Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Classic Dianne Abbott . Yesterday .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDSALUydgzU

jimmy b

I've just watched that.

Oh dear!

As Piers said, since she is Shadow Home Secretary now, there is a possibility that this very silly and utterly, mentally incompetent, fudging woman, could well become the Home Secretary after the next General Election.

I sincerely do believe we need a very clear thinking, clear speaking, clear explaining type of guy, like Jason Rees-Mogg, to take over a political party before the next election, and it has to be the Conservative Party.

very silly and utterly, mentally incompetent, fudging woman,
------------

You got that wrong Exec she's a lot more stupid than that !

Jacob would be the guy for me too.

is jason jacob's younger brother?

i like jrm a lot, but he comes across as so old-school patrician and supercilious (like fred, but from the otjher quarter), that he would be a disaster

Trump, Clinton, May, Corbyn - despised.

DA proves herself to be a plank time after time in front of the cameras. Is this the best the labour party can do?

Every time she opens her mouth JC must have nightmares.

depends why she's opening her mouth for him

LOL - Well it would only to be giving him support because I guess she might be of the view that he has few friends that would or maybe even could.

In all fairness he hasn't got a lot to choose from as most Labour MP's can't stand Corbyn or his policies.

Some real dickheads in his shadow cabinet.

Mother defeats Boots over 'sexualised' make-up as stores withdraw eyeshadow from sale

Telegraph Reporters
30 APRIL 2018 • 11:34AM

A mother-of-two has claimed victory over Boots after the pharmacy withdrew what she claimed was "sexualised" make-up.

Angela Fitzsimons, 46, was left outraged when her 17-year-old daughter Grace came home with Obsession Obsessive Eyes makeup palette - which included colour shades such as "milf", "foreplay" and "sugar daddy".

('milf' - if you want to know what it means, then Google it)

The teenager picked up the selection of eyeshadows from Boots' Loughborough branch last week, and her mother branded the wording "unnecessary and crude".

Now the beauty retailer has admitted it got it wrong and promised to remove the product - which is also sold on the Revolution makeup website.

Ms Fitzsimons said the palette, which costs £12 for 24 eyeshadows, would appeal to younger girls even if it wasn't specifically marketed at them.

The eyeshadow names also include housewife, safeword, chauvinist, dealer, wasted, vape, blackmail and full package.

Ms Fitzsimons, of Shepshed, Leicestershire, said: "Grace had been out with her friends and she brought home this palette which she bought with some birthday vouchers.

"She said they were nice colours but the names were gross. I looked closer and saw they were called things like milf, homewrecker and dealer. It was pretty rank.

"I complained to Boots and they replied that it was not marketed at children but I don't think that makes a difference.

"At that price you will get children aged 12, 13, and 14 buying it. Even if they don't buy it they will be seeing these words."

Carer Ms Fitzsimons, who also has a 19-year-old daughter Rose, questioned the brand's motive, and said: "I think they're trying to copy other brands that also give their products grim names but these are more expensive so are more likely to be bought by adults.

"It's completely unnecessary. It's gratuitous and crude. I think they did it for the shock value.

"I thought 'foreplay. What on earth?'. I said to my friend half in jest can you imagine a couple of 13-year-olds saying, 'I'm wearing foreplay with a touch of home wrecker today?'.

"It's over-sexualising children and is completely demeaning. It's makeup and it's there to make you feel better about yourself but it's like it's saying you should be proud to be a homewrecker or a dealer.

"It sends out the wrong message and it normalises these words for teens. It's provocative for the sake of being provocative.

"I think I was shocked that they came from Boots because you think of them as a quality retailer and a name you can trust."

A spokeswoman for Obsession issued a comment through Boots, confirming that the product will be removed from stores and online "with immediate effect".

Ms Fitzsimons said the palette, which costs £12 for 24 eyeshadows, would appeal to younger girls even if it wasn't specifically marketed at them
Ms Fitzsimons said the palette, which costs £12 for 24 eyeshadows, would appeal to younger girls even if it wasn't specifically marketed at them CREDIT: MERCURY PRESS AND MEDIA
She said: "Obsession is a new brand. While we were experimenting with our personality, we know we haven't always got things quite right and some of our shade names need work.

"This is something we're addressing and fixing as a priority as new products launch and we will not repeat these shades names, or genre of shade names, in future.

"However, we also want to act now. We are committed to listening to our customers and reacting to feedback at speed.

"This complaint has made us accelerate our plan and we will remove this product, Obsessive Eyes, from stores and online with immediate effect."

Could represent the tory party and camp followers.

Although the latter seems as if they are already are in the wilderness.

Nice jobs if you can get them.....

Was Prince Harry`s Birth Cert ever available for public scrutiny?

Born with silver spoons in their mouths.

12 . Qualification

Father

jealousy gets you nowhere ..... just as with those who decry eton and other top quality schools

It is not jealousy cynic, it is the corrupt system that comes from the top down that is the problem.

?????? what are you saying is corrupt?

if you are just joe soap and your son wants a job, joe may well contact one of his friends ........ it's just that you seem to have profound jealousy

i confess i wish i had the wherewithal to fund my grandchildrens' education at the best school possible that their talents will allow
i don't, but why should i be jealous of those who do?

are you also jealous of the teachers at top schools who, i am sure, get heavily discounted fees for their children?
if so, why?

time you got a life and accepted the cards you were dealt and made the most of them, instead of nurturing that big chip on your shoulder

Maybe below are what many are objecting to:

"Private schools to save £522m in tax thanks to charitable status"

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jun/11/private-schools-tax-charitable-status-eton-dulwich-college

----====----

Also, the various "tax avoidance schemes" which are available to some "royalty".

Again, perhaps, the influence which is based on which bed they were conceived in rather than intrinsic ability.

many private schools are now saying that having charitable status just isn't worth the sweat .... but that is far from the point i was making

and your second allegation is, by and large, a load of bollocks, as are so many of yours



at the turn of the 20th century when you were young, it was indeed common practice to buy places at top schools, but this hasn't been the case for many a long year
to get into any of the top schools, you need academic ability or some other serious attribute, perhaps music
even then, if you can't cut the mustard, then you either won't last the course or it will be no fun at all
even having got through the system, it is far from any guarantee of a decent job, and indeed, many will hide their school i/d as there is now so much prejudice against them

Manuel,

Many schools are prepared to grab any silver they can lay their hands on. (I thought, from your postings, that would be what you would aspire to that behaviour.)

As per usual you seem to be thinking with your arse rather than using the remnants of a deteriorating senile brain you may still have.

Check your facts and ask yourself why many are sending their "offspring" and paying "large fees" to various "private" schools. (Dumping the responsibilities rather than bringing up their own produce. (In many cases that is to the benefit of their offspring and society.