The Commons Bar Mk IX - MHoC Chat Thread Watch

This discussion is closed.
Airmed
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#701
Report 4 years ago
#701
The N.I Environmental Minister just walked past me in the bar, and I had to say hello because politeness and all that.
0
Airmed
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#702
Report 4 years ago
#702
Wow, the speculation here is even worse.

I love how this is all entertainment to you all.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#703
Report 4 years ago
#703
(Original post by CescaD96)
Wow, the speculation here is even worse.

I love how this is all entertainment to you all.
Just wait until the press get ahold of it.
0
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#704
Report 4 years ago
#704
(Original post by RayApparently)
Just wait until the press get ahold of it.
I've already had journos from the TSR Times at my door.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#705
Report 4 years ago
#705
(Original post by InnerTemple)
I've already had journos from the TSR Times at my door.
You know that's a real thing that Nigel is setting up right?
0
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#706
Report 4 years ago
#706
(Original post by InnerTemple)
This isn't political. It's about integrity and making sure that the MHoCs is run properly.

I was merely making a point.

1) If these accounts are dupes - that is bad. The site team need to look into this further.
2) If they are not dupes, you appear to admit that these people "helped you out" when you required assistance.
No, I haven't. That is a conclusion you have come to without any good reason. At no point did I in any way direct these people to assisting me in any way.

Point 2 is what I sought to question. I asked the Speaker whether this was proper conduct. I did so because it seems to me that it is not proper to sign up friends if their sole function is to act as support for one's own endeavours. This is regardless of whether or not they originally signed up with good motive (to become a fully engaged member).
What these friends chose to make of their membership is not something that I am at all responsible for. I didn't sign them up, and I didn't direct them to support me at any stage. The only record of them ever voting at all is in the leadership election, which I had told them that I was standing in.

Hopefully the Speaker will clear this up. That is all I asked. The rest of this interaction between you and I has been you denying that any such arrangement (such as that set out above) is wrong.
Wrong. I have denied that any such relationship existed and pointed out how unreasonable it is to bay for my blood because of the actions and behaviours of other people over whom I exercise no control whatsoever. Apart from this, I have been attempting to extract some semblance of an argument from you and correcting your seemingly hydra-headed list of misjudgements and misinformations.
0
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#707
Report 4 years ago
#707
(Original post by Aph)
You know that's a real thing that Nigel is setting up right?
I didn't know that...
0
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#708
Report 4 years ago
#708
(Original post by RayApparently)
InnerTemple is familiar with the concept of 'means, motive and opportunity' I imagine.
It's just a shame he's failed to properly observe them here in his loud mouth interventions.
0
Airmed
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#709
Report 4 years ago
#709
(Original post by RayApparently)
Just wait until the press get ahold of it.
Ah, my first interview as Leader! I better practice my posh vocabulary and voice.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#710
Report 4 years ago
#710
(Original post by InnerTemple)
I didn't know that...
Well now you do:yep: if it's going to get off the ground is another matter but he's trying to sort it our as GS for the MUN.
0
Airmed
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#711
Report 4 years ago
#711
Honestly, don't make it personal. Keep it calm!
0
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#712
Report 4 years ago
#712
(Original post by RayApparently)
Then you'll know your suspicions are justified, despite what Birk might want to dismiss as a 'witch-hunt' or 'opportunism'.
Suspicions are fine. But any half decent lawyer knows not to speak about suspicions before there is sufficient reason and evidence to back them up. As I have demonstrated, he has failed to find any. This is what marks this out as political opportunism: a bunch of Lefties making a series of accusations, thinly veiled because they know they have not a shred of evidence, not because they think they're true but because they want them to be. Actually quite sad when you think about it.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#713
Report 4 years ago
#713
(Original post by CescaD96)
Ah, my first interview as Leader! I better practice my posh vocabulary and voice.
Don't forget the steely-eyed conviction. I spend many a morning practicing my stare in the mirror.

Top examples:

0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#714
Report 4 years ago
#714
(Original post by Birkenhead)
Suspicions are fine. But any half decent lawyer knows not to speak about suspicions before there is sufficient reason and evidence to back them up. As I have demonstrated, he has failed to find any. This is what marks this out as political opportunism: a bunch of Lefties making a series of accusations, thinly veiled because they know they have not a shred of evidence, not because they think they're true but because they want them to be. Actually quite sad when you think about it.
*Sigh*

The more you attack the individual and not the argument the more it seems you've just jumped on a way to deflect by pleading the victim.


PS. 'thinly veiled because they know they have not a shred of evidence' Come off it mate. It's just 'innocent until proven guilty' and you know it.
0
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#715
Report 4 years ago
#715
(Original post by RayApparently)
*Sigh*

The more you attack the individual and not the argument the more it seems you've just jumped on a way to deflect by pleading the victim.
*Generic patronising text*

I'm not attacking anyone. That's all you seem capable of saying. I'm attacking the lack of argument and demonstrating the motive in pushing this non-argument so hard. One of your own party members has even identified how silly you're being here.

PS. 'thinly veiled because they know they have not a shred of evidence' Come off it mate. It's just 'innocent until proven guilty' and you know it.
No, I don't. I haven't seen a single piece of evidence to attest to any of these accusations. Perhaps you should pipe down until you find some, and stop causing a bad atmosphere in the House for no good reason.
0
Airmed
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#716
Report 4 years ago
#716
(Original post by RayApparently)
Don't forget the steely-eyed conviction. I spend many a morning practicing my stare in the mirror.

Top examples:

They are top quality.
0
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#717
Report 4 years ago
#717
(Original post by Birkenhead)
Suspicions are fine. But any half decent lawyer knows not to speak about suspicions before there is sufficient reason and evidence to back them up. As I have demonstrated, he has failed to find any. This is what marks this out as political opportunism: a bunch of Lefties making a series of accusations, thinly veiled because they know they have not a shred of evidence, not because they think they're true but because they want them to be. Actually quite sad when you think about it.
I spotted a troubling statement in one of your posts and I asked the Speaker to report back his views.

It is clear that I do not have all the evidence. I have made clear that for my concerns to be realised, it would require a look into the activity within your party's sub forum. I made clear that my concerns were based on what I did have to had - I used the phrase "on the face of it".

That is all.

Now Kittiara has requested that the House awaits the findings of the investigation. I'd suggest you heed her post above.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#718
Report 4 years ago
#718
(Original post by Birkenhead)
*Generic patronising text*
I'm sorry if that offended you, but I genuinely sighed when I read that you were once again fobbing off criticism as some left vs right thing which it isn't. It seems there just aren't that many right-wingers online, and if its in their best interests for this to pass then that's up to them.

I'm not attacking anyone. That's all you seem capable of saying. I'm attacking the lack of argument and demonstrating the motive in pushing this non-argument so hard. One of your own party members has even identified how silly you're being here.
You seem to be misunderstanding the word 'attack'.
There is an argument, obviously.

No, I don't. I haven't seen a single piece of evidence to attest to any of these accusations. Perhaps you should pipe down until you find some, and stop causing a bad atmosphere in the House for no good reason.
IP address. Time of joining. Lack of posts. You're obvious motives. Your obvious opportunity. Your obvious means. There is evidence. What's Birch supposed to do, get a spy camera on you?

You're just hiding behind the fact that since we're online nothing can be proven or disproven 100% and trying to gain some kind of moral higher ground by accusing members of the House of attacking you because of your politics. Its a transparent deflection.

A bad atmosphere? Even you must have acknowledged the irony in that as you typed it.
0
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#719
Report 4 years ago
#719
(Original post by InnerTemple)
I spotted a troubling statement in one of your posts and I asked the Speaker to report back his views.

It is clear that I do not have all the evidence. I have made clear that for my concerns to be realised, it would require a look into the activity within your party's sub forum. I made clear that my concerns were based on what I did have to had - I used the phrase "on the face of it".

That is all.

Now Kittiara has requested that the House awaits the findings of the investigation. I'd suggest you heed her post above.
I think you'll find it's you that needs to heed her words. The investigation has been going for a day now. Your posts have been a total irrelevance that have not contributed anything to the proceedings except a sour taste. Another thing a lawyer should have mastered missing: knowing when to zip it.
0
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#720
Report 4 years ago
#720
(Original post by Birkenhead)
I think you'll find it's you that needs to heed her words. The investigation has been going for a day now. Your posts have been a total irrelevance that have not contributed anything to the proceedings except a sour taste. Another thing a lawyer should have mastered missing: knowing when to zip it.
Oh. Thanks for the advice - I'll hold it dear...
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (142)
17.95%
It's just nice to be back! (213)
26.93%
Not great so far... (283)
35.78%
I want to drop out! (153)
19.34%

Watched Threads

View All