John Bercow unveils £37,000 official portrait

#3
A) He's a sad git
B) Would have looked better if it'd had his missus splayed across it in the buff.
 
#6
He's only doing this to get his wife's tits off the front page.

I phoned my old mate from our Paisley borstal days, The Lord Lyon, King of Arms, and he explained the true meaning of the symbolism in Bercow's coat of arms.

The ladder is because he's a shortarrse and no doubt needs one from time to time.

The knives and balls represent his frequent, public neutering by a bigger, stronger wife.

The pink triangles are because he has feck all to do all day except watch teletubbies.

The rainbow colours represent the pot of gold that awaits him on retirement.

The motto "All Are Equal ....", well, you know the rest of that phrase. Pity there wasn't enough room on the scroll to write it.
 
#7
Yes, because god forbid he have a portrait like every other speaker. Onwards the outrage bus, never-mind tradition, history or precedent - those things we are so keen on in the Armed Forces.
 
#8
By the fucking Christ and of course we've no money...
Shows beyond any doubt that those in Westminster have not the slightest idea of what is actually happening in our co(u)ntry - this is a personal aim of his, so why the fcuk are we footing the bill? The sooner this clown is removed (hopefully for hanging, drawing and quartering or, at least, for a really emphatic deflowering) the better.
 
#9
Like all socialists who get a sniff of power he is a dab hand at spending other peoples money. As this is NAAFI, the shortarsed little cunt.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#10
Yes, because god forbid he have a portrait like every other speaker. Onwards the outrage bus, never-mind tradition, history or precedent - those things we are so keen on in the Armed Forces.
I tend to agree with you on this one but one wonders whether £37,000 does represent value for money especially in these straightened times. Perhaps he could have looked for a cheaper artist and a cheaper frame but I suppose we would have said the same thing if he had spent £10,000 or even £5,000
 
#11
or even £5.
 
#12
I think the painting is quite good - the coat of arms is a bit pikey though, you would hardly wear it on your shield riding into battle (the rainbow thing would tend to make you somewhat of a target).
 
#13
Would have been more accurate if it included a pike rampant and a set of horns. And FFS we're broke, stop spending our money on shite.
 
#14
Yes, because god forbid he have a portrait like every other speaker. Onwards the outrage bus, never-mind tradition, history or precedent - those things we are so keen on in the Armed Forces.

The precedent was only set because there was no other medium at the time to record the holders of the post.
In this day and age with a so called modern Government surely a photo would have sufficed, but I suppose a photo doesn't pander to the ego's as a painted portrait does.
 
#15
The precedent was only set because there was no other medium at the time to record the holders of the post.
In this day and age with a so called modern Government surely a photo would have sufficed, but I suppose a photo doesn't pander to the ego's as a painted portrait does.
How about a bronzed turd?
 
#16
I would have been prepared to do the portrait for free. All it requires is a picture of a dwarf with his trousers down crying because his cock is to small for him to find. I would have titled it 'Useless Little Wanker'.
 
C

count_duckula

Guest
#17
Hahaha, beyond parody! Why didn't he have two two crossed strap-ons with quivering pink arseholes rampant to represent gay issues? Anyway, isn't the ladder what he uses to climb into his chair, the physically inadequate cunt?
 
#18
Yes, because god forbid he have a portrait like every other speaker. Onwards the outrage bus, never-mind tradition, history or precedent - those things we are so keen on in the Armed Forces.
Interesting to note that the story came from the Torygraph, and that it is 'studiously factual': but at the same time careful to present the facts in a not-quite-neutral way, in order to crank up the outrage bus.

This is not much more than a clear demonstration of 'mainstream' Tory anti-Bercow sentiment (Ferzackerly the reason the LieBore b'stards voted for him as speaker in the first place). Personally, I think much of the antagonism has to do with him being (a) short (b) self-made, and (c) Jewish. Which reflects pretty badly on what has happened to the Tories since Maggie-the-self-made-grocer's-daughter was at the helm.

As he's my local MP, and I've met the bloke quite a few times, I have to say he comes over as a much nicer bloke than the Torygraph would like you to think. Whatever his wife's indiscretions, in a two horse race, I'd vote for Shorty Bercow over Fatty Soames any day.
 
#19
Interesting to note that the story came from the Torygraph, and that it is 'studiously factual': but at the same time careful to present the facts in a not-quite-neutral way, in order to crank up the outrage bus.

This is not much more than a clear demonstration of 'mainstream' Tory anti-Bercow sentiment (Ferzackerly the reason the LieBore b'stards voted for him as speaker in the first place). Personally, I think much of the antagonism has to do with him being (a) short (b) self-made, and (c) Jewish. Which reflects pretty badly on what has happened to the Tories since Maggie-the-self-made-grocer's-daughter was at the helm.

As he's my local MP, and I've met the bloke quite a few times, I have to say he comes over as a much nicer bloke than the Torygraph would like you to think. Whatever his wife's indiscretions, in a two horse race, I'd vote for Shorty Bercow over Fatty Soames any day.
Isn't it fine to point out his hypocrisy? He has trashed other traditions which go with the role but maintains the ones that soothe his chippy complex.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top