What does go on in the mind of a tory mp?
Think someone has very recently amended Jenrickâs Wikip entry by inserting âRobert has a,propensity (sic) of being cruel to the most vulnerable. Especially children.â
Him and that despicable arrogant coffy woman should be banished somewhere not very nice.
Someone who doesnât care that children have no say in what their parents do and then goes on to punish them for being made to leave their home and go on a treacherous journey is totally inhuman.
What an arrogant idiot.
He should be made to resign immediately.
He is another example of Johnsonism.
What I do not understand is why no-one stands up to such behaviour. What is everyone so afraid of? Was it not possible for the manager of the place just to say ânoâ? Was it not possible for painters to refuse to do it?
(I havenât read the article by the way and wonât, so maybe the headline is misleading)
Itâs all too easy to put nastiness /cruelty on an individual - but what about the people around them who go on to implement that nastiness/cruelty? Where is their morality / integrity?
So, they are afraid of losing their job, or something? But who wants that type of job?
The staff at the centre were opposed to painting over the cartoons, but not sufficiently to stop it.
Who would even do it, but I suppose it was someone whose job depended on doing what they were told.
The staff refused to paint over the mural, so the government department in charge hired contractors to do the dirty work.
Even Farage called it âa bit meanâ.
Disgusting.
I have no wish to defend Jenrick or the Tories, but putting my work hat on, I did wonder whether someone in legal had suddenly realised the apoplectic fit Disney (or whoever else owns the characters) may have if the Daily Mail or such published a load of photos of their characters adorning the walls of what could be effectively called a child prison without the correct permissions. I certainly wouldnât want any of my brands aligned to that place even though putting on my âhuman beingâ hat those kids clearly need any tiny bit of joy they can get and if a picture of Mickey Mouse puts a smile on their face then great. Iâd turn a blind eye to a hospital or nursery using things without permission perhaps, but this is a different matter.
That said, Iâm sure heâs just a cruel bstard, just trying to give an alternative view, although I imagine if that was the reason the government would be shouting it loudly to try push the blame elsewhere.
Truly revolting.
That thought concerning copyright had occurred to me. However, his behaviour has always suggested to me that
To which I would add selfish and mean.
It is being reported that it was Jenrickâs personal order as they were âtoo welcomingâ - doesnât seem to be a fonctionaire worried about copyright infringement.
Itâs the sort of story that could all too easily be part of a well known countryâs descent into madness in the 1930âs, instead it is the UK in the 21st century.
And that is the problem. British (and possibly other) newspapers have a tendency to proffer opinions rather than report facts. In this case, it could be that the papers decided that stirring up hate would sell more dead trees than detailing a potential copyright infringement.
Quite agree, though the story broke on iNews which (despite connections to the Mail) seems to maintain somewhat decent standards of journalism.
Also I canât find a report that suggests it was a manager or civil servant.
Youâd think heâd have issued a denial by now if it wasnât true.
The same could be said for labour, lib dem Greenies et al
You canât beat The Guardianâs John Crace. Love the leader! 
Also managed to include an excellent side kick at Braverman.
I was a bit surprised by the dismissal of Braverman as ânot that brightâ. Maybe it was lazy journalism, or an example of Leftist pack mentality - sheâs an easy target for Guardian readers because of her personality and politics - but you donât get to be a KC if youâre ânot that brightâ: quite the reverse, in fact.