Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

I don't think there's much to be gained from criticising Philips on this tbh. Her colleague was recently murdered, and she does get the vilest abuse imaginable (threats to pour molten metal into her vagina etc). I think it's probably ok for her to complain about it, and to be worried. Challenging her just looks like victim blaming.
Yet she's quite happy to hurl abuse at others and whatever you think of Diane Abbott, Phillips abuse of her was out of order. Phillips is not only a gobshite, she's a hypocrite.
 
3-0 or 3-1, whatever.

The "I Can Assure You I Celebrated With Gusto" was pathetic though

I cant remember as single scoreline for this years Euros and I watched loads of games (with gusto)
 
JP's Twitter could be packed full of smears and distortions and pointless arguments and it still wouldn't be worth mentioning in the context of abuse she has received. It's pretty easy to not do this and at the same time criticise any suggestions that somehow Corbyn is to blame, rather than it being a general social problem that needs dealing with.
 
JP's Twitter could be packed full of smears and distortions and pointless arguments and it still wouldn't be worth mentioning in the context of abuse she has received. It's pretty easy to not do this and at the same time criticise any suggestions that somehow Corbyn is to blame, rather than it being a general social problem that needs dealing with.

Let's be blunt:
Sometimes criticism - criticism, rather than rape threats, death threats and other threats of extreme violence - is necessary.
Often, criticism is not welcomed by those receiving it.
Some people will use the fact that they receive threats as a means of ignoring criticism.
The former is seldom related to the latter, so using it in such a way is at best foolish.
Jess Philips' political career so far is laced with almost as many instances of conflating criticism with threats, as Simon Danczuk's is of being a misogynist cunt.

All these wankers attempting to avoid the consequences of their policies and their politics, has fuck-all to do with Corbyn, and everything to do with an inability or unwillingness in people to take responsibility for themselves.
 
Let's be blunt:
Sometimes criticism - criticism, rather than rape threats, death threats and other threats of extreme violence - is necessary.
Often, criticism is not welcomed by those receiving it.
Some people will use the fact that they receive threats as a means of ignoring criticism.
The former is seldom related to the latter, so using it in such a way is at best foolish.
Jess Philips' political career so far is laced with almost as many instances of conflating criticism with threats, as Simon Danczuk's is of being a misogynist cunt.

All these wankers attempting to avoid the consequences of their policies and their politics, has fuck-all to do with Corbyn, and everything to do with an inability or unwillingness in people to take responsibility for themselves.
An article I read about her the other day nailed it. She insists that this should not be about Corbyn, or about her. At the same time, she makes it all about her. The 'i'd resign tomorrow if that were what was best for my constituents' is nauseating. Yeah yeah. You employ your husband as your constituency support manager (what that?). Sorry, we employ her husband as her constituency support manager - she claims him as an expense.

I would far rather mps were honest and ditched this public service charade. We all have jobs in which we serve the public in some way. Just be honest - I've got a well-paid job with a fantastic pension and the opportunity to travel the world (business class, natch) on expenses.
 
Last edited:
I'm not talking about what they do though. I'm more interested in what we do, and how criticism can be used effectively rather than turned against us.

Unfortunately it's the nature of criticism -even informed, even-handed constructive criticism - that some people will react to it in such a way, and attempt to turn the critic into a subject to be censured.

With some people - Philips among them - there's no utility to refining the criticism, or softening the language, because whatever is said, if it's even mildly critical of them, they'll turn it into an attack and react accordingly.

So we are left with a quandary that only really leaves us two choices, if we wish to criticise, and do so effectively (by whatever gauge you'remeasuring "effectiveness"): We can back completely off of such people, and watch as their gobshitery reaches new heights of self-delusion, or we can continue criticising, aware of how they'll react.

Personally, I prefer the latter to the former, whatever social media storm gets stirred up by the soi-disant victim.
 
An article I read about her the other day nailed it. She insists that this should not be about Corbyn, or about her. At the same time, she makes it all about her. The 'i'd resign tomorrow if that were what was best for my constituents' is nauseating. Yeah yeah. You employ your husband as your constituency support manager (what that?). Sorry, we employ her husband as her constituency support manager - she claims him as an expense.

I would far rather mps were honest and ditched this public service charade. We all have jobs in which we serve the public in some way. Just be honest - I've got a well-paid job with a fantastic pension and the opportunity to travel the world (business class, natch) on expenses.

Constituency support manager - office manager, sweeper and tea-maker, making appts for constituents to attend surgeries, passing them onto appropriate agencies, coordinating constituency events, who has to be glad-handed etc.
 
Constituency support manager - office manager, sweeper and tea-maker, making appts for constituents to attend surgeries, passing them onto appropriate agencies etc.
Thing is, I don't necessarily even object to her employing her husband to do that. It's the hair-shirt hypocrisy I can't stand. Almost all of us do the paid jobs we do at least partly for the money, and so does she. Most of us do it entirely for the money. She's actually being incredibly patronising in her attitude without even realising it.


This is possibly the first time I've thought to say that horrible phrase 'check your privilege'. :D
 
Unfortunately it's the nature of criticism -even informed, even-handed constructive criticism - that some people will react to it in such a way, and attempt to turn the critic into a subject to be censured.

With some people - Philips among them - there's no utility to refining the criticism, or softening the language, because whatever is said, if it's even mildly critical of them, they'll turn it into an attack and react accordingly.

So we are left with a quandary that only really leaves us two choices, if we wish to criticise, and do so effectively (by whatever gauge you'remeasuring "effectiveness"): We can back completely off of such people, and watch as their gobshitery reaches new heights of self-delusion, or we can continue criticising, aware of how they'll react.

Personally, I prefer the latter to the former, whatever social media storm gets stirred up by the soi-disant victim.
Bollocks - all criticism isn't equal. Yes, she'll try to turn any criticism against the critic, but you don't have to make it easy for her.
 
Bollocks - all criticism isn't equal. Yes, she'll try to turn any criticism against the critic, but you don't have to make it easy for her.

I haven't claimed that all criticism is equal though, have I? All I've stated is that some people will be more reactive to anycriticism, than others, regardless of the severity (or mildness) of the criticism.
 
Back
Top Bottom