Sunday, March 08, 2009

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 oneDK]

8 comments:

Dick Puddlecote said...

Christ! You're in a right mood this weekend DK ... keep it up.

This bit seemed familiar:

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.

I read something similar on the blog of that frightening Labour MEP monster, Hairy Moneyballs. This is what she had to say in January.

In Obama’s speech on stimulating the economy he spoke of “building roads, bridges and schools, developing eco friendly technologies”. But as these are construction based industries that are dominated by men (just 2.7 per cent of US construction workers are women) such fiscal stimulation is almost to the sole benefit of male workers. To rectify this Albelda proposes an additional stimulus plan for the female side of the economy: “caring for those who cannot care for themselves, healthcare and primary education are the very foundation of a civil society. Investing in these outcomes is as vital to our long-term economic health as airports, highways, wind turbines, and energy retrofitted buildings.” She points out that not only do these jobs disproportionately employ women, but “investments in direct care, education, and healthcare would also go a long way in alleviating poverty.”

WTF are these people on?

The Filthy Engineer said...

"But as these are construction based industries that are dominated by men (just 2.7 per cent of US construction workers are women)"

What's wrong with women being construction workers?

Let them compete with the men on a level playing field.

My outfit went down the road of trying to train up female marine engineers. Outcome was, that having spent a fortune in training, they were'nt up to the job. Poor dears found that they had to get dirty and sweaty, and broke their finger nails,

They've all gone now thank God.

saucepan said...

I can think of a job lot of hideous harridans who are about to lose their jobs - once the electorate can get to a ballot box.

Anonymous said...

British Transport Police, South of England; WPC now on her 2-year 2 month maternity leave. And she's up the duff again which means at least another year's leave. She's on full pay ALL of this time.

Anonymous said...

Idle bitch.

DaveA said...

Harman takes the biscuit doesn't she? Witters on about women get less pay than men then says they will be the most likely to be unemployed. Surely as women cost less they are the last people to be be made redundant.

Vicola said...

The one person who has really shafted the chances of women in the jobs market is Harperson herself. Thanks to her stupid 'equality' laws which have laid down crippling maternity arrangements, virtually no small business wants to employ a women between 20 and 40. So thanks for that Harriet, you utter twat. I've been lucky in that I work in civil engineering so I tick an 'equality and diversity' box by being an under-represented minority within the industry. The bitch should be horsewhipped round the borders of London and then put in the stocks for the damage she's done to the career chances of women.

Jules said...

Head says:
Hattie Harperson (aka Michaela Foot) is a ridiculous moron who says ridiculous things to curry favour with ridiculous people. May this inane, insane but useful idiot have a long and hilarious reign from 2010 as Brown's replacement in opposition.

Heart says:
She's made my piss boil again. Fucking shoot the mad cow. Now.