[Closed] Calm Down Dear

He really can't help himself, can he? You can take the boy out of Eton, but you'll never take Eton out of the boy.....

non story. Move along please.

She should have just got up and kneed him in the balls. Guaranteed MP for life then 🙂

he wasn't quoting anybody.

he was being a patronising twunt because he'd quite clearly lost his temper.

a full and frank apology should hellp him not to appear that he holds at least 50% of the population in contempt.

non story. Move along please.

I disagree. It demonstrates the PM to be the smug, patronising and sexist git we all knew him to be.

Sure, he'll laugh about it with his chums, but people like my wife - a smart, educated woman who might just vote Tory - will note this down as a serious black mark, even though you might not. In any case, I'll make sure she sees this clip, really make the point that Cameron's a tosser, and that's one vote lost.

Thanks Dave, you're doing my job for me....just keep on spouting rubbish and we'll all see you for what you really are

non story. Move along please.

There are clearly worse things happening in the world, but it's refreshing that just every so often, he reminds us what a post coital penis he really is.

EDIT: Check out how uncomfortable Clegg looks behind him. 😐

Perhaps she should have calmed down a little, instead of bouncing around like a sugar fuelled whining harpie in the houses of parliament?

balls was 'outraged'

Hmm, considering he couldn't even get his own wife to take his name on marriage (ahem, Yvette Balls :wink:) I don't think he's the most 'clapham omnibus' of onlookers 😆

Indeed - to quote ED: [i]'If I had ever said "calm down, dear" to Yvette at home, she'd have clocked me one"[/i]

Which shows who wears the trousers in that house, and indeed, I'm concerned about the tacit acceptance of domestic violence as part of a normal relationship!

This doesn't make politics look good...

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

In comparison British politics looks very civilised.

Hmm, considering he couldn't even get his own wife to take his name on marriage

My wife's kept her own name. Should I have made her take mine? Or do you think that women should be subservient and just do what hubby tells them to do?

Perhaps she should have calmed down a little, instead of bouncing around like a sugar fuelled whining harpie in the houses of parliament?

The only harpie I noticed bouncing around was the Tory bitch behind Dave.

You could see he was embarrassed at his own guffaw a few seconds afterwards. Very unparliamentary of him. No great surprise though.

Or do you think that women should be subvervient and just do what hubby tells them to do?

Clearly our flaccid prime-minister does. 😐

who gives a ****.

I've got nothing against the guy for being posh or rich, I don't agree with a lot he is doing but I rather he was in charge that the ****less windbags that make up labour

My wife's kept her own name. Should I have made her take mine?

Well, I'd say that in most relationships, she'd actually want to! maybe you need to MTFU and then she'd be proud to bear your name! 😉

Or do you think that women should be subservient and just do what hubby tells them to do?

Mr Cameron not the only person being a sexist wotsit... 🙄

nothing changes much

yep nothing changes the boys club still patronise women and think they should know their place very sad last century never mind this

Yeah, absolutley right Junky - I mean, its not like the Tory party have ever given us a woman leader or Prime Minister, unlike the progressive and equality loving Labour Party...

Do you think that its acceptable for a woman to assault her husband because he's said something that offended her

Yes.

Do you?

a woman leader

She's not a proper woman though. But at least she took her husband's name.

progressive and equality loving Labour Party...

Oh. Erm.

Yes.

Do you?

No, I don't think that domestic violence is an acceptable part of any loving relationship Elfin - woman or man!

Not a fan of positive discrimination then flashy? Nah, didn't think so. You'd probably struggle to understand the concept.

Oh ok you're right.

No it's not acceptable!

Down with this sort of thing!

How terrible.

Mr Cameron not the only person being a sexist wotsit

It demonstrates the PM to be the smug, patronising and sexist git we all knew him to be

the reality is that half the journo's are on holiday the other half co-opted onto the Royal Wedding "background" stories, it's a slow day for news anyway so it's an easy padder.

If you hold the same views as Harriet Harperson you'll be disgusted, if you don't you'll wonder why he doesn't SKY+ and FFWD through all the adverts

Clearly a non-story. And since when was telling someone to calm down patronising? And how was it sexist? The term "dear" can be used to anyone male or female, and telling someone to calm down is a perfectly reasonable thing to do if they're uncalm?

coffeeking, any-one tells me to calm down dear in *that* sort of voice will get a punch in the goolies. ('cause it would only be a bloke)

It's patronising, it's meant to be patronising, and it's only said by patronising old men.

looking at the faces of women on both sides of the house it wasn't just harman who was pissed off
while the Tory front bench were gafawwing
sexism is obviously just as acceptable to the Tory boys as it is with some on here

since when was telling someone to calm down patronising?

patronising
1. Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.

HTH

Emsz, calm down dear!

*pulls pants down and does the "Woo-Hoo" thing*

(only joking)

Clearly it was said in a tosspot patronising tone. If you can't see that...

Oi, Emsz!

[img] [/img]

😀

(Puts on cricket box..)

patronising
1. Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.

HTH

What makes you assume he feels superior? Doesn't that mean that any act of apparent kindness from someone is patronising if they person they are talking to could be perceived to be inferior in ANY way at all? You talk some twaddle.

coffeeking, any-one tells me to calm down dear in *that* sort of voice will get a punch in the goolies. ('cause it would only be a bloke)

It's patronising, it's meant to be patronising, and it's only said by patronising old men.

Well I disagree, and I'm not even remotely sexist. I think it's clearly a bunch of whining idiots taking things in the worst possible context because it suits their purpose. If you're so outraged by this sort of thing that you'd punch someone in the goolies for it (hypothetically or otherwise) I'm surprised you've got this far in life without having a breakdown.

You talk some twaddle.

And you'd know!

And oi, Effin, what's with the cricket box? Softie!! 😀

I had to go and do the washing up.

LOLing at all the usual suspects.

let it go Coffee king

And you'd know!

Aye, takes great skill to develop my level of twaddle talking!

let it go Coffee king

I was never holding on to anything? Anyway, couldn't that advice be considered slightly patronising also? Hypocrisy all round eh!

it was an act of kndness as he was concerned for her well being then Oh ffs dont be so daft
We could debate other examples if you are really confused between patronising and kindness but I think we can safely assume it was a put down of some sort. Certainly the Tory MPs recognised this as demonstrated by their laughter which is not a typical response to an act of kindness
And you accuse me of talking twaddle 😯 [ I do but not this time]
EDIT: No you seem to have grasped it well done

I'm surprised you've got this far in life without having a breakdown.

And you accuse me of talking twaddle [ I do but not this time]

I have to take the limelight from you once in a while. I like playing devils advocate - shoot me 🙂

EDIT: No you seem to have grasped it well done

There was no hint of concern there, just a statement of opinion.

He is a patronising smug twunt.

But it isn't about his school or his education (two mates who went to the former - and I went to his uni college) - it is about his inability to stop being a slimy unctuous little toad. But he'll realise this was an own-goal.

shoot me

😆

My wife's kept her own name. Should I have made her take mine?

Well, I'd say that in most relationships, she'd actually want to!

My wife kept her surname, as did quite a few of our friends. In fact I've yet to hear a compelling argument for the woman having to change her name. If the love of your life asked to to take her name, what would you do?

My wife was quite eager to be able to introduce herself as Mrs Darcy 🙂

i thought it was great actually - shows they're all just as sarcastic and the rest of us, good on him

She should have just got up and kneed him in the balls

Beaucoup de lolage 🙂

For the hard of thinking, asking someone to calm down in a patronising way implies that their grievance is not important. Which means that their point of view is inconsequential, and that's a very big insult. The addition of 'dear' on the end said by a man to a woman also reinforces the dominant position of men of yesteryear which is EXTREMELY insulting to a modern woman, especially one who's been fighting all their life against exactly this kind of crap. It's about as insulting as you can possibly be.

It's meant to be a debating chamber not a bitch fight.

Personally I suspect that he didn't realise the above, because he's not that bright or sensitive - rather he was simply continuing to act the way his peers and associates have always acted.

maybe you need to MTFU and then she'd be proud to bear your name!

I really hope this is entirely a joke...

I agree with molgrips. I formed the opinion that Cameron was an arse on meeting him momentarily, he made my skin crawl. That impression has stuck with me, and the sight of his horrid, shiny guffawing face on the tellybox gives me the willies. That's not really an issue however, nor is his being a vaguely patronising arse.

For the hard of over-thinking, asking someone to calm down

FTFY

I really hope this is entirely a joke...

Just because you hope it won't make it so. I'm certain Z-11 means every word of what he says.

A bit of banter that Labour are going to try and use to manufacture an issue. The best they can hope for these days is momentarily distracting everyone from the fact that they have no credible policies or politicians left.

Oh, you're "certain" are you nickf? well, thats reassuring 🙄 maybe you really do need to MTFU!

I think Molgrips has it, but to add, Cameron either intended it to be an offensive slap down or he's an incompentant debater who lost his control of the situation, either way he's made an error of judgement.

Does it matter? Well as long has he spends a bit longer thinking about stuff when it comes to the really important decisions, probably not.

Z-11, I'm certain that you were trying to be offensive. I'm certain that you're talking about something you know nothing about: respect for women. I'm certain you take great pains to display a right-wing stance on every occasion.

Yep, I'm certain that you're a tosser. But hey, MTFU, just get over it.

repect for women

Mummy issues I reckon. The constant ad-hominem attacks point to a Freudian response to either rejection or over-familiarity with Mummy. I'd wonder which it was if I gave a shit.

I'm glad you're so certain of so many things nickf! Why, its almost as if you're inside my head, its like watching [i]Being John Malkovich[/i] again

I'm also glad you're so comfortable that your wife chose not to take your name, that you're so sensitive over the issue (is there an emoticon for emasculated?)

Deadlydarcy - indeed, mummy issues, just like you say - I even sit down when I wee!

- I mean, its not like the Tory party have ever given us a woman leader or Prime Minister,

......... Thatcher is woman ?? 😯

Seems to me the real point here is that under very moderate pressure the chinless one scored a massive own goal. Very poor IMHO

It demonstrates the PM to be the smug, patronising and sexist git we all knew him to be

Not true at all.

Before yesterday I only thought he was a smug, patronising git. I didn't realise he was sexist.

Still though, Dave has owned Labour at PMQs for quite some time.

Still though, Dave has owned Labour at PMQs for quite some time.

And when someone corrects him on a [i]point of fact[/i], he resorts to a sexist patronising put-down. Yeah, real stylish debating.

It would probably have been more stylish for Labour to put their heads together and present their facts in a reasoned manner when the speaker gave them the opportunity.

D-D

perhaps if she wanted to correct him on a fact, then she should have raised a point of order with the speaker, as per the proper debating rules of the house, rather than acting like an overexcited fishwife?

Then there would have been no need for the put down! If Labour want the PM to follow the finer rules of etiquette, then perhaps they should show due respect themselves?

For the hard of over-thinking

Define over-thinking. Should I not care about offending others, for example?

Cameron either intended it to be an offensive slap down or he's an incompentant debater who lost his control of the situation, either way he's made an error of judgement

Yep, and the former is far from professional which is worrying in a world leader, no?

More worrying than telling lies to start a war, or selling off a pile of gold at a terrible price?

Shandy - Member

More worrying than telling lies to start a war, or selling off a pile of gold at a terrible price?

Classic evasion. Just what has that to do with Cameron being a thick sexist plonker?

~and on the war front - just what do you think is happening in Libya?

More worrying than telling lies to start a war, or selling off a pile of gold at a terrible price?

Both those things are more complicated than you suggest of course. As TJ says the question is whether or not Cameron is a sexist git.

and on the war front - just what do you think is happening in Libya?

go on illuminate us, what lies are being told about the situation in Libya?

and then tell us what is the truth

Big and daft. ~That we are going in to protect civilians and that we are obeying a un resolution. Both are clearly lies and we and others are in clear breach of the UN resolution.

Bang on the money TJ - I heard Its all part of a global conspiracy by the new world order (Bilderbergers, oil companies, [s]reptilians[/s] illuminati and the Disney corporation) 🙄

Libya - we have Hague warning us that we're "in for the long haul"; anyone think to ask the British people whether we wanted this? Given the fact that Labour was ejected as much for the Iraq/Afghanistan debacles as for economic failure, you'd have thought that the Conservatives would have thought twice.

We have Putin - [i]Putin[/i], ferchrissakes! - taking us to task on morality. "They said they didn't want to kill Gaddafi. Now some officials say, yes, we are trying to kill Gaddafi. Who permitted this, was there any trial? Who took on the right to execute this man, no matter who he is?"

Is TJ still ignoring me?

We have Putin - Putin, ferchrissakes! - taking us to task on morality.

No, you have Putin using the situation to try and make us look bad.

No, you have Putin using the situation to try and make us look bad.

To be fair, he's not having to try that hard, is he?

That we are going in to protect civilians and that we are obeying a un resolution. Both are clearly lies and we and others are in clear breach of the UN resolution.

so why are we going in? what is the truth?

please list the breeches of the UN resolution that you state are occuring

Does bombing Gaddaffis compound count as protecting civilians? Sending in military advisors - clear breach. Arming the rebels. Not stopping the rebels when they killcivilians.

Why are we going in - to depose Gadaffi and we are acting air support for the rebels. Clearly partisan support.

Does bombing Gaddaffis compound count as protecting civilians?

Arguably, yes.

TJ dont bite and goo off topic

Even with file blocker you can still see Z-11 trademark bitter ad hominem honestly folks better to not bite as he has no point to make and he just feeds off your reaction. Non reaction gets to him more.
I am told he still posts up things for me despite knowing I cannot see them - anyone else want the file blocker link?...can you resist this time?

OT it is an own goal he lost his temper and he was patronising towards her and it does taint him with sexism. The line about it being humour is plausible - I beleiev Bernard Manning uses that defence - but wont fool many people.
I suspect we will see more over time

Junky - I'm not particuarly bothered if you can or cannot read my posts, the fact that you'd go to such extremes just because you've still got your lip firmly out over the whole name issue [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cuts-union-knee-jerk-response-or-last-line-of-defence-against-the-torries/page/5#post-1807611 ](For details see here)[/url] shows far, far more about you than it does about me, and means that I'm still here laughing over it, while you're sulking and trying to repeatedly make an issue and comment on it, like a petulent teenager slamming doors to show how upset he is - methinks you doth protest too much, dear 😈

Guy needs his P45.

I am in the "ignore Zulu" camp as well.

He never adds anything to the debate and just makes snide attacks on folk - see his post above about me.

Its the best way of dealing with him - don't give him the attention he craves.

he did again didnt he despite the obvious goading 🙄
See he cant help himself seriously ignore him and watch him get more desperate I bet he would even create a new account he needs the attention/reaction

'Course you are TJ!

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/trophy-hunters-red-stag-content/page/3

🙄

Now, back to the subject - lets get this straight, so Cameron is a sexist because he put up pictures of skimpily clad sportswomen in the houses of Parliament, yes?

So were the original TV ads sexist?

Does bombing Gaddaffis compound count as protecting civilians?

Sending in military advisors - clear breach. Arming the rebels. Not stopping the rebels when they killcivilians.

but it's not that easy is it. You could make a good argument that the proper training of the rebels would significantly reduce civilian casaulties as the "beruit unload" tactics employed by the rebels in built up areas must be causing significant numbers.

the deployment of communications specialists would enable aid to be sent to the right places

the deployment of fire control teams would stop the indiscriminate use of direct and indirect large calibre weapons

etc etc

if they hadn't gone in they would have had Gadafi clearing towns house by house all on 24 hour rolling news

I think the UK government was pushed into this because we are one of the few countries with "deployable" forces. Because they were pushed the "moment" was lost. Once they took the first step they were locked in to the long drawn out mess have now

I don't think there is a right answer to this, any path would have had intended and unintended consequences.

It's a shame there isn't any real debate about the issues and ideas on proper courses of action for what next, instead we have people picking on a phrase to justify "what they already knew" in a vacuous point scoring exercise. The air time given to this should have been given to debate about the strategic options and how to get to a sustainable future for Libya, or is that too hard?