alexccfc99
Well-Known Member
Johnson did not resign over Partygate he resigned over the Chris Pincher scandal
Johnson did not resign over Partygate he resigned over the Chris Pincher scandalBoris was hounded out - over a piece of cake - not that he didn’t do anything wrong because he did but Starmer also has misled the electorate imo and with his pretty incompetent cabinet including Miliband who will bankrupt the country with his net zero vanity project and Reeves with her continual u turn tax regime this country is in a big mess - I have no idea who can come in and make it better - I’m sticking to football
No, he wasn’t.Boris was hounded out - over a piece of cake
Memory of a goldfish some people.No, he wasn’t.
Maximum 10 days, IMO. At least Britain is still a relatively normal country, unlike the USA.Right folks, how long has Starmer got left? 2 Tory MPs were supposedly overhead saying that today’s PMQs felt like Liz Truss’ final days…
Looking pretty bad for Starmer and McSweeney.
I would just like to remind everyone that Starmer hired someone caught up in a scandal, and he owns that decision. It deserves criticism, and it reflects poorly on his judgement.
But Boris Johnson’s government gave unlawful advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament, he barreled the country through a Brexit settlement sold on fantasies, he was fined over Partygate and was later found by MPs to have deliberately misled Parliament about it, he presided over sleaze and cronyism, from the Owen Paterson affair onwards, and he still clung on until the sheer accumulation of misconduct finally made his position untenable.
So while the usual voices and faces scream loudly that Starmer must resign, and to be clear I don’t think he comes out of this unscathed, it’s hard to take the outrage seriously when many of them defended Johnson, excused him, or pretended none of it mattered at the time.
If they waved through constitutional vandalism and years of rule-breaking, this sudden moral panic reads squarely as opportunism, and Starmer should answer for poor political nous without letting the loudest hypocrites set the terms of the debate.
I would just like to remind everyone that Starmer hired someone caught up in a scandal, and he owns that decision. It deserves criticism, and it reflects poorly on his judgement.
But Boris Johnson’s government gave unlawful advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament, he barreled the country through a Brexit settlement sold on fantasies, he was fined over Partygate and was later found by MPs to have deliberately misled Parliament about it, he presided over sleaze and cronyism, from the Owen Paterson affair onwards, and he still clung on until the sheer accumulation of misconduct finally made his position untenable.
So while the usual voices and faces scream loudly that Starmer must resign, and to be clear I don’t think he comes out of this unscathed, it’s hard to take the outrage seriously when many of them defended Johnson, excused him, or pretended none of it mattered at the time.
If they waved through constitutional vandalism and years of rule-breaking, this sudden moral panic reads squarely as opportunism, and Starmer should answer for poor political nous without letting the loudest hypocrites set the terms of the debate.
What is a normal country.Maximum 10 days, IMO. At least Britain is still a relatively normal country, unlike the USA.
Guess it's sovereignty.What is a normal country.
Agreed but he ran from the grooming gangs enquiry ?Before the pile-on, I am aware of the significance of a US ambassador post and also all that's an issue with Andrew, Epstein etc etc, but does it really need to be the number one topic in Parliament? He's gone from post, if there is wrongdoing let the police deal with it. As you know I'm not a Labour supporter, but really the witch hunt on Starmer over this is ridiculous. I actually don't care if he's lied, he's a politician, it's what they do. I'd much rather they were spending valuable hours working on the economy, housing, immigration, the NHS, funding the police, dealing with grooming gangs, public transport etc etc, so many far more important issues that a couple of sex pests.
Listening to the radio this morning although he’s getting a hard time by most - the perception is that no one will want to pick up the mantle just now because there’s a whole load of shit to come including the local elections where Labour will get a mauling - in fact things could improve with removal of Reeves , Miliband and McSweeny
You are a respected man on here can I just understand a bit here because I’m really struggling with the guilty by association stuffTo be honest Pete it will be people in his own party who decide his future and there’s a vocal lot, especially on the ideological left of the party, that want him gone.
Who they think they’re going to replace him with that will turn things round, god knows.
The country doesn’t want this shit but is going to get it from another governing party
I’m sure many do and have been waiting for an opportunity and this is definitely oneAren’t you aware it’s Labour MPs who are the most vocal wanting him to resign?
Good point actually, who's going to want to take it on before the locals?
That'll probably be the time he goes.
How can you say you want the to deal with grooming gangs but then turn a blind eye to a couple of “sex pests” ?Before the pile-on, I am aware of the significance of a US ambassador post and also all that's an issue with Andrew, Epstein etc etc, but does it really need to be the number one topic in Parliament? He's gone from post, if there is wrongdoing let the police deal with it. As you know I'm not a Labour supporter, but really the witch hunt on Starmer over this is ridiculous. I actually don't care if he's lied, he's a politician, it's what they do. I'd much rather they were spending valuable hours working on the economy, housing, immigration, the NHS, funding the police, dealing with grooming gangs, public transport etc etc, so many far more important issues that a couple of sex pests.
Because these sex pests are not only known, but as yet more of a poor moral compass than illegal known, but if they have then let the police deal with them.How can you say you want the to deal with grooming gangs but then turn a blind eye to a couple of “sex pests” ?
And even when we have the opportunity to hold people to account we make the story Starmer and his judgementBecause these sex pests are not only known, but as yet more of a poor moral compass than illegal known, but if they have then let the police deal with them.
On grooming gangs, it's widespread, multiple victims, multiple offenders and at levels that the police have barely had the resource to investigate and prosecute. Outside help due to corruption in some of the police that have been involved too. It's a national disgrace that this occurred and even more so that it's allowed to continue.
You are a respected man on here can I just understand a bit here because I’m really struggling with the guilty by association stuff
Is it wrong to keep in contact with someone who has been convicted of a crime? Not Epstein?
Does it depend on what they’ve done and whether they have admitted it and are sorry for the impact or is it just always wrong and shows a lack of good judgement to allow someone into your life or friendship once they’ve committed offences?
I think I’m struggling with Farage and Lowe slating Starmer for the person he appointed breaking the law despite Farage and Elon musk having some questions to answer themselves about their contact and potential friendships with Epstein
Maybe I should be removed from my role for my lack of good judgement
What about having friendship with people who’ve been convicted of crime reflecting on the person maintaining the friendship ??Not sure about respected man Pete…will be sticking that on my CV
I try to be fair though and agree there will be plenty having a go at Starmer now that are doing it purely for political point scoring. My point was more that it will be the party not the opposition that will ultimately see Starmer off (if he goes).
I knew Mandelson was a wrong un with a checkered past but if I’m being totally honest I wasn’t overly fussed when he was brought back to do a specific job for the government (US trade ambassador)*. The issue in terms of the role is what’s subsequently come out relating to tip offs etc that Epstein could financially benefit from and act against our countrys interests as well as Mandelson having a financial relationship with Epstein. These were under Browns government though and Starmer had already sacked Mandelson by the time this info came out
Assuming he didn’t know this additional info I don’t think it’s a resigning offence but do think it might lead to him going.
*Obviously if Mandelson was ever involved in any of the sick depravity of Epstein then that’s very different
Epstein was prosecuted for child sex offences and was involved in grooming; how is that any different to a grooming gang?Because these sex pests are not only known, but as yet more of a poor moral compass than illegal known, but if they have then let the police deal with them.
On grooming gangs, it's widespread, multiple victims, multiple offenders and at levels that the police have barely had the resource to investigate and prosecute. Outside help due to corruption in some of the police that have been involved too. It's a national disgrace that this occurred and even more so that it's allowed to continue.
*edit - I've also not said turn a 'blind eye' that's your interpretation, I said leave it to the police. My point is more that it shouldn't be a matter for parliament.
What about having friendship with people who’ve been convicted of crime reflecting on the person maintaining the friendship ??
I agree with a lot of that
Because Epstein was a US citizen, who was prosecuted and has been dead for a number of years. If you think the UK govt should be wasting hours discussing him and his associates and what went on overseas, then that's on you. I think they should have more pressing matters.Epstein was prosecuted for child sex offences and was involved in grooming; how is that any different to a grooming gang?
I'm curious to hear what the implications for national security are, could be quite some list that, can't wait TBF.Starmer apologising on TV because he has been caught out the rat.
Getting it in before handing over the report. What a twat.
Epstein was prosecuted for child sex offences and was involved in grooming; how is that any different to a grooming gang?
Teenage girls were being groomed and trafficked into the UK and most likely girls from the UK were being groomed and abused. It’s on the same level as grooming gangs - anyone associated should never have been anywhere near government.One major difference is that he isn't doing it in towns across the UK (Where we live). Obviously, any of his buddies like Andrew that are from the UK then happily deal with them the same way.
I don't know why but people seem to be more obsessed about stuff in other countries than what happens locally, I don't know if it is a sort of feeling better and safe because it is miles away. People on here for example posting about Trump, Epstein, Israel all day but a young girl kidnapped and raped about 5 miles from the CBS is a "meh". You actually have people hitting the streets to defend them.
Is it safer to discuss stuff about Trump because there's no chance they can be classed as racist so it's easier?
Does it make it any better where it is done? Of course not, it's still horrific but surely sort shit out at home. You have a Labour Councillor covering up her son noncing for example....
Teenage girls were being groomed and trafficked into the UK and most likely girls from the UK were being groomed and abused. It’s on the same level as grooming gangs - anyone associated should never have been anywhere near government.
The thread on this specific case has more than 1000 posts, so I’m not sure how you’ve reached that conclusion.a young girl kidnapped and raped about 5 miles from the CBS is a "meh"
Same when a sikh girl was raped just round the corner for me.Well yeah, of course. I'd happily have them all lined up by a wall and shot.
The difference is, you don't really hear much about grooming gangs and nobody really wants to do much about them.
Like I said, there's a girl kidnapped and raped in a park my daughter sometimes has to walk through but it's taboo to discuss things like that because you are racist for being concerned. Personally, much more concerning than what the bloke in Israel is saying or what Trump is doing. Maybe it's just me, maybe people just want to be able to use it as a distraction away from the issues. (more than likely).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?