Harridan Harperson is a lying whore

Harriet Harman: is she misinformed, or is she a fucking stinking liar?

It seems that Harridan "harpy" Harperson has been running around, screeching about how more women are losing their jobs than men.

Harriet Harman, the women’s minister, said: “There is a major fear about women being targeted by their employers during the downturn. This is unlawful.”

Given that you are apparently entirely prepared to overturn a legal contract in order to gain petty revenge, Harman, I am really fucking surprised that even you would have the gall to start lecturing us on what is and is not lawful. Shut your fucking face, you hideous bitch.

Another senior minister said women could be set back for “a generation”.

No, you are wrong: it is NuLabour who are setting women back. Because employers look at people such as Harperson, and the Ginger Chipmunk, and Jackboot, and Mrs Ballsack, and Man Kelly, and think, "fucking hell: if that is what an ambitious woman is like, then there is no way on this green earth that I am going to hire such a fiend." Do you see?

The latest official employment statistics show that the number of women in full-time work fell by 53,000 in the last quarter, compared with a fall of 36,000 for men. It means women are losing full-time jobs at twice the rate of men, because men significantly outnumber women in the workplace.

Women MPs are disgruntled that so much emphasis is being placed on helping male-dominated industries, such as finance and motor manufacturing, when many jobs are being lost in “soft” sectors dominated by women, such as retail and catering.

Yeah? Well, in the real world, those who have actually to pay for these insane policies are incredibly fucking "disgruntled" (to put it mildly) that the government is bailing out any sodding industry, frankly.

The campaign to shield women from unfair job losses is being led by Harman and Vera Baird, the solicitor-general, and involves several Whitehall departments.

With all due respect (which is none), why don't you go fuck yourself, Harperson? And you, Vera (whoever the fuck you are).

Harman said: “It is unlawful to make women who work part-time redundant ahead of those who work full-time;

What the hell? Are you saying, Harman, that full-time female workers should lose their jobs before those working part-time? What...?

... and it is unlawful to sack women on maternity leave...

... even if that means that you firm goes bust and everyone loses their jobs...

Firms should be in no doubt that it is discriminatory and we will not accept it.”

A horse, yesterday.

Sorry, love, is this unacceptable in a court of law or in the court of public opinion? I'm so confused about which has the higher priority.

I mean, if I unlawfully sack a bunch of women, that might be against the law. However, if I can lay my case before the court of public opinion and said court disagrees with the court of law, then the public opinion wins, eh?

What do you mean "the court of public opinion doesn't exist", Harry? Of course it does: that's the one that decided that Fred the Shred's pension was "unacceptable", remember?

And besides, are you seriously telling me that a private company is not allowed to decide whether it is going to sack part-time or full-time employees first? Who the hell dreamt up that shitty law? Was it you, Harperson?

In any case, this is a big fuss about nothing frankly. What's that? "Says who"? Says the Office of National Statistics, that's who.

The Office for National Statistics published new data showing that fewer female workers were sacked at the end of last year than male staff, most likely because more of them have jobs in the public sector.

Its figures come just two days after the Government launched a new campaign specifically to help women cope with the effects of the downturn, along with a survey claiming that they are more worried about the economy than men.

Yes, if I were a woman—especially if I had demanded fewer working hours, or a job-share, or been taking the piss with maternity pay—I would be seriously worried about my job.

Because it may be unlawful to sack women on maternity leave, but that doesn't protect them from being sacked upon their return.

So yes, were I a woman, I would be particularly worried. I might even be induced to work far harder than I have been currently in order to try to ensure that I were not one of the redundant...

Harriet Harman, the Women's Minister, said: "We cannot and will not allow women to become the victims of this recession."

Why? What the fuck does that even mean? Men are victims of the recession: why should women not be? Oh yes: because this is not actually about equality, is it, Harry? No. I didn't think so.

The new figures risk another row between the ONS and ministers over the timing and content of its publications.

Personally, I think that the ONS report was spot-on, timing-wise. After all, had they published their report two days before Harridan's announcement, then we would not have been able to catch her, red-handed, lying like the dishonest bitch that she is.

Oh, no: maybe her army of researchers—Harridan spent £92,532 on staff last year and she will also have departmental civil servants at her beck and call—just weren't able to find the correct figures. In which case, she should sack them all (apart from the women, of course).

So, if Harry was uninformed then it is worrying that she would be willing to make law on the back of it, is it not? In fact, if all of our MPs are this ill-informed, it is surely wrong that they should make any laws at all.

Or, of course, she could be a hideous liar.

Anyone care to vote?

[A tip of the horns to Timmy for this one—DK]