General Election 2024: General UK Politics Discussion here

[Bellatrix]

44 minutes ago, Mister M said:

 

I'd suggest that she might have been referring less to the public-facing, prominent Labour folk, and more to the behind the scenes lads: Morgan McSweeney, Stuart Ingham, Matthew Doyle and related chaps close to Starmer who run the show.   But hey, I'm sure some random on Twitter knows more about the reasons for Duffield's departure than Duffield herself.

[Tony]

52 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

I think you are being trolled.  Anyone citing Isabel Oakeshott as a trustworthy, reliable source, is either having a laugh, or is totally uninformed.

 

Just ask Matt Hancock for details.

You should respond to what is written rather than what you think was written. I said that Oakshott was well placed and freelance, which is absolutely correct.

 

Your or my opinions of her is neither here nor there but remember that it wasn't me that introduced her into the conversation. I merely mentioned that she is the sort of person who could release stories without the corporate pressure to withhold that is exerted through super injunctions if the facts are facts. That's what super ininctions are for, to suppress truth to the extent that it is a breach to even mention that there is an injunction in place. But an injunction breach needs a remedy and if the released  facts are just that (facts ) it's up to the holder to demonstrate harm. It's hard to imagine a scenario where a British PM launches a private prosecution against a journalist for telling a truth that is at worst a bit embarrassing. He will have two choices, ride it out and be a laughing stock for the secrecy and two tier standards, or resign. It will probably be the latter. 

 

It doesn't matter whether it's Isabel Oakshott or Owen Jones putting him in the spotlight. They stood on the stage with their trousers around their ankles all by themselves.

 

Starmer knows how it works so all these unforced errors are his fault as the man at the top. They aren't caused by the people discussing it.

 

You and I have no idea if the "strong rumour" is true but you attack the messenger at your peril, especially when you are actually doing the trolling that you accuse others of. Others only have to respond to new facts whereas you have to right when you're guessing.

 

If he has been having away with Alli as suggested by others above it's his problem, not the media's. It's perfectly feasible that the heavy reporting of the other stuff is precisely because there is a super injunction as a way of forcing the real heart of the story into the open. How much else needs to come out of the locker before he comes out of the closet?

 

More generally, the principles above apply to anyone who lives a public life with an alleged set of values, especially if those values are based on other people's misadventures. People get a tad disappointed when the priest turns out to be a nonce after all those pious words from the pulpit.

 

 

Moving on, I haven't noticed but has anyone denied the Starmer rumour or is it a bit suspiciously quiet?

[Mister M]

7 minutes ago, Bellatrix said:

 

I'd suggest that she might have been referring less to the public-facing, prominent Labour folk, and more to the behind the scenes lads: Morgan McSweeney, Stuart Ingham, Matthew Doyle and related chaps close to Starmer who run the show.   But hey, I'm sure some random on Twitter knows more about the reasons for Duffield's departure than Duffield herself.

Perhaps - I did hear her in an interview today saying that Sue Gray was having difficulty with  what she called "the boys club".

Whether that's her perception, or the reality I've no idea.

[Prettytom]

25 minutes ago, Tony said:

You should respond to what is written rather than what you think was written. I said that Oakshott was well placed and freelance, which is absolutely correct.

 

Your or my opinions of her is neither here nor there but remember that it wasn't me that introduced her into the conversation. I merely mentioned that she is the sort of person who could release stories without the corporate pressure to withhold that is exerted through super injunctions if the facts are facts. That's what super ininctions are for, to suppress truth to the extent that it is a breach to even mention that there is an injunction in place. But an injunction breach needs a remedy and if the released  facts are just that (facts ) it's up to the holder to demonstrate harm. It's hard to imagine a scenario where a British PM launches a private prosecution against a journalist for telling a truth that is at worst a bit embarrassing. He will have two choices, ride it out and be a laughing stock for the secrecy and two tier standards, or resign. It will probably be the latter. 

 

It doesn't matter whether it's Isabel Oakshott or Owen Jones putting him in the spotlight. They stood on the stage with their trousers around their ankles all by themselves.

 

Starmer knows how it works so all these unforced errors are his fault as the man at the top. They aren't caused by the people discussing it.

 

You and I have no idea if the "strong rumour" is true but you attack the messenger at your peril, especially when you are actually doing the trolling that you accuse others of. Others only have to respond to new facts whereas you have to right when you're guessing.

 

If he has been having away with Alli as suggested by others above it's his problem, not the media's. It's perfectly feasible that the heavy reporting of the other stuff is precisely because there is a super injunction as a way of forcing the real heart of the story into the open. How much else needs to come out of the locker before he comes out of the closet?

 

More generally, the principles above apply to anyone who lives a public life with an alleged set of values, especially if those values are based on other people's misadventures. People get a tad disappointed when the priest turns out to be a nonce after all those pious words from the pulpit.

 

 

Moving on, I haven't noticed but has anyone denied the Starmer rumour or is it a bit suspiciously quiet?

There’s nothing substantive to respond to in your post. All you’ve done is fling a load of unevidenced mud around, hoping that it will stick.

 

So, instead of responding to your fascinating pot of rumour soup and conjecture, I chose to laugh at your suggest that Oakeshott was worthy of serious consideration. It is a ridiculous claim.

 

Now, if you’ve anything proper to say, let’s have it. But do spare us all the nudge, nudge, wink, wink nonsense.

[Mister M]

14 minutes ago, Tony said:

You should respond to what is written rather than what you think was written. I said that Oakshott was well placed and freelance, which is absolutely correct.

 

Your or my opinions of her is neither here nor there but remember that it wasn't me that introduced her into the conversation. I merely mentioned that she is the sort of person who could release stories without the corporate pressure to withhold that is exerted through super injunctions if the facts are facts. That's what super ininctions are for, to suppress truth to the extent that it is a breach to even mention that there is an injunction in place. But an injunction breach needs a remedy and if the released  facts are just that (facts ) it's up to the holder to demonstrate harm. It's hard to imagine a scenario where a British PM launches a private prosecution against a journalist for telling a truth that is at worst a bit embarrassing. He will have two choices, ride it out and be a laughing stock for the secrecy and two tier standards, or resign. It will probably be the latter. 

Yes it was me who brought her into the conversation because after you mention the term "super injunction being the term of next week".

You also described her as an "Independent source". She is nothing of the sort, but a very politically motivated right wing journalist married to Richard Tice. That doesn't make her independent in my book. 

She also spread the rumour about David Cameron sticking his penis in a pig's mouth. Which makes her a liar, and a dirty minded one at that. 

 

14 minutes ago, Tony said:

 

It doesn't matter whether it's Isabel Oakshott or Owen Jones putting him in the spotlight. They stood on the stage with their trousers around their ankles all by themselves.

 

Starmer knows how it works so all these unforced errors are his fault as the man at the top. They aren't caused by the people discussing it.

 

You and I have no idea if the "strong rumour" is true but you attack the messenger at your peril, especially when you are actually doing the trolling that you accuse others of. Others only have to respond to new facts whereas you have to right when you're guessing.

But you speak as if it is.

 

14 minutes ago, Tony said:

 

If he has been having away with Alli as suggested by others above it's his problem, not the media's. It's perfectly feasible that the heavy reporting of the other stuff is precisely because there is a super injunction as a way of forcing the real heart of the story into the open. How much else needs to come out of the locker before he comes out of the closet?

So the stuff about freebies is being "heavily reported" because journalists can't talk about what they want to talk about which is Keir Starmer's sexuality - in spite of the fact that no super injunction has been issued or even mentioned by Starmer.

14 minutes ago, Tony said:

 

More generally, the principles above apply to anyone who lives a public life with an alleged set of values, especially if those values are based on other people's misadventures. People get a tad disappointed when the priest turns out to be a nonce after all those pious words from the pulpit.

Nonce in a discussion about homosexuality. Very original 

Incidentally while researching all this, apparently Keir Starmer got beaten up at school for standing up for a friend who is gay. Does that contradict those alleged set of values?

14 minutes ago, Tony said:

 

 

Moving on, I haven't noticed but has anyone denied the Starmer rumour or is it a bit suspiciously quiet?

Or perhaps people are waiting for facts rather than speculating bordering on wish fulfilment, or more mundanely people don't care?

[Mister M]

 

😂😂😂

[Mister M]

7 hours ago, High Chaparral said:

Just seen Rosie Duffield interviewed by Laura Kuenssburg.  It's the clothes donations that are the last straw. Rosie Duffield believes donations should be used for expenses needed for campaigning and not for buying clothes.  Rosie Duffield also believes Sir Keir Starmer has a problem with women and likes to be surrounded by lads.  If Rosie Duffield resigned as a MP and stood again in a by-election she would easily win the Canterbury seat as an Independent. 

Or from a different perspective....

 

 

[Delbow]

21 minutes ago, Mister M said:

 

😂😂😂

 

Pretty astounding that someone so opposed to immigration is also so committed to getting the birth rate even further below the replacement rate than it already is. Maybe she really, really likes South Korea.

[Mister M]

1 hour ago, Delbow said:

 

Pretty astounding that someone so opposed to immigration is also so committed to getting the birth rate even further below the replacement rate than it already is. Maybe she really, really likes South Korea.

I'm sure her target demographic will love the rhetoric, until they start to wonder who is going to wipe their arses when they're no longer able to.

[High Chaparral]

4 hours ago, Mister M said:

Like how Tories are allying themselves with Rosie Duffield, agreeing with her points about "cruel and unnecessary" government policies such as cuts in the winter fuel allowance and the two-child benefit cap.

Tories are so blissfully unaware of what cruel and unnecessary policies are 😂

 

You need to go to your Doctors and ask for some tablets to cure your anti Tory disease. Rosie Duffield has resigned because the Labour party stated they would be better and more honest than the Tories. After less than 3 months in government the new Labour government under the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer have shown they are worse and more dishonest than the Tories.  Sir Keir Starmer will go down in history as the most dishonest and corrupt person ever to be prime minister of the UK.

 

Edited Sunday at 18:30 by High Chaparral