson, bullied by young Tory activists, demonstrates a hollowed-out Conservative party, that will need to work hard to change in order to include ordinary people, not just the metropolitan elite.