Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Jura avoidance speaks for itself. Can you please tell the source of the Europe wide and world wide news about Esther McVEY that you mentioned this afternoon.

Thanks

yes, sorry about typos... so annoying that GN does not allow editing.

other parts of the world
and as I can never remember if it is Tonbridge or Tunbridge
I put both options and mistyped

the rest is very clear

I responded at 20.14.34

I think it's optional, jura

I have ancestors from that area and it never seems to be spelled the same way from census to census...

Though whether or not they were 'disgusted' I have no idea...

Ah Maizie ... had to check and it is definitely ‘disgusted of Tunbridge’ ... Tonbridge is a different place altogether, albeit not very far away ?

Maryeliza, thank you for your polite question. It deserves an answer. Yes I have read it, and yes as a public letter is it unprecedented. It does not as I have said early mean that the Esther McVey deliberately intended to mislead Parliament. The Speaker does not think she has, hence she has been given the opportunity to apologies for 'inadvertently' misleading the House.

As I also said earlier, the very fact the NAO has put out this unprecedented letter, might also indicates that someone is making sure the blame for delayed information does not end up on their desk, it may not, but the willingness, even the delight in the possibility that Esther McVey may have mislead Parliament deliberately by a few on this thread is reminiscent of the 'string em up" mentality of the wild west, not a civilised society .

But again, let's wait and see if more information come out's. The feeding frenzy around Esther McVey, is like watching a pack of salivating wolves after their prey. Sickening to observe no matter who it is happening to.

Gosh the Speaker is always right - who knew? I guess if this government announced a policy of the murder of first borns then Ally would post that is was good news for second borns?

It’s always better not to jump in too early before all the facts are fully known ( however that seems to be the done thing on Gransnet....shoot first and ask questions afterwards.)?
There are parliamentary protocols when MP’s are deemed to have done something wrong, and in this case, as The Speaker has accepted her apology, it seems that is that.
For those who dislike this particular government, I can see this would be a disappointment, no hanging today!

Hahaha * lemon* I note you follow that when it’s something Labour related.

Have you actually read the thread lemongrove?

It is not a "string 'em up" mentality to feel that a minister who completely altered the content and tone of a report when responding to questions re UC is not fit to continue in her position.

What I think is appalling is that some people are representing this as political manoeuvring and an unfair attack on McVey. It certainly is not. The seriousness of what she did should have met with a very serious response.

MaizieD definitely not optional, And it is Tunbridge Wells (Tonbridge, also in Kent, another place altogether. )
Always fascinated by idiomatic usage and phrases such as “the man on the Clapham omnibus” I wondered if you and Jura2 aa well (as a linguist) would be interested in the origin of the phrase.

The phrase Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells is a generic name used in the United Kingdom for a person, usually with strongly conservative political views, who writes letters to newspapers or the BBC in a tone of moral outrage

If Esther McVey didn’t read the NAO report properly then she is grossly incompetent or negligent and she should resign. People in this country are literally dying due to the failures of the UC roll-out and we should have confidence that government ministers are doing their job proficiently.
If, on the other hand, Esther McVey did read the report properly then she knowingly misled parliament and she should resign.

My opinion exactly ga only you put it so much better!

Lemongrove you have put plainly the point that I have clearly not been able to get over. It seems that Esther McVey is the latest target being used to 'prove' a fallacious argument, about the Government.

Maw I really can't see this any other way than I've said. To be so incompetent as to misunderstand and misrepresent the crux of this matter that is costing lives is to me extremely worrying; every bit as much as if there was blatant lying. I work with people whose lives are so affected by this particular matter that my sympathies are all with them and they deserve so much better than this government minister can deliver.

I must say I become uneasy though, when posters who don’t have all the facts ( and none of us do ) call for resignations.
If she has done wrong and it is a resigning matter, then that is what will happen.If not, then she won’t.As the Speaker has accepted the apology on behalf of The House, it looks unlikely that she will be forced to resign.If she chooses to resign then that’s different.
Yes, thank you mostly I have read the whole thread.

grannyactivist, I agree on both points you make, however that is not the point I am making. If you check out the thread.

Can those people who believe that Esther McVey has not deliberately misled parliament agree that she is then incompetent? And, if not, how do they explain her complete misunderstanding of the situation as put to her on several occasions by the NAO?
This is a genuine question and I would appreciate the chance to understand what people's thoughts are on the matter.

So you too lemongrove condone a Government Minister misleading Parliament when it was quite clear that she was either totally incompetent or deliberately lying.
Lack of honesty and integrity don’t matter in Government anymore?

No mostly I don’t condone anything.
I tend to let those who know all the actual facts ( nobody on a forum!) decide what has happened, and then apply whatever punishment is appropriate.

Wow! Who would have thought it lemongrove?

ga I have already said that she may well be incompetent, and in fact I think there is more of that around ( in all political parties) than we would hope for.
If it was deliberate then that should be obvious, when looked into fully not trial by fora though!

Yes, mostly I realise that doesn’t fit with your hang em high mentality, but nevertheless, it’s the better course.

grannyactivist. Thank you for summing up so succinctly. She is either a liar or an incompetent. Both make her unfit for ministerial office.