Youve missed the point.....too busy as usual trying to make your own
Which point do you think I have missed.Youve missed the point.....too busy as usual trying to make your own
Sir Michael said: "A number of allegations have surfaced about MPs in recent days, including some about my previous conduct.
The Times reports that 10 Downing Street was presented with details of an alleged sexual assault by Sir Michael Fallon, hours before his resignation as defence secretary. Sir Michael told the paper the allegation was not true and libellous.
The prime minister’s team was confronted by a “person with great courage” who set out allegations against the former defence secretary on Wednesday, Anna Soubry has told The Times.
Which point do you think I have missed.
To me, it is obvious. You and **** end were suggesting that Fallon resigned over a knee touching incident, or a lewd suggestion to a colleague.
John, quite rightly challenged you on your assumption. To which you asked John to enlighten everyone with any knowledge that he had.
He did not need to. The news reports and Fallon's own statement were pretty self-evident:
Now which other point was there?
Theres no doubt he must have too many skeletons, nobody would resign over a touched knee
What point have I supposedly missed?Youve missed the point.....too busy as usual trying to make your own
What criticism was leveled and what 'different point'was made?As usual JohnD critices somebody, then later on responds by proving a different point.
You keep making these extremely vague comments without explaining what it is you are complaining about.
What point have I supposedly missed?
What criticism was leveled and what 'different point'was made?
If I looked, I bet I could find loads of your vague comments relating to some or other 'point'.
Im sorry, is that too vague for you?You missed the point because I didnt suggest Fallon resigned over a touched knee,
I did not miss the point. I merely made a different point than the one you eluded to several posts ago (post 91). Post 101, you and **** end assumed that Fallon had resigned over a touched knee. I made the point that John asked if you and **** end assumed you knew why Fallon had resigned. You asked John for further information. I responded that John did not need to supply the information because it was already public knowledge that there were other issues.You missed the point because I didnt suggest Fallon resigned over a touched knee, the point I made was that Andrea Leadsom may have helped his resignation for political gain.
In post 103, I said there must be more reasons than a touched knee for him to resign:
Post 101.notch and trans seem to be working on the assumption that they know which of his inappropriate escapades was responsible for his eventual resignation.
If you know better please enlighten
I see that a magazine is having to apologise for commenting that an actress appeared that she would be fun in bed. Probably.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41871444
Does this mean that all remarks regarding the attractiveness of women are now off limits and will it also apply to women commenting about men?
No more referring to hunks etc. and of course there will be no more groupies.
I may be a bit naive but could anyone tell me what we are supposed to think about, for example, Miley Cyrus cavorting naked or that singer on Graham Norton's show last night who wore a red plastic (one piece) swimsuit and red plastic thigh length boots and then went to sit on the couch like this and chat - with, of course, no one daring to mention that it might be inappropriate or, indeed, provocative.
Could Graham dress like this for the show?
Have I got the situation correct? - women can do what they want because men don't complain; men can't because women do.
For the group of two and two halves I am not talking about rape or abuse - just normal things which are no longer allowed.
To me, it is obvious. You and **** end were suggesting that Fallon resigned over a knee touching incident,
Could Graham dress like this for the show?