Not for having an affair, although she deserves a medal.

Should he resign just for being a fat useless ***t?


Hmmm, can't help but feel I'm setting myself up here!

You missed out uncultured, offensive, ineffectual, rude and inarticulate.

You can't just sack someone for being fat and useless.

Packs a good punch though, doesn't he?

Packs a good punch though, doesn't he?

In bed, or out?

:huh: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:

I see The Sun has renamed him Two Shags :applause:

You can't just sack someone for being fat and useless.

Thank God for that! :unsure:

God she must have had poor eyesight, his wife is really attractive as well. Flippin men just cant keep in in their trousers.

if he's not fighting :boxing:he's f**king :bag:... what a guy! :sick:

tone could learn a lot from a guy like prezza!


thought it was very very cruel of him to dupe his wife into accompanying his tart to the Golden Jubilee function.

but hey ho, their private lives are not supposed to matter to us are they ... but come on it DOES matter doesn't it, else why would they play the "family guy" card when it suits them? they can't have it both ways.

God she must have had poor eyesight, his wife is really attractive as well.

you see I just don't get this.

I was always annoyed at the judge the Jeffery Archer case with the prostitute when he said why would JA stray when he had such a fragrant lovely wife as Mary.

What does this say that if someone is considered unattractive that you have at least one good reason for cheating on them or whislt someone is attractive that's a reason for NOT cheating on them?

Maybe his wife just didn't give blow jobs! :ninja:

Maybe his wife just didn't give blow jobs! :ninja:

And that is grounds for an adulterous affair? :unsure:

I think alot of married men will read that with interest! :naughty:

Maybe his wife just didn't give blow jobs! :ninja:

Neither do i :mellow: Does that mean Mr.B will stray ?

Phew so Mr M is gonna stay faithful then:naughty:

I reckon that the fact that he had an affair - given that he is everything everybody says he is - just proves how good a politician he is. If he could talk someone into sleeping with him just imagine the good he could do for the country............

John Prescott for Prime Minister I say!

What does this say that if someone is considered unattractive that you have at least one good reason for cheating on them or whislt someone is attractive that's a reason for NOT cheating on them?

Maybe his wife just didn't give blow jobs! :ninja:

If you have a face like the back of ten buses and a body that Mr Blobby would be ashamed of and you have an extremely good-looking spouse that obviously loves you for your personality, it seems a bit ungrateful to go out shagging some bint.

Maybe his wife just didn't give blow jobs! :ninja:

i should have put that this was tongue in cheek! :laugh:

There are some women who just lay themselves out to for whatever reasons (publicity, money - come on how much is she gonna get paid for shagging JP and selling the story)...Monica Lewinski didn't do to badly did she:sleep:

and men who will always be flattered by the offer of any woman who gives them a second glance...and of course he is unlikely to refuse if she really lays it on thick!

There are some women who just lay themselves out to for whatever reasons (publicity, money - come on how much is she gonna get paid for shagging JP and selling the story)...Monica Lewinski didn't do to badly did she:sleep:



i think it was her boyfriend of 8 years who spoke to The Mirror for £20,000 ... I'm pretty sure she'd wanna keep it secret forever and ever!

Ultimately he has been lying and deceiving his nearest and dearest. it does not take a rocket scientist to then assume that he would therefore happily lie and cheat those who mean less to him. part of the deal of being in power is that you trade power and money for being whiter than your average joe and that also goes for personal life. he is fat because he is greedy and he is a cheat - he should be sacked. peronally I would have sacked him years ago for pretending to be socialist. odious

Should he resign just for being a fat useless ***t?
Unfair!

A ***t is never useless.

Now I'm curious about our Monica...I'll have to google her and see what she's up to now that her 15 minutes are over.:laugh:

If a politician is sacked or drummed out of the party in which he is a member, it should be for complete lack of unity with the party issues or manifesto, or gross misconduct causing political embarrassment that would be commiting an offence for which one could be charged with and penalised judicially.

Areas of there personal life may prove to be an embarrassment, but this should not be criteria for sacking someone or expecting someone to resign. If this were to happen there would be few MP's left in all the major parties that be, who have not something hidden in the cupboard.

I also feel that if someone fails in a job they should be given an opportunity to resign.

Maureen
Northern angel.

I also feel that if someone fails in a job they should be given an opportunity to resign.
Why? why if you fail at your job should you just not be sacked? what if you failing cost people thier lives? would you expect to walk away with your pension in tact? I don't think so. If you fail in your job to a sufficient level to warrant not doing your job anymore then you should be sacked on grounds of compentency(sp?)

I so was not going to get into anymore debates with you!:bag:

..also, it's high risk for an employer to ask someone to resign as it can lead to costly claims of constructive dismissal, whether they are in the wrong or not.

Of course, if during a disciplinary procedure, they voluntarily resign, then that's another matter. But then, that hardly puts out a good message to other employees.

'Resignations' do happen at senior levels, but they don't come cheap.

Just to get back on topic - that bint he had the affair with is saying how it has ruined her reputation, and then goes on to detail how they shagged in his office with the door open. She's received a 'six-figure sum' to restore her reputation.

And she respects his wife and is very sorry for the distress the episode has caused her. Yep, and I'm sure the current press coverage will help.

Celeb BB next, no doubt.

Celeb BB next, no doubt.


good lord! let's hope not ... but as we know stranger things have happened!! :laugh:

you see I just don't get this.

I was always annoyed at the judge the Jeffery Archer case with the prostitute when he said why would JA stray when he had such a fragrant lovely wife as Mary.

What does this say that if someone is considered unattractive that you have at least one good reason for cheating on them or whislt someone is attractive that's a reason for NOT cheating on them?

Maybe his wife just didn't give blow jobs! :ninja:

Hello Dolores,

Maybe his wife has gone off him and the idea of a possible 1'four shags a night'.

Maybe she has taken one look at her husband and wondered why in hell did I get married in the first place.

My god, what have I let myself in for. A high profilie public marriage to a man with a political reputation,
2 'there must be someway out of here, said the joker to the priest'.

The main problem now of course is how long can she, stand by her man?
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Maybe she will stand by her man not knowing what else to do? The world will also then say well, there was this angelic woman married to an awful MP who was as ugly as sin. What a saint.??

Maureen
Northern angel
1 QUOTE FROM DIARIES MENTIONED IN THAT WONDERFUL GUTTERLINE PRESS PAPER, THE NEWS OF THE WORLD ON SUNDAY. SIMPLY HAD TO HAVE IT FOR ALL THE PREZZA STUFF.

2 A LINE FROM A BLUES SONG, I THINK BY BOB DYLAN AND LATER TAKEN BY JIMI HENDRIX. SOME VAGUE RECOLLECTIONS.

I think the joker was talking to the thief :nerd:. If we're talking Dylan.

Why? why if you fail at your job should you just not be sacked? what if you failing cost people thier lives? would you expect to walk away with your pension in tact? I don't think so. If you fail in your job to a sufficient level to warrant not doing your job anymore then you should be sacked on grounds of compentency(sp?)

I so was not going to get into anymore debates with you!:bag:

Hello Buzz,

I know having any kind of debate with me is something you deplore, so I promise to be as brief as possible.

At our level we can be sacked without any recriminations, but then we aren't highly paid respected MP's. You may be asking yourself as no doubt many others why should this make any difference. If you are incompetent and you make to many costly mistakes you are obviously not right for the job and should be sacked. A Replacement could do equally well and probably better?

Mm.A Replacement could do equally well and probably better. In such highly debateable jobs, the employees do not come cheap they are not as easily disposable or replaceable without it coming at a cost. End payments, pensions etc. would all require working out.. plus the possibility of a certain amount for legal costs in the event of any public prosecutions and claims of unfair dismissal etc,...

At this level it could also be highly debateable as to what criteria we would be saying John Prescott was incompetent. Very much the same arguments used against President Clinton some time ago. Your personal life has nothing whatsoever to do with your function and ability to perform in a job.

President Clintons political profile did suffer initially at the hands of his persecutors and the press, but as a person, as a human being - he was still very well liked. In line with John Prescott, I have read recently that he is still a cornerstone of strength in the current Labour party. Furthermore, I am not
a labour party supporter but an illicit affair which will see Mistress Tracy well rewarded for the loss of her career, is not grounds for dismissal of an MP.

After all, if MP.s were all subjected to scrutiny in there private lives there'd be few left in any political party.

Maureen
Northern angel.

BTW president in my eyes President Clinton was a handsome attractive fellow many woman would have gladly serviced.

I think the joker was talking to the thief :nerd:. If we're talking Dylan.

Thank you Fee.

Mo.
NA.

Well I have read it, read it again and then again for a third time.......and it still makes bog all sense to me.

How do you know 'what my level' is? btw.

I am once again stepping out of this debate with you, as you so rightly put, I deplore them.

The point you made was that if someone fails in a job they should be given an opportunity to resign.
I disagree. If someone fails in their job, why should they be given the 'out' of resignation?

I have not really bothered getting into the John Prescott affair on any deep level, cos I really can't be bothered. Whether he was/is porking his secretary or anyone else for that matter does not bother me, unless it affects the descisions he makes in his post, and when that happens if he fails in his job then he should be sacked, end of, if he balls' it up, he bears the consequences - same as others on all 'levels'.

At our level we can be sacked without any recriminations, Please explain, as that statement as it stands is untrue.

In such highly debateable jobs, ... What exactly is a 'debateable' (sic) job?

...is not grounds for dismissal of an MP. An MP is elected, not recruited. Any 'dismissal' would be a matter for his constituents. I thought it was his position as DPM that was in question. While an affair is a private matter, this one was conducted (if the woman is to be believed) on office premises, in work time. That would be gross misconduct in most companies, and therefore grounds for termination.

End payments, pensions etc. would all require working out.. plus the possibility of a certain amount for legal costs in the event of any public prosecutions and claims of unfair dismissal etc,... That applies to most, if not all, terminations of employment.

Why? why if you fail at your job should you just not be sacked? what if you failing cost people thier lives? would you expect to walk away with your pension in tact? I don't think so. If you fail in your job to a sufficient level to warrant not doing your job anymore then you should be sacked on grounds of compentency(sp?) I think Buzz just wanted a simple reply to her question.

Thank you Fee.

I think the joker was talking to the thief :nerd:. If we're talking Dylan.

Yup - and the song is "All Along the Watchtower" - which was covered by Hendrix!

Quite funny (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/04/26/a_deputys_desire_and_despair.html) (for the Guardian)


PS -You are so the same generation as me Rob
:laugh:

Please explain, as that statement as it stands is untrue.

What exactly is a 'debateable' (sic) job?

An MP is elected, not recruited. Any 'dismissal' would be a matter for his constituents. I thought it was his position as DPM that was in question. While an affair is a private matter, this one was conducted (if the woman is to be believed) on office premises, in work time. That would be gross misconduct in most companies, and therefore grounds for termination.

That applies to most, if not all, terminations of employment.

I think Buzz just wanted a simple reply to her question.

Hello Fee,

The self employed may not be in a position of course to sack themselves, however it is not unheard of in the business world that partners in trade often fall out and one can sack the other. Hence there is good reasoning why a solicitors firm should be involved in the drawing up of partnership papers. etc.

Everything about an MP is debateable, Why enter politics? What is it about the party that truly attracts you to represent it? Will you be lucky enough to be awarded a cabinet post? etc. MP's jobs are always debateable because they are different in the way in which the posts are taken up. A back bench MP, may not necessarily have a job in the cabinet at all, but he will be entitled to claim his expenses for attending parliament. Attending partliament so many days a year is compulsory.Not sure how many.

It is true MP's are elected, they are elected to represent a region, not elected to a post, as elected MP's they become available for cabinet posts and ministerial roles and the PM is the decision maker in regard of this.
Dismissal of an MP is not down to constituents. Constituents can make life difficult as can lobbyists etc, but the task of an MP being removed from post is that of the PM.

According to recent articles most of the sexual activities recorded in the press took place outside of the office on private premises. As Prescott and his secretary were driven to many destinations, there affair has been known in parliamentary circles for some time.

In relation to personal activities conducted during working hours in most normal circumstances, yes some would be grounds for dismissal. But again a good proportion of the workforce would find themselves out of work, if employers stamped down on personal abuses of company time, for whatever reason. Many areas of industry and commerce would be left struggling. Instead most employers, I know this is generalising allow for a percentage of company time to be taken up by personal issues. Some are legitimised. Sexual activities of course are not, and could well be found offensive as well as dismissable actions.

Maureen
Northern angel.

Everything about an MP is debateable, Why enter politics? What is it about the party that truly attracts you to represent it? Will you be lucky enough to be awarded a cabinet post? etc. MP's jobs are always debateable because they are different in the way in which the posts are taken up. A back bench MP, may not necessarily have a job in the cabinet at all, but he will be entitled to claim his expenses for attending parliament. Attending partliament so many days a year is compulsory.Not sure how many.
Everything about a job is debatable, Why enter work? What is it about the company that truly attracts you to work for it it? Will you be lucky enough to be awarded a senior position? etc. Jobs are always debatable because they are different in the way in which positions are taken up. A worker, may not necessarily have a job on the board at all, but he will be entitled to claim his expenses and draw salary for attending work.

So what's your point?

(Debatable: (Still unsure of your usage)
debatable, problematic (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=problematic), problematical (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=problematical) (open to doubt or debate) "If you ever get married, which seems to be extremely problematic"
debatable, disputable (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=disputable), moot (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=moot) (open to argument or debate) "that is a moot question"
debatable, disputable (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=disputable) (capable of being disproved) )Dismissal of an MP is not down to constituents. Constituents can make life difficult as can lobbyists etc, but the task of an MP being removed from post is that of the PM.
So are you saying that a PM could 'sack' any MP, regardless of what party they belonged to? That would certainly sort out any opposition!

John Prescott could be dismissed from his party position; the party could withdraw the whip, but surely he would still be the elected representative of the constituents?

And I'm not going to reply to your views on workplace legislation as they are too far off beam for sensible discussion.

But, what about Buzz's question? Why should anyone be allowed to resign instead of being sacked?

Everything about a job is debatable, Why enter work? What is it about the company that truly attracts you to work for it it? Will you be lucky enough to be awarded a senior position? etc. Jobs are always debatable because they are different in the way in which positions are taken up. A worker, may not necessarily have a job on the board at all, but he will be entitled to claim his expenses and draw salary for attending work.

So what's your point?

(Debatable: (Still unsure of your usage)[LIST]
debatable, disputable (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=disputable), moot (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=moot) (open to argument or debate) "that is a moot question"

So are you saying that a PM could 'sack' any MP, regardless of what party they belonged to? That would certainly sort out any opposition!

John Prescott could be dismissed from his party position; the party could withdraw the whip, but surely he would still be the elected representative of the constituents?

But, what about Buzz's question? Why should anyone be allowed to resign instead of being sacked?


Hello fee,

Prior to the establishment of a Nationwide franchise, right to vote. MP's were not paid wages at all. Being an MP was considered to be a position of status that those born into status could assume a rightful role in the running of the country. I,e days of William Pitt. The expenses of parliament was covered via revenues on Corn, Cotton, Silk, Tea, Coffee, Land leases, the 50/100 shilling hearth etc.

In more recent times MP"s once elected to serve parliament are entitled at stage one to pick up on expenses only.This is not inhibitive of MP's having a source of income from being members of industry etc. If these MP's are lucky enough to be granted or offered a position in the Cabinet or on one of the many Government committees they will pick up a substantive salary in addition to expenses. Again these payments are not prohibitive of MP's having a second or third source of income. As such they are supposed to be declared. Although this has also been the source of controversy in recent times.

The sources of income MP's have, adds to that which has been debatable about being an MP and some would say it is the cause of public dispute. Along with typical working class line of thought some of us would say that the reason for the degree of mistrust of MP's is that they only want to become elected because of the freebies and lucrative expense accounts. Others would say they desire cabinet posts because of the desire to be in a position of leadership and to be in receipt of a handsome income. More feathers in the nest. Sadly one of the many reasons why some people won't vote in elections.

The PM and the Shadow PM are responsible for there own party members.

Yes, John Prescott could be dismissed from his position, but I fear it will be another David Blunkett stand. Some time after the press furore quietens down a bit he'd be offered a new post. Irrespective of what happens next John Prescott will still have a place as the elected constituents back bencher.

With Reference to Buzz's question. I expect that there will be a certain protocol to follow within parliament and the Labour party, which would allow someone to gracefully resign from a position rather than being sacked. My own personal thoughts on the matter is that you don't work all your life towards representng a political party for you then to be sacked over some inclandestine affair.An affair which has had no bearing on how you have performed in a job.

I do admit that I am unsure, on whether the public have a right to know, whatever shananigans has gone on behind closed doors. But it seems that some 250 .000 pounds has secured a printed sequel for our delight.

Maureen
Northern angel.

Most of that is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I shall join Buzz on the bench.

I dont know the first thing about politics, but in my head i dont think John Prescott should resign. He has been a naughty boy, and been caught with his trousers down - and the whole revelations will have brought massive embarassment to himself and more importantly his family. But i think a policitian should resign if they cant do their job anymore ... and as far as i know, his job wasnt affected.


As for Charles Clarke, his actions have meant some potentially dangerous people walking the streets, and he has no idea of their whereabouts. Did i read somewhere that 5 people who had been set free have already committed further crimes ? In Charles Clarkes case ... get rid. His actions mean that law abiding people are at risk walking the streets.

I know he works as part of a 'team', but as head of that team he should take the rap.

Fee surely anyone can resign from any job? All they have to do is to get the resignation in before the sacking. Or can an employer say "I refuse to let you resign - you're sacked!" And what difference would it make anyway?

Most of that is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I shall join Buzz on the bench.

Hello fee,

I beg to differ. On one point only.

Had MP's all been voluntary workers in receipt of expenses only the public would not be interested in what happens to John Prescott or indeed any other MP. It is the fact that they receive salaries funded from the public purse, pensions from the public purse, end payments etc from the public purse. Any other employee receives there salaries with the exception of Government, Civil service jobs, Education and the NHS, from the private sector.

In the private sector we are all more accountable for our actions and whatever pensions, end payments etc we are likely to receive may or may not be guaranteed. Even severance pay and redundancy packages may not be available even if legislated that they should be, as to be in receipt of such very depends on how financially viable the private sector company is. Swans shipyards and Pallion, some time due to major losses of military and Gov't contracts could not make there end payments to employees.

Maureen
Northern angel.

I dont know the first thing about politics, but in my head i dont think John Prescott should resign. He has been a naughty boy, and been caught with his trousers down - and the whole revelations will have brought massive embarassment to himself and more importantly his family. But i think a policitian should resign if they cant do their job anymore ... and as far as i know, his job wasnt affected.


As for Charles Clarke, his actions have meant some potentially dangerous people walking the streets, and he has no idea of their whereabouts. Did i read somewhere that 5 people who had been set free have already committed further crimes ? In Charles Clarkes case ... get rid. His actions mean that law abiding people are at risk walking the streets.

I know he works as part of a 'team', but as head of that team he should take the rap.

Hello Bonsai,

I couldn't agree more. If I had the power to do this, I would Sack Charles Clarke. I would offer a change of post to John Prescott so that he would have time to sort out the fiasco of his private life and allow media coverage to die down. Also Patricia Hewitt is sitting on a hotbed of controversy at the moment and before she gets to make any more cock ups, she needs to take a back bench pew and allow a public committee to sort things out, if that is at all possible.

Ideally, I would like to see an early general election and get them all out.

Maureen
Northern angel.

Had MP's all been voluntary workers in receipt of expenses only the public would not be interested in what happens to John Prescott or indeed any other MP.
No, the public is interested in John Prescott because of the responsible position he holds (as MP and DPM) not because of his pay package, pension, redundancy package or anything else.

Hello Mikado,

Yes, that is in addition to. He is holding a powerful and influential role in government.

Out of curiosity, before we start making judgements I found these rather interesting views and thought maybe a few would like to take a look beyond survivor.

www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2004-December/077899.html

A wee bit more info is available on the above link.

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0.564-138037800.html

Maureen
Northern angel.

Fee surely anyone can resign from any job? All they have to do is to get the resignation in before the sacking. Or can an employer say "I refuse to let you resign - you're sacked!" And what difference would it make anyway?

Hello again Mikado,

Yes anyone should be able to resign if they feel it is the right decision to make. The PM as head of the Cabinet is no ordinary employer.

Mr Prescott is going through some unwarranted personal turmoil. As his secretary has not made any claims of victimisation or bullying and in actual fact has benefitted greatly as a result of being a consenting victim of Mr Prescotts affections. Who is very proud at having been the object of such affections and is obviously extremely happy to be making such disclosures for the benefit of the public at large. Any claim from her now would be justifiably negated.

In a normal work environment if an equal or work superior makes advances upon you of a sexual nature, one would expect to be in breach of various legislative acts of employment, company policy, and of various acts concerned with descrimination at work. For all we know the Government itself may well make a offer for her silence in an attempt to avoid further embarrassment. If Mr Prescott sees himself as a bully, he may well make an out of court offer, but as she has been so willing and his own career is in jeopardy, I very much doubt this.

How do you personally feel, should Mr Prescott resign because of the unwarranted amount of negative press coverage, the embarrassment he may have caused the government. I would say not. Should he resign to save his wife any further embarrassment?

Should Mr Prescott be sacked as a disciplinary measure, or would that be rubbing salt into his wounds? I should say not. His private life has nothing to do with his ability to function in his job.

Mr Prescott knows only to well how stupid he has been, and it is entirely up to him whether he chooses to resign from the government or to face more public scrutiny. We nor anyone else should not pre-empt that decision. Instead I think he would be a wise man to review his political career and short term prospects with a long term objective insight, to regain in stamina from this loss of face, is the difficult task ahead.

The government should sit tight on this one.

Maureen
Northern angel.

Fee surely anyone can resign from any job? All they have to do is to get the resignation in before the sacking. Or can an employer say "I refuse to let you resign - you're sacked!" And what difference would it make anyway?
Mik, people can resign during a disciplinary process and it can quite often save a lot of hassle. Where an employer has to be careful is that if they suggest resignation, this can be construed as acting unreasonably, or harrassing the employee in order to avoid an unsafe dismissal. The employee could then claim constructive dismissal. So, asking an employee to resign, as Mo had suggested, could be a costly business and should be avoided.

It does happen at senior levels, but is usually supported by the terms of a service agreement and where termination costs would be high in any case. And it's usually subject to a fair bit of negotiation.

The difference between a resignation or a sacking would depend on a number of things eg the nature of the offence, level of employee, company culture. If an employee has been blatantly flouting company rules, sometimes a fair dismissal can put out a clear message to other staff, and also provides evidence of consistency in approach which could be important should another case go to tribunal.

For example, two cases I have dealt with - one where an employee resigned during a disciplinary process over his breach of contract terms in 'conducting other business on company premises' (he donated sperm as a secondary income stream, and we felt the boardroom was not a suitable venue). We agreed he could resign 'to pursue other interests' and agreed not to mention the circumstances, either to staff or in references.

The second was someone who was caught on camera nicking laptops. He also resigned, but it was made public that he had done so after admitting the act and reimbursing the company.

No, the public is interested in John Prescott because of the responsible position he holds (as MP and DPM) not because of his pay package, pension, redundancy package or anything else.

I agree.

Thanks for the expert advice Fee!

I'm glad to see that someone can be fired for being a ****er in the boardroom!

In a normal work environment if an equal or work superior makes advances upon you of a sexual nature, one would expect to be in breach of various legislative acts of employment, company policy, and of various acts concerned with descrimination at work. For all we know the Government itself may well make a offer for her silence in an attempt to avoid further embarrassment.

I imagine the Fariah Allam case will be scrutinised closely as any potential claim is likely to arise, not from a self-confessed affair, but from how her employment and future is handled now, and how that compares to Prescott's treatment.

While Fariah Allam lost her case, there would still have been cost to her employer. I imagine Tracey Wotsit's advisers will also be looking at it closely.

(he donated sperm as a secondary income stream, and we felt the boardroom was not a suitable venue)


:shocking:

Are you saying that the guy was a complete "banker"?

That's not what the cleaner who found him said :naughty:

he donated sperm as a secondary income stream, and we felt the boardroom was not a suitable venue?

Was he quickly discharged?

Not for having an affair, although she deserves a medal.

Should he resign just for being a fat useless ***t?


[COLOR[/COLOR]

Why stop at John Prescott, Lets get rid of all politicians, most of them are useless tw-*ts who think with their willys.:p

It's the power thing you see, they can't help themselves, it all goes to their silly little heads.

Maybe his wife just didn't give blow jobs! :ninja:

So does that explains where his wife is going wrong when the press report that she stands by him....mebee she should be kneeling in front of him..


i should have put that this was tongue in cheek! :laugh:

Dol's, I think someone needs a word with you - that's a french kiss....it's a c**k in cheek that constitutes a BJ!



Thing is.....since the re-shuffle he has had his duties reduced but gets to keep all the perks....nice job if you can get it.


<off to have affair with tasty secretary to see if I can get a two day week on full pay and pension>