Are we supposed to snigger or shout in rage?

The widower of murdered MP Jo Cox has quit two charities set up in her memory after sexual assault allegations from his past resurfaced.

Brendan Cox denied sexually harassing two women while he was married to the late politician, but accepted “inappropriate” behaviour, saying: “I made mistakes and behaved in a way that caused some women hurt and offence.”

He has left posts at More in Common and the Jo Cox Foundation after the Mail on Sunday published accusations made by a former colleague while they both worked at charity Save the Children in 2015.

13 comments on “Are we supposed to snigger or shout in rage?

  1. Groper Cox has been caught up in the wake of the Oxfam (and other charities) scandals. Couldn’t have happened to a more sanctimonious prick.

    I see the Daily Mail is reporting he doesn’t refute having slept with other women whilst married to Saint Jo.

    Another self-serving tosser trying to save himself by claiming to have repented. I wonder whether he thinks this will revive his political ambitions.

    I suspect that having avoided some other questions and not coming completely clean, this isn’t the last we’ll hear of his ‘indiscretions’. The papers know when they have them on the run.

    BTW, the answer to the question is ‘snigger’. Well actually, LOL.

  2. He cried! He f**king cried. What happened to the British? Where is that stiff upper lip gone? What happened to the good old fashioned cad? Who would think we would look back at the likes of Profumo as role models for men?

    Being pushed out of the Jo Cox Foundation must have hurt. That was probably a great little earner.

    Can we just give him to the Iranians?

  3. @ Anon

    Leftie’s like Cox have no problem holding two completely contradictory idea’s in their head at the same time.

    I was unfaithful to Saint Jo but I deserve to benefit from the memorial fund money.

    Most people’s head would explode trying to reconcile the two.

  4. I’m sure many have done far worse than Brendan Cox. His mistake was to weaponize the wife’s unfortunate death.

  5. @ Bernie G.

    Many people will have done worse.

    What they won’t have done is to pretend they are holier-than-thou whilst doing it unless they are lying psychopaths like Groper Cox.

    It’s not so much the weaponising (and profiteering) from Saint Jo’s death that sticks in the throat, it’s the hypocritical sanctimonious SJW that he has that does that.

  6. @ jgh

    If your comment is about Groper Cox, you’re somewhat out of date. He did deny the Save The Children allegations in 2015 (and subsequently) but he’s now reconsidered and it turns out he did do them after all.

    All it took was the Oxfam story to shine the light on his grubby past and (presumably) the media coming round to ask him some ‘difficult’ questions.

    What he hasn’t done is own up to the rest (yet). The rest remain allegations until the papers manage to dig up the text messages he sent in the US.

  7. The way he used his wife’s death to tale a swipe at Brexit marked him as a fairly irredeemable cunt. This comes as no surprise.

  8. This setting up two charities in memory of his wife seems a bit bizarre. Charities are supposed to have specific purposes that fall under at least one of several charitable purposes specified in law. None of those purposes include acting as a memorial to a dead person.

    To think one’s ex-spouse to be so important that they merit a charity more than the other million or so people who died last year seems a little self regarding. To think that they merit two charities seems like a personality flaw. Perhaps a flaw commonly found in sex pests.

  9. A repost:

    @Oblong, February 12, 2018 at 11:05 am

    Apart from the attention-seeking in the press, it was something about his [Brendan Cox] body language in various photos and videos with Jo that just seemed weird. Couldn’t quite put my finger on what it was exactly.

    His grief appeared fake to me first time I saw him interviewed. His subsequent rapid commencement of self-centred campaigning emphasised this more.

    I suspected and still do, they were married in name only and both continued this for their own financial gain promoting CM SJW interests.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.