PDA

View Full Version : Judicial separation?



Barry Shnikov
5th-March-2006, 10:45 AM
I'm cynical about it, I must say. But what's the consensus?

a) Tessa Jowell is completely innocent, and that's why they've separated

b) Tessa Jowell knew what was going on but was always unhappy about it, that's why they've separated

c) Tessa Jowell knew what was going on but has now decided to put her political career on higher priority than her marriage

d) Tessa Jowell knew what was going on and she and her husband have hit upon this tactic to distract the media and they'll get back together once it all blows over

I have to say that having thanked the heavens that the sleazy and corrupt administration of John Major was replaced by Labour in 1997, it now appears that Labour politicians are just as quick to get their snouts in the trough. I'm profoundly disillusioned.

philsmove
5th-March-2006, 10:56 AM
How about ....He cant Dace and she wont have him back till he can

Barry Shnikov
5th-March-2006, 11:54 AM
How about ....He cant Dace and she wont have him back till he can

I respectfully refer you to the subtitle of the 'Chit chat' section...:grin:

David Bailey
5th-March-2006, 12:36 PM
I have to say that having thanked the heavens that the sleazy and corrupt administration of John Major was replaced by Labour in 1997, it now appears that Labour politicians are just as quick to get their snouts in the trough. I'm profoundly disillusioned.
Well, they've been like that since the start though, haven't they? Mandelson, Ecclestone donations, Vaz, Mandelson again, Blunkett, Blunkett again... actually, the worst part about it, and something almost unique to New Labour I think, is when they go, then come back 6 months later Born Again - and then get caught again.

The only Tory equivalent of that I can think of is Jeffrey Archer - but it seems almost commonplace with this lot.

El Salsero Gringo
5th-March-2006, 12:38 PM
I'm profoundly disillusioned.I find your naivité quite touching.<o:p></o:p>

Piglet
5th-March-2006, 12:52 PM
Could be any of those reasons or a mixture of some of them! So haven't voted.

Personally I think she probably had some inkling of what was going on and is protecting her political career. Maybe she is innocent/naive/gullible? Only those 2 involved probably know the truth.

Andy McGregor
5th-March-2006, 01:12 PM
My guess is that she's been busy with her political career and hasn't had the time or energy to pay much attention to her husband or his business dealings. And as he's often abroad doing his 'deals' she probably doesn't see much of him at all or know what he's up to in any detail. The combination of two busy and very high powered/stressful careers means that there is probably no time to tell each other the detail of their dealings - they probably find out what the other has done from the newspapers they read on planes and trains rather than over the breakfast table. Some people's marriages work well with this level of contact, others fail. And this could be the truth - it's the timing of the announcement that makes us suspicious. However, whatever we vote will be speculation as we only know what we've read. My guess is that the couple probably had an agreement along the lines of "if you're going to do anything dodgy I'd prefer it if you didn't tell me".

On a personal note, I would like to apologise to the fourm, I met Tessa about 10 days ago (hubby was not there) and she seemed calm and quite relaxed on the surface. It will come as no surprise to members of the forum that I didn't bring up this subject - had I known about this thread I'd have asked her so we could have known the truth and had a forum exclusive :innocent:

Piglet
5th-March-2006, 01:14 PM
My guess is that the couple probably had an agreement along the lines of "if you're going to do anything dodgy I'd prefer it if you didn't tell me".[/I]
Got to say that would work for me!

Barry Shnikov
5th-March-2006, 02:08 PM
Well, they've been like that since the start though, haven't they? Mandelson, Ecclestone donations, Vaz, Mandelson again, Blunkett, Blunkett again... actually, the worst part about it, and something almost unique to New Labour I think, is when they go, then come back 6 months later Born Again - and then get caught again.

The only Tory equivalent of that I can think of is Jeffrey Archer - but it seems almost commonplace with this lot.

Not the same. Haven't the time right now but many of those were not about nest feathering, as it were; they may have been questionable but the Jowell thing is the only time this Labour administration has got close to the sort of naked self-interest that characterised, e.g., Mr Hamilton's cash for questions stuff.

Archer broke the law - suborned evidence for a trial in which he could have expected to (and did) get a six figure sum as a result of his lies. (Aitken did the same thing.) Nobody in the Labour party has ever, ever, got close to that. Let's keep things clear. The only saving grace for the conservatives is that he wasn't a minister at the time.

Barry Shnikov
5th-March-2006, 02:09 PM
I find your naivité quite touching.<o:p></o:p>

Well, maybe when I am as old as you I'll have an equivalent degree of cynicism. Hopefully not, however.

El Salsero Gringo
5th-March-2006, 03:40 PM
Well, maybe when I am as old as you I'll have an equivalent degree of cynicism. Hopefully not, however.Bless.

Put the bottle warmer on, it's nearly time for your milk and cookies and an afternoon lie-down.

David Bailey
5th-March-2006, 05:33 PM
Not the same. Haven't the time right now but many of those were not about nest feathering, as it were; they may have been questionable but the Jowell thing is the only time this Labour administration has got close to the sort of naked self-interest that characterised, e.g., Mr Hamilton's cash for questions stuff.
Well, I'd say they haven't been caught doing so that often, is all...

Regarding sleaze, I'm with ESG - anyone who thinks that any group of British politician, once given power, won't have some members who abuse it for their personal gain, is touchingly naive.

Realistically, the best we can do is hope that continual vigilance and public scrutiny will catch most of the worst cases before they cause too much damage.

And as for the Jowell Affair, I'm sure it is of course, no doubt a total coincidence that:
- At the time of the Ecclestone donations scandal, when Tessa Jowell was involved heavily in formulating policy in this area, Mr Mills was working for, you guessed it, the tobacco industry.
- Mr Mills bought and sold shares (for a profit of £60K) in the brewery industry when his wife was working on, you guessed it, the licensing law reforms.

El Salsero Gringo
5th-March-2006, 05:42 PM
And as for the Jowell Affair, I'm sure it is of course, no doubt a total coincidence that:
- At the time of the Ecclestone donations scandal, when Tessa Jowell was involved heavily in formulating policy in this area, Mr Mills was working for, you guessed it, the tobacco industry.
- Mr Mills bought and sold shares (for a profit of £60K) in the brewery industry when his wife was working on, you guessed it, the licensing law reforms.Only £60k? Pathetic.

Look, I don't know about you lot, but I'd give my right arm (well, ok, perhaps not the whole arm) to be sufficiently close to the seats of power to be able to make myself very very very rich.

Why else do you think I cosy up to Andy McGregor in such a craven manner?

Barry Shnikov
5th-March-2006, 08:31 PM
Bless.

Put the bottle warmer on, it's nearly time for your milk and cookies and an afternoon lie-down.

I'm grateful to you for passing on your experience of the nursing home timetable...

Barry Shnikov
5th-March-2006, 08:32 PM
Regarding sleaze, I'm with ESG - anyone who thinks that any group of British politician, once given power, won't have some members who abuse it for their personal gain

...who would that be, then?

David Bailey
6th-March-2006, 09:57 AM
...who would that be, then?
Blimey, you want a list? Off the top of my head: Prescott, Blunkett, Mandelson, Robinson, Irvine, Vaz, and Prescott have all had, shall we say, interesting financial affairs - and these are/were all Cabinet ministers.

There's a massive list of stuff at this site (http://labour-watch.com/sleaze.htm) - warning: it makes depressing reading.


Why else do you think I cosy up to Andy McGregor in such a craven manner?
Yes, I did wonder why you spent so much time close to his "seat of power", but I figured you were both consenting adults... :innocent:

El Salsero Gringo
6th-March-2006, 10:20 AM
There's a massive list of stuff at this site (http://labour-watch.com/sleaze.htm) - warning: it makes depressing reading.Well it certainly gives no quarter in its assessment of Peter Mandelson:

Peter Mandelson

The Godfather of Labour Spin

The Unremorseful Sleazeball

The Northern Ireland Secretary who sided with the terrorists

The Prince of Darkness

The Country's Most Prominent Psychopath

The Europhile Traitor

The man who belongs in Michael Barrymore's pool

I wonder if that's actionable for libel?

Andy McGregor
6th-March-2006, 01:09 PM
Well it certainly gives no quarter in its assessment of Peter Mandelson:And I had the questionable joy of standing in front of Mr Mandleson in the buffet queue at the House of Commons - I'm certain he was wearing blue eye shadow*...


*which is sooo sixties :whistle:

.. so can we add the ultimate sin to the list "needs to update make-up"?

David Bailey
6th-March-2006, 01:15 PM
.. so can we add the ultimate sin to the list "needs to update make-up"?
Personally I'd prefer to add "Needs to go on a 'Free Trade For Dummies' training course" after last summer's debacle, the man's got the inverse of the Midas touch with all the posts he gets given... :rolleyes:

Barry Shnikov
6th-March-2006, 02:11 PM
Blimey, you want a list?

Sorry, you missed the point. I was responding to your:

"anyone who thinks ... is touchingly naive"

because that person would not be me.

Barry Shnikov
6th-March-2006, 02:13 PM
Well it certainly gives no quarter in its assessment of Peter Mandelson:

Peter Mandelson

The Godfather of Labour Spin

The Unremorseful Sleazeball

The Northern Ireland Secretary who sided with the terrorists

The Prince of Darkness

The Country's Most Prominent Psychopath

The Europhile Traitor

The man who belongs in Michael Barrymore's pool

I wonder if that's actionable for libel?

No sign of bias, then?:really:

(Thanks for that, ESG. Saves me from looking at the site.)

El Salsero Gringo
6th-March-2006, 02:18 PM
No sign of bias, then?:really:

(Thanks for that, ESG. Saves me from looking at the site.)Well, just because the messenger has a point of view doesn't mean the message isn't worth reading.

David Bailey
6th-March-2006, 03:42 PM
Well, just because the messenger has a point of view doesn't mean the message isn't worth reading.
Absolutely - let's face it, any site called "http://labour-watch.com/sleaze.htm" isn't going to be a "Isn't New Labour great" fansite.

But it's very useful in that it has a vast set of links (700!) to external press articles, listing and discussing Labour sleaze... So it's a good source to turn to for information - I didn't actually read any of the actual content.

That said, I don't think this government is sleazier than the Tories 10 years ago - that was total "fill-your-boots" time, as they all knew they were going down big-time. But "Being less sleazy than the late-Major-era Tories" isn't exactly a recommendation...