strichener Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 No. It is the Nats on here and Gunn that were claiming she was not a "normal mother". Given logic presumes that in the absence of something extraordinary, there is nothing to support the supposition she in any significant material sense deviates from the "norm" the burden of proof is on those attempting to show that she does deviate from the norm to a significant extent such that she can credibly be considered not to be "a normal mother". The mere fact of being a designated "Carers Champion" for Scottish Labour's Shadow Cabinet is no such evidence. I never asked for proof that she is not an normal mother. I asked you specifically about your assertion that being a member of the scottish shadow cabinet was peripheral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The burden of proof rests on those claiming that her political activities are extraordinary. There is no prima facie evidence that being appointed to the Shadow Cabinet of the Scottish Labour Party in what is specifically described as a "non-political" capacity is evidence of anything more than a peripheral level of seniority or influence. Those claiming she is something other than a normal mother presumably have some evidence that this appointment actually substantially elevates her influence and standing within public life beyond that of anyone with even moderate levels of participation in political parties. I suspect she has less of an influence on day-to-day policy-making than my mate who works as an adviser to one of the Scottish Labour front benchers. Those wishing to claim that this "appointment" was anything more than window-dressing have to, you know, prove it. Why do they have to prove anything? What exactly is your point? Are you trying to get everyone to know every last detail of mrs lally's life for any particular purpose? If you unionists had stopped going on about her two days ago, everyone would have forgot about her by now. But naw. You go on and on about her and now her life will be like Neil Lennons. Harrased by morons. Well done. Give yourself three cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I'm not a Nat, but it's pretty obvious she's not a "normal mother ". Sssh don't say that, Ad Lib and H_B are ALWAYS RIGHT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Sssh don't say that, Ad Lib and H_B are ALWAYS RIGHT! I actually agree with Ad Lib a lot of the time but he's off on one here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 If you think this is misleading and lies from BT will you be demanding an apology from Yes Scotland for referring to an MSP's wife and SNP researcher of 4 years as simply "mother of two" in a puff piece on their website? mmmm... Ad Lib. Two wrongs don't make a right. You know that. Anyway. Gimme a link. The fact that these BT lies have been completely whitewashed by the mainstream media in their attempt to bash Salmond is the shocking thing here. I'm sure the lady is really hurt having been telt that folk think she is related to Pat Lally. Trivial pash. And to think that some clowns are demanding the aide is sacked. However the fact remains she has been used in part of a labour black op. That needs exposed and explaining. It isn't being done so in the mass media who are overkeen to canonise her. Thats the scandal. There is really no one in print or tele telling that side of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Oh, Ad Lib Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Oh, Ad Lib Bring back I'm Rodger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 No. It is the Nats on here and Gunn that were claiming she was not a "normal mother". Given logic presumes that in the absence of something extraordinary, there is nothing to support the supposition she in any significant material sense deviates from the "norm" the burden of proof is on those attempting to show that she does deviate from the norm to a significant extent such that she can credibly be considered not to be "a normal mother". The mere fact of being a designated "Carers Champion" for Scottish Labour's Shadow Cabinet is no such evidence. What a state you're getting in over this phrase. The term 'normal mother' was f**k all to do with her parenting skills. The woman on Scotland Tonight who started with the line - 'I think she is actually an extraordinary mother' was an absolute buffoon. The term clearly relates to her links with the Labour Party. The term 'normal' should really be 'neutral' but 99% of folk reading about this will clearly be able to make that distinction. You, on the other hand, are being anal and pedantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I suppose the whole thing really shows the dearth of grassroot support the BT lot have access too. That they have to position a shadow cabinet member as a "grassroots" member of the public hoping all us woodentops widnae suss it.... Oh btw. Does the fact she is a shadow cabinet member no mean she is ranked higher than Al Darling in the Labour pecking order. After all he is only a back bench MP.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I'm not a Nat, but it's pretty obvious she's not a "normal mother ". How? She's no less of a "normal mother" than, well, pretty much any 20-40 year old woman with children involved moderately actively in politics. She's no more a politician than someone sitting on the Scottish Lib Dem Federal Policy committee. I.e. Not. I never asked for proof that she is not an normal mother. I asked you specifically about your assertion that being a member of the scottish shadow cabinet was peripheral. Of course it's peripheral. She's not even mentioned on the Scottish Labour website as being in the Shadow Cabinet, where they only list MSPs and their shadow cabinet roles. She's no more "in the Shadow cabinet" in the sense people on here are implying (as in being a shadow minister, actively contributing to strategy and policy decision-making) than David Miliband was running Sunderland Football Club because they made him a non-executive director. There is no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a nominal role that made for a nice press release that in practice amounts to anything other than Jackie Baillie asking this woman to write a report for them. mmmm... Ad Lib. Two wrongs don't make a right. You know that. Anyway. Gimme a link. http://www.yesscotland.net/news/100-days-go-and-100-years-apart "Andrew's mum, Julie Hepburn, from Cumbernauld, said it was a great privilege to meet Jimmy and to introduce him to her son. The mother of two said: "Looking at Andrew sitting alongside Jimmy was a really special and poignant moment. To think there's exactly 100 years between them is really something, especially when they met with 100 days to go to the referendum." Just to remind you, this "mother of two" is the wife of Cumbernauld MSP Jamie Hepburn and she previously worked for 4 years as a policy and research assistant for the SNP. Not even the slightest mention of her affiliations nor is there any indication that she might not be part of this grassroots utopia of which Yes so often like to speak. The fact that these BT lies have been completely whitewashed by the mainstream media in their attempt to bash Salmond is the shocking thing here. I'm sure the lady is really hurt having been telt that folk think she is related to Pat Lally. Trivial pash. And to think that some clowns are demanding the aide is sacked. However the fact remains she has been used in part of a labour black op. That needs exposed and explaining. It isn't being done so in the mass media who are overkeen to canonise her. Thats the scandal. There is really no one in print or tele telling that side of the story. "Labour black op". Seriously? Better Together told zero lies about Clare Lally. She is a normal mother. A politically active normal mother, but a normal mother nonetheless. Being a member of a political party and asked to become a Carers Champion for the Shadow Cabinet really doesn't change that. What a state you're getting in over this phrase. The term 'normal mother' was f**k all to do with her parenting skills. The woman on Scotland Tonight who started with the line - 'I think she is actually an extraordinary mother' was an absolute buffoon. The term clearly relates to her links with the Labour Party. The term 'normal' should really be 'neutral' but 99% of folk reading about this will clearly be able to make that distinction. You, on the other hand, are being anal and pedantic. I never said it had anything to do with her parenting skills. As a mother in Dumbartonshire, being an active Labour Party member is hardly an abnormal thing. Normal certainly doesn't imply neutral. It would be pretty odd if someone was "neutral" while, you know, literally campaigning for a political cause. If you confined "normal" to political neutrality, the group you would be left with would be one of the most unrepresentative of Scottish society you could possibly look for. Are you saying that being an active member of a political party, a priori, means that you are not capable of legitimately self describing as a normal person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Oh btw. Does the fact she is a shadow cabinet member no mean she is ranked higher than Al Darling in the Labour pecking order. After all he is only a back bench MP.. You have unwittingly proved my point in showing how utterly ridiculous it is to use the fact Lally was a non-political appointee to the Labour Shadow Cabinet as a "Carers Champion" as evidence she is somehow part of the political classes. Of course she's. It ranked higher than Alistair Darling. This serves to illustrate how absurd it is for Nats to push this as some sort of killer fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 So Libby Can you give us your considered opinion as to whether Clare Lally could canvass in this manner if she held a "Politically Restricted" post in her local authority? I'm aware of posts that are subject to that restriction, even though the postholders earn under £25,000 pa. I'm not suggesting that she should be banned from campaigning. Instead, I'm attempting to point out what is considered to be "political campaigning" in real life. If putting a leaflet through a letter-box is considered to be "political" when you work for a Local Authority, how can anyone justify describing Lally as "non-political" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 So Libby Can you give us your considered opinion as to whether Clare Lally could canvass in this manner if she held a "Politically Restricted" post in her local authority? I'm aware of posts that are subject to that restriction, even though the postholders earn under £25,000 pa. I'm not suggesting that she should be banned from campaigning. Instead, I'm attempting to point out what is considered to be "political campaigning" in real life. If putting a leaflet through a letter-box is considered to be "political" when you work for a Local Authority, how can anyone justify describing Lally as "non-political" You seem to be choosing a somewhat deliberately obtuse and arbitrary definition of the word "political" to make a rather tenuous point here. The capacity in which she was agreeing to be a "Carers Champion" was described as non-political. By this it presumably means she isn't bound by things like collective cabinet responsibility, is not constrained in terms of the positions she may hold on a plethora of issues not related to the work she is doing for the Shadow Cabinet and the like. It is not a "political" appointment in the sense that 1. she is not a politician 2. she is not employed by or subordinate to a politician 3. she is politically unconstrained and 4. is not in any official capacity a spokesperson for the Labour Party on these issues. It seems quite clear, as was the case with the local council initiative from which this sprung up, that she is, in essence, fulfilling the role of an independent advisor to the Labour Shadow Cabinet, and makes representations to them on issues relevant to Carers, her being a recognised contact or go-to-person. She's no more a "politician" or a "political appointment" than, say, Alan Trench could be said to be a "political appointment" to the Strathclyde Commission notwithstanding the fact he may be sympathetic towards the Conservative Party and support its proposals for further devolution. The capacity in which he was appointed was as an academic with expertise on devolution issues, and that was the capacity in which he was giving advice. Similarly, Lally was appointed a Carers Champion in her capacity as an activist on issues affecting those who care for young children and not because she was seeking to represent or determine Labour Party policy on carers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capybara Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 After Obama, Clinton and Rowling, its the Popes turn. And as usual both sides something to hung their cassocks on .http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27837650 Ah all the attention is great. What a country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 I wonder how the Saltcoats Loyal and the Orange Order, both ardent unionists will view Papa Frank's comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 After Obama, Clinton and Rowling, its the Popes turn. And as usual both sides something to hung their cassocks on .http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27837650 Ah all the attention is great. What a country. The pope at the time signed the Declaration of Independence in 1320 in Arbroath Abbey, Pope really wants to say c'mon the YES but is obviously being advised differently and to sit on the fence by his media agent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 And Ad Lib can you maybe just admit for once that your opinion isn't everyone else's? Deary me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 The pope at the time signed the Declaration of Independence in 1320 in Arbroath Abbey, Pope really wants to say c'mon the YES but is obviously being advised differently and to sit on the fence by his media agent George Galloway had a word in his shell like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 And Ad Lib can you maybe just admit for once that your opinion isn't everyone else's? Deary me. *BLASTPHEMY* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Gunn broke the code. Salmond will be given a period of time to sack him. If he doesn't then Gunn's ultimate boss - the head of UK civil service will sack him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.