What's going on?

[akarjl2]

At work I would sometimes had to 'advocate' against people I worked with closely. This never transferred over into the work environment.

...as a (labour) union convenor lol?

It is possible to compartmentalise your life. Those who  fixate completely on a single issue so that it is at the core of every decision they make are the problem. They are in a cult.

Amazing you have just described yourself!

Are you sure yourself and David are not secret "over the" Hill election agents?

Fingers crossed he gets flushed down the pan (floating voters? ) back to the Boro and labour becomes history in aaartlepool.

[Inspector Knacker]

It is possible to compartmentalise your life. Those who  fixate completely on a single issue so that it is at the core of every decision they make are the problem. They are in a cult.

You mean like the Labour Party...?

[fred c]

Just because the views on here have (imo) now become extremely polarised to the point of out and out hatred..............

Indeed. It seems that if you point out Shanes duplicity the fruitcakes go into a complete meltdown.
What was once condemned as Labour lies and duplicity is now lauded as sound tactics.
It appears many where lying when for the last decade they said they were against Labour corruption and they were really
just Labour-phobic and lacking the courage to come out and admit it.
They are not against lies and corruption when their politicians practise it.

And the 'New Labour' outfit are any different to labour of old, there are those amongst them that I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw Carl Richardson.

I don't doubt Shane Moore has his faults, (no I don't want your list) but ripping him up for a**e paper before he had a month in office was over the top.

My preference is for a council that works for the betterment of the town and it's residents no matter which party they represent, the difficulty is that the labour party's first priority is the labour party.

Nationally I think it's time Hartlepool became a marginal seat, Lord Charles would be more use than the last 2 labour mp's we have been lumbered with.

[Inspector Knacker]

Just because the views on here have (imo) now become extremely polarised to the point of out and out hatred..............These views could equally refer to Mk1, are you so egotistic as to think you are above such claims. No one polarises quite like you

Indeed. It seems that if you point out Shanes duplicity the fruitcakes go into a complete meltdown.
'Fruitcakes' being anyone who doesn't share your view

What was once condemned as Labour lies and duplicity is now lauded as sound tactics.
It appears many where lying when for the last decade they said they were against Labour corruption and they were really
just Labour-phobic and lacking the courage to come out and admit it.
Instead of these hectoring rants and turbocharged addresses to no one, try considering just for once YOU may occasionally be whistling in the wind.

They are not against lies and corruption when their politicians practise it.
'Their politicians'?, here you go again, shooting from the hip with your scattergun style delusions and missing.

[mk1]

I don't doubt Shane Moore has his faults, (no I don't want your list) but ripping him up for a**e paper before he had a month in office was over the top.

Then he should not have allowed CAB back into a position of power, made a pact with the Tories, changed his political Party and put forward the max possible CT Increase  'not long after he got into office'?
A two-faced lying politician is not to be excused simply because he shares your obsession.

Perhaps a search to see how long after Hill was elected the forum started  'ripping him up for a**e paper' might be productive?

[Inspector Knacker]

In other words ?...Shane did not consult with you and get your approval. Seriously?

[fred c]

I don't doubt Shane Moore has his faults, (no I don't want your list) but ripping him up for a**e paper before he had a month in office was over the top.

Then he should not have allowed CAB back into a position of power, made a pact with the Tories, changed his political Party and put forward the max possible CT Increase  'not long after he got into office'?
A two-faced lying politician is not to be excused simply because he shares your obsession.

Perhaps a search to see how long after Hill was elected the forum started  'ripping him up for a**e paper' might be productive?

You really couldn't help yourself, 'the list' had to appear......as for your unwarranted 'obsession dig' I don't have a political obsession, I have an unfulfillable hope of local politics being flushed down the pan.....

[Inspector Knacker]

Perhaps a search to see how long after Hill was elected the forum started  'ripping him up for a**e paper' might be productive?
'ripping him up for a*#e paper', that's it, go for the emotive when ' realising he was ineffective' would have fitted the bill much better.

Who's stopping you, crack on.
Mike Hill is the most ineffective, anonymous, uninspiring, excuse for an MP and it didn't take long to see it was patently obvious. However, for some bizarre malfunction of your thought process you appear to be defending him. Kindly tell me just what it was I missed. I see nothing, just a tired party apparatchik enjoying his twilight years, a pity we aren't.
So, this leaves limited room for manoeuvre . You either approve of his 'style' or you are a loyal party apparatchik trying to sell him as Super Mike.... again!
After asking how soon he got flak, it wasn't soon enough.

[mk1]

I have an unfulfillable hope of local politics being flushed down the pan.....

Shane used to say things  that:



However once his lies got him elected  he quickly cast aside all pretence and became very interested in 'National' Politics.
In truth he knew he was going to rejoin  the  latest Farage Cult but dared not admit it so had to invent  a completely bogus 'Independent Union' political group to cover his ar*se. 'Buying off' the votes of the SCAB Cabal & The Conservatives allowed him to feel secure enough to end the charade.

[Inspector Knacker]

Maybe he did it to wind you up? He certainly succeeded.

[mk1]

'ripping him up for a*#e paper', that's it, go for the emotive when ' realising he was ineffective' would have fitted the bill much better.

Your inability to master the quote function may mean I misread things here but  it may interest you to  know the quote that (appears to) offend is not mine. I simply re-used it hence the quotes I place around it.

[Inspector Knacker]

Looks like I touched a nerve. Excellent.

[mk1]

Looks like I touched a nerve. Excellent.

I am always on the look-out for a hook to hang my hat. If people try and defend Shane then I use that to  simply repost Shane's' own words to expose his duplicity. It takes but as second to include the link



If you believe that  also gives you a 'victory' then I am happy for you.

[Inspector Knacker]

You'd throw a man overboard two ends of the same rope.  Work it out.

[mk1]

Mike Hill is the most ineffective, anonymous, uninspiring, excuse for an MP and it didn't take long to see it was patently obvious. However, for some bizarre malfunction of your thought process you appear to be defending him. Kindly tell me just what it was I missed.

You missed lots. Or more correctly ignore lots,.
These  for example

I saw Hill and Simmons scampering about preparing for the Meeting. Hill always looks as if he is terrified someone is going to walk up to him and attack-he has that 'victim' look about him. His eyes dart about and he is constantly checking who is behind him. I can well understand out-of-town types wanting to be his close friend because I am sure he is easily manipulated. Anyway true to type he was carting in bottles of water and drinks for the meeting. Thus confirming his role as a simple water-carrier!

Hill in The Mail last Thursday:

AS we remember those who sacrificed their lives, we might like to reflect on the Representation of the People (Young People's Enfranchisement and Education) Bill. It's quite a mouthful but in a nutshell, it's an attempt to give 16-year-olds the right to vote. This Bill, sponsored by Jim McMahon, aims to reduce the voting age for Parliamentary elections to the House of Commons from 18 to 16 years. This Bill did not have time to complete its Second Reading, and is currently scheduled to resume debate on December 1. I sincerely hope the voting age is reduced as any reasons to retain the current legal age are truly spurious. Indeed, some of the reasons being given are laughable; akin to reasons given when women were given the vote. The young people of today are far better educated and informed than Arthur Leonard Brown would have been when the poor lad died for his country. I see no legitimate reason why the age shouldn't be lowered. I'd suggest that those on the Tory benches give due consideration to this matter. They might particularly like to reflect that the average age of a Conservative Party member is 73.

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/opinion/mike-hill-mp-remember-the-victims-of-war-this-sunday-1-8846567


Not only is it partisan it is untruthful.
There is a Fact Checking site that has looked into the 'average age of a Conservative Party member is 73' claim and it concludes it is  incorrect.

https://fullfact.org/news/how-old-average-conservative-party-member/


In fact the average age of Party Members is given as:

Conservative = 57
SNP = 54
Lab = 53
Liberal = 52

Also the legal age for a soldier in 1914 was 18 to sign up and 19  to be sent overseas. Currently it is possible to enlist at 16 with the written consent of parents but no one under 18 can be deployed on operations. Hill's implied claim of 16 year-olds being old enough to die for their country but not to be able to vote  is another  illustration of his ignorance.


Arthur Leonard Brown was a Hartlepool born (but living in Cardiff)Mess Room Steward who died when his ship was sunk by U53 in Feb 1919 aged 14.

Hill back on the Hospital Bandwagon in today's Mail

https://www.facebook.com/hartlepoolmailnews/posts/1828040310549144

Same old same old. What is 'new' is the absence of Anth defending against the overwhelmingly negative reception Hill normally gets.
It seems Anth has phoned up Momentum Head Office and asked them to send a couple of shill posters to support   Hill. We have the return of London based Preston

https://www.facebook.com/hartlepoolmailnews/posts/1828040310549144?comment_id=1828098520543323&reply_comment_id=1828104873876021&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D

and scouser Alan

https://www.facebook.com/hartlepoolmailnews/posts/1828040310549144?comment_id=1828118573874651&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R0%22%7D

Prerston has been mentioned here before:

https://hptimbral.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/index.php/topic,4235.msg45092.html#msg45092

Why are the locals so reluctant to support Hill?

I am a true  iconoclast.