Amber Rudd - no surprise.

[Santo]

Exactly what question have I not answered. Does it not occur to you that you might have asked something that was impossible to fully answer because I can't possibly know what is going to be revealed next. I don't know all the possible bad answers and bad scenarios although I did give you one example. What new things will come out tomorrow, next week or next month? I don't know. I haven't got a Ruddy crystal ball.

 

If there are skeletons in her closet then taking the job is potential evidence of bad judgement. It potentially compromises her, and it potentially compromises the government.

 

The fact she has tried to completely swerve the issue by not answering questions herself and trotting out the same line through spokespeople over and over again is bad IMO. Again poor judgement.

 

I'm not asking you to predict what she will say! Why do you think I am?

 

I'm asking you, when asked, 'Amber, why did you work for a company that used tax havens?' what you think a bad answer would be.

 

Is, 'it was well paid, challenging, interesting etc,' a bad answer?

 

Is, 'my friend got me the job,' a bad answer?

 

Is, 'I didn't know they used tax havens at the time,' a bad answer?

 

Is, 'I wanted to subvert UK law,' a bad answer?'

 

She might eventually answer (though I think the story is dead tbh). It will be either good or bad. Prepare yourself to judge by thinking of possible answers she might give. Not predict what she WILL say but what she MIGHT say. Some possibilities will be better than others. What are the bad ones?

 

You don't need a crystal ball or any more insight to answer that question, as is. It's not hard if you have even the slightest bit of imagination.

 

Is this notion alien to you?

[I1L2T3]

I'm not asking you to predict what she will say! Why do you think I am?

 

I'm asking you, when asked, 'Amber, why did you work for a company that used tax havens?' what you think a bad answer would be.

 

Is, 'it was well paid, challenging, interesting etc,' a bad answer?

 

Is, 'my friend got me the job,' a bad answer?

 

Is, 'I didn't know they used tax havens at the time,' a bad answer?

 

Is, 'I wanted to subvert UK law,' a bad answer?'

 

She might eventually answer (though I think the story is dead tbh). It will be either good or bad. Prepare yourself to judge by thinking of possible answers she might give. Not predict what she WILL say but what she MIGHT say. Some possibilities will be better than others. What are the bad ones?

 

You don't need a crystal ball or any more insight to answer that question, as is. It's not hard if you have even the slightest bit of imagination.

 

Is this notion alien to you?

 

What is the point of me predicting her answers. You are demanding I construct strawman arguments for you to attack me with. Sorry that is really odd. Why are you asking me to make predictions about stuff I can't know about?

 

What I have said is there isn't a need for her to resign yet. And I have also said what questions I think she needs to answer. I have no preconceived ideas of what the answers would be but based on what the answers are I'd make a decision. That could still be that she doesn't need to resign. I can't see that is anything other than a totally rational and fair viewpoint.

 

By the way she didn't just work for the companies. She was a co-director, maybe even owner.

[Santo]

What is the point of me predicting her answers. You are demanding I construct strawman arguments for you to attack me with. Sorry that is really odd. Why are you asking me to make predictions about stuff I can't know about?

 

What I have said is there isn't a need for her to resign yet. And I have also said what questions I think she needs to answer. I have no preconceived ideas of what the answers would be but based on what the answers are I'd make a decision. That could still be that she doesn't need to resign. I can't see that is anything other than a totally rational and fair viewpoint.

 

By the way she didn't just work for the companies. She was a co-director, maybe even owner.

 

Not straw man arguments. I want to know what standards you have. I don't think that's odd.

 

Would you be fired from your current job if your boss discovered 16 years ago you worked for/ were director of a company that used tax havens despite there being no allegation of criminality on your part? On what grounds?

 

I appreciate you saying you have no preconceived ideas. I think that means you either a) have no imagination or b) you don't really know what you are mad about you just think you ought to be.

 

Holier than thou and all that....

Edited October 5, 2016 by Santo

[Phanerothyme]

I'm more concerned that Amber Rudd appears to be reiterating points made, literally, in Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf.

 

Regardless of whether you think she's a card carrying Nazi or not (and I doubt it), like Philip Hammond's Mosely reference, it just confirms in my mind that they're exceedingly stupid in some departments.

[tinfoilhat]

I'm more concerned that Amber Rudd appears to be reiterating points made, literally, in Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf.

 

Regardless of whether you think she's a card carrying Nazi or not (and I doubt it), like Philip Hammond's Mosely reference, it just confirms in my mind that they're exceedingly stupid in some departments.

 

You've just had a whole bunch of people who voted to leave the EU. Many of the less educated ones are a tad xenophobic (or downright racist - it's not like they've avoided tv interviews and phone ins). The tories are ringing the nationalist bell (whilst ukip implode) and they will respond. They're gathering in people who haven't voted for years but voted leave at the referendum, with little or no opposition. Is Jeremy corbyn going to suddenly start "waving the flag" for British jobs? Of course not.

 

Just look accross the pond - he won't win but the fact trump is the actual Republican Party candidate shows which way the wind is blowing. To the right.

[I1L2T3]

Not straw man arguments. I want to know what standards you have. I don't think that's odd.

 

Would you be fired from your current job if your boss discovered 16 years ago you worked for/ were director of a company that used tax havens despite there being no allegation of criminality on your part? On what grounds?

 

I appreciate you saying you have no preconceived ideas. I think that means you either a) have no imagination or b) you don't really know what you are mad about you just think you ought to be.

 

Holier than thou and all that....

 

I would expect to be seriously questioned, maybe disciplined or maybe even sacked, if I withheld info from my CV that was relevant to my job, or called into question my ability or judgement to do the job.

 

I don't have pre-concieved ideas because like I said if don't know what is coming next.

 

I said not two days ago that I thought she was a good politician then today find that she's pulled a disgusting xenophobic populist stunt at the Tory conference. And what she said seems completely incompatible with her recent work on the remain campaign and staunch defence of free movement.

 

I seriously don't trust her judgement. Possibly she is actually very weak.

 

---------- Post added 05-10-2016 at 22:35 ----------

 

Uh huh. How rich do you think Amber Rudd is?

 

Tell me El Cid, are you familiar with salary sacrifice pension plans?

 

If you receive a bonus at work will your company pay it directly into your pension so it's subject to less tax?

 

Are you rich?

 

---------- Post added 05-10-2016 at 11:22 ----------

 

 

Your Tory hating is transparent. All you do is whinge about them. But, are you even old enough to remember and have been affected by Thatcher or are you one of those Northern types that despises her because your daddy told you to? Because it's hip to loath the Iron Witch? Does your Union Padrone say dance on the grave of Ol' Mrs T and off you trot?

 

---------- Post added 05-10-2016 at 11:27 ----------

 

 

I don't like her. I think she's obnoxious. But nor do I think she deserves to be fired for doing what she's alleged to have done. I know I wouldn't be. But people like IL2T3Z4W5X and Flanker 7 have been infected with the Northern Tory Unlove and would salivate to see Tory ministers thrown out for any infraction. It's all rather minutely subversive and peppered with a tedious and fake holier-than-thou attitude I find repulsive.

 

Blimey. I just spotted this post

 

A polite request..... again......to stop the personal attacks.

Edited October 5, 2016 by I1L2T3

[Santo]

I would expect to be seriously questioned, maybe disciplined or maybe even sacked, if I withheld info from my CV that was relevant to my job, or called into question my ability or judgement to do the job.

 

I don't have pre-concieved ideas because like I said if don't know what is coming next.

 

I said not two days ago that I thought she was a good politician then today find that she's pulled a disgusting xenophobic populist stunt at the Tory conference. And what she said seems completely incompatible with her recent work on the remain campaign and staunch defence of free movement.

 

I seriously don't trust her judgement. Possibly she is actually very weak.

 

---------- Post added 05-10-2016 at 22:35 ----------

 

 

Blimey. I just spotted this post

 

A polite request..... again......to stop the personal attacks.

 

A polite request for you to stop saying I'm attacking you, or derailing the thread, or insulting you, or trying to close down debate, for you to stop using histrionics and accusing me of being a troll for asking questions. As you keep saying, I have a right to ask questions. You are one paranoid android.

 

Ad hominem is acceptable when the opponent fails to engage because they lack the intellectual clout.

 

Try and enhance your imagination or figure out what it is you are actually angry about and get back to me flower.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Santo

[Phanerothyme]

Just look accross the pond - he won't win but the fact trump is the actual Republican Party candidate shows which way the wind is blowing. To the right.

 

British politics just blows.

[I1L2T3]

A polite request for you to stop saying I'm attacking you, or derailing the thread, or insulting you, or trying to close down debate, for you to stop using histrionics and accusing me of being a troll for asking questions. As you keep saying, I have a right to ask questions. You are one paranoid android.

 

Ad hominem is acceptable when the opponent fails to engage because they lack the intellectual clout.

 

Try and enhance your imagination or figure out what it is you are actually angry about and get back to me flower.

 

Last polite request to pack it in.

[Santo]

Last polite request to pack it in.

 

Note the discussion I had with Flanker7 earlier today.

 

(S)He asked me some questions. I answered. I made my position quite clear on this matter.

 

To me, you haven't because I asked you some questions that you didn't answer so I don't know quite what your expectations are, other than clarity. You haven't expanded on that. You have accused me of using this to build a straw man. I call it wondering what your expectations are.

 

You claim you are waiting for Amber Rudd to say something. Me, I have been wondering what she might say (if and when she does eventually speak up) since the story broke. I think that's a quite natural response, to wonder how she is going to get out of this pickle.

 

I have my own ideas of what I think will be acceptable or not. What will be a decent defence. Whether I will believe it or not. You claim you haven't done that. That strikes me as very odd considering how vocal you are about her being transparent. I am now well past caring that you haven't done that.

 

We have gone round and round in circles with this. I asked my question initially mid debate to see if we were on the same wavelength about what she can say in her own defence. That's not building a straw man. That's debate and discussion which is what this forum is for. She has a right to defend her actions, wouldn't you agree? Can we not discuss possible defences? I said you hadn't answered. You claimed you had. I said you hadn't. This has gone on for days now. For this, you accused me of being a troll. I am of mind to accuse you of deliberately avoiding answering because if she uses a response which we have discussed and resolved here you won't be able to attack her for it. You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket, so to speak.

 

Thus, I can only conclude you have already made up your mind about her. Though you claim she needs to add clarity and save her job I quite simply, owing to your conduct throughout this debate, do not believe you. I don't think any amount of clarity will satisfy you. You want her gone and nothing she can say will change your mind. I think this is grossly unfair on your part. Much like your treatment of several people during this thread, and of myself. You accuse us of trying to derail the thread and of trying to shut down the debate. I hereby openly accuse you of trying to stifle and shut down anyone that has the audacity to defend Amber Rudd. I further suspect this behaviour has one root cause; because she is a Tory, whom you are biased against.

 

And please refrain from threatening me.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Santo