Skip to main content

Tracy Brabin: MP hits back at Twitter 'keyboard warriors'

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, what people choose to wear doesn't really bother me.

 

However, looking at the picture of the dress in question, to me it doesn't look like an 'off the shoulder' dress. It looks like an ordinary V-neck dress which has been pulled across so that one shoulder is bare. In my opinion it just looks silly and makes the wearer look silly. 

Saint posted:
Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing posted:

And the straggly hair hanging over the face didn't help, though that may have been as a result of slipping/leaning forward.

Never stopped Michael Foot's career.

So why should this be a problem?

I would argue it rather did. I knew of a number of people who wouldn't vote for Labour under Foot because they bought into the Press portrayal of him looking like a "scarecrow" at the cenotaph.

Eugene's Lair
Last edited by Eugene's Lair
Carnelian posted:

debacle's a bit strong, just a woman inadvertently showing more flesh than our habitually salacious but equally puritan media has decided, in this particular instance, is decent.

Apparently the haters had a hate spree on Twitter, which is no surprise at all!  Such moral guardians!

I've been reading a number of comments making the point that many of the people criticizing her anonymously online are likely also rather quick to criticize women who choose to wear the burka...

Eugene's Lair
Last edited by Eugene's Lair
Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing posted:

I know she said it slipped as she lent forward, but she also said it was an Off-the-Shoulder dress - which in my opinion it wasn't!

I believe she's described it as "slightly off-the-shoulder".

 

I admit that my "conspiracy theory" alarm is going off rather a lot at the moment, but I really can't help suspecting Dominic Cummings' hand is behind the quite ridiculous over-reaction to this. What Brabin was actually complaining about was the outrageous, Trumpian, attempt by No. 10 to stop journalists they didn't like from attending a press briefing. At the same time, Cummings is banning cabinet ministers from appearing on Newsnight or The Today Show, and only today the Government launched yet another attempt to neuter the BBC by attacking their (already agreed) funding.

 

This is the real issue here: the Government's attempt to silence dissenting voices and avoid being held to account in any meaningful way for the next five years.

But what are we all talking about instead? A bloomin' dress... 

Eugene's Lair
Last edited by Eugene's Lair
Eugene's Lair posted:
Saint posted:
Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing posted:

And the straggly hair hanging over the face didn't help, though that may have been as a result of slipping/leaning forward.

Never stopped Michael Foot's career.

So why should this be a problem?

I would argue it rather did. I knew of a number of people who wouldn't vote for Labour under Foot because they bought into the Press portrayal of him looking like a "scarecrow" at the cenotaph.

It probably made him unelectable - true, and the donkey jacket look was not good But ... it did not stop him rising to the top and becoming Labour leader 

Saint
Saint posted:
Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing posted:

And the straggly hair hanging over the face didn't help, though that may have been as a result of slipping/leaning forward.

Never stopped Michael Foot's career.

So why should this be a problem?

 

Mind you some standards need to be upheld - just what? Debatable. 

Arguably it stopped him becoming Prime Minister as he was pilloried by the Tory rags at the time for his dress sense.

Carnelian

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×