Welcome to the real world Keir

Archibald Knox said:
Of course Sunak intended it to be a joke, and in extremely poor taste considering Mrs Ghey was in Parliament. Sunak went ahead with it knowing that. Or if he didn’t, he should have. Either nasty or incompetent, your choice.
Click to expand...
He made no indication it was anything to do with Brianna, and it was blindingly obvious to anyone following politics or PMQ's that it was a dig at Starmer with his pathetic attempt of categorising a 'woman'.

The way Starmer showed his faux indignation was laughable.
 
I agree that Sunak certainly did not intend his “joke” to be a direct reference to Brianna Ghey. But he stupidly opened himself up to that criticism even knowing Mrs Ghey was in Parliament.

Like I said, incompetent. Or certainly a pretend technocrat who is totally out of touch with people’s feelings.

If the boot was on the other foot, you would be the one exhibiting “faux outrage”.

Anyway, Starmer is actually correct with his assertion that 99.9% of women do not have a penis. There is a tiny proportion of women (probably << 0.1%) with sexual organs of both genders. All babies start out in the womb as ostensibly female and then the male DNA develops their organs later on. But that development process can malfunction.

I give you Caster Semenya, the athlete, as the most well-known person of “intersex” status. She describes herself as “a different kind of woman”.

It’s not really a subject to joke about, with decency. Sorry to be po-faced, but the judge said that transphobia/trans-hatred was one of the root causes of Brianna’s murder.
 
Last edited:
I ghink the Tories have simply run out of ideas
I terms of the economy both Hunt and Reeves make some good points.
Whilst gge Tories shout that there is no magic money tree to fund Labour's spending plans they,under Truss were willing to borrow massive amounts to fund tax cuts - hardly prudent with countries finances - fortunately the market kicked back . Truss' plans fir the economy where as daft as anything Jezza Corbyn could gave dreamt up.

Starmer is not unlike Critch - professional , competent but not thr mist charismatic of leaders .

Everyone is talking of an inevitable Labour's victory. I'm not so certain , England is generally a Conservative country with a small c .
I never discount the shy or secret Tories - why they are shy I have no idea
 
The Conservatives have ideas, it’s just that they are currently all vicious and crap. Their Parliamentary Party has been captured by a cabal of extremists who want all policies to reflect their views… Rwanda, bedroom tax, cutbacks to all public services, privatisation of everything that moves, outlawing many forms of non-violent protest and demonstration, opposition to all environmental policies etc.

Bozo inadvertently accelerated this process when he sacked or expelled, by withdrawing the whip, all the One-Nation Tory MPs such as Kenneth Clarke, Rory Stewart and Dominic Grieve, because they also happened to be Remainers in his frantic efforts to get his Brexit deal through. I say “inadvertently” because I don’t believe Bozo has any ideology other than “Bozoism (self interest first)” and his schoolboy feud to do down Cameron. Even Brexit was not ideology for him, it was just an opportunity for self-promotion.

So that’s why we ended up with the likes of Patel, Braverman, Rees-Mogg and the Truss/Kwarteng wrecking crew in power. The Mafia-like description of “The Five Families” is apt.Those factions are actively working against Sunak and he now has to kowtow to them to try and stay in position.

Which is why Sunak is trying to push Rwanda through even though he thinks it stupid and unworkable, as he said when Chancellor.
 
Last edited:
Mexboroseasider said:
Which Police Service is that? The one that turned a blind eye to Jimmy Saville?
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that the CPS had the final say on the matter along with a complete lack off due diligence by the BBC. I don't need to mention again under whose tenure in the CPS these decisions were made.

But of course he stated he knew nothing about it..... Very high profile Celebrity paedo, of course it totally bypassed him.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
I agree, and Im sure time will tell, but if he gets to be PM I envisage he's going to be a mitigating disaster.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a leadership contest takes place within a couple of years.
Click to expand...
Even if he’s totally inept he still couldn’t destroy the economy in the same way that Rishi did during Covid (eat out.. Covid govt loans and furlough that was frauded within an inch of its life) and then Truss did thereafter. Plus the massive amounts of cash given to mates and Tory donors.

Quantitative easing has cost and shifted £billions into offshore funds and before Covid we had Cameron and Osbourne who delivered austerity that didn’t make any economic sense (we were the only ones doing it).
(I’m not going to discuss the economic impact of Cameron’s greatest legacy to this country).

You’d expect the Tories to deliver economic success (at the cost to the poor) yet they managed to levy tax rates that even the most left wing chancellor would balk at. Even the middle England die hards and top 10%ers have been decimated. It’s not the 1% that can applaud.

So I’m thinking that even a truly shocking and clueless Labour government would have to go some to make this worse.
 
Bisphamtang said:
I ghink the Tories have simply run out of ideas
I terms of the economy both Hunt and Reeves make some good points.
Whilst gge Tories shout that there is no magic money tree to fund Labour's spending plans they,under Truss were willing to borrow massive amounts to fund tax cuts - hardly prudent with countries finances - fortunately the market kicked back . Truss' plans fir the economy where as daft as anything Jezza Corbyn could gave dreamt up.

Starmer is not unlike Critch - professional , competent but not thr mist charismatic of leaders .

Everyone is talking of an inevitable Labour's victory. I'm not so certain , England is generally a Conservative country with a small c .
I never discount the shy or secret Tories - why they are shy I have no idea
Click to expand...

Plus they’ve got Holly Valance now that she’s come out as a screaming fascist. 😁
 
‘alright Holly, stick GB News on, Mein Kampf book reading after tea, which is of course a school dinner and then followed by the world at war but told from the side of the SS, with a final pre bed podcast from Tommy Robinson or some mad thug interviewing criminals, whilst we drift off in our 100% British made bed (designed and built in china)’

kiss kiss
 
Chunkylad said:
Even if he’s totally inept he still couldn’t destroy the economy in the same way that Rishi did during Covid (eat out.. Covid govt loans and furlough that was frauded within an inch of its life) and then Truss did thereafter. Plus the massive amounts of cash given to mates and Tory donors.

Quantitative easing has cost and shifted £billions into offshore funds and before Covid we had Cameron and Osbourne who delivered austerity that didn’t make any economic sense (we were the only ones doing it).
(I’m not going to discuss the economic impact of Cameron’s greatest legacy to this country).

You’d expect the Tories to deliver economic success (at the cost to the poor) yet they managed to levy tax rates that even the most left wing chancellor would balk at. Even the middle England die hards and top 10%ers have been decimated. It’s not the 1% that can applaud.

So I’m thinking that even a truly shocking and clueless Labour government would have to go some to make this worse.
Click to expand...
The Tories record has been appalling in so many ways Chunky, and I agree with most you've said, although I still think Rishi with the furlough and eat out scheme kept a lot of businesses solvent.

Really can't see Starmer and Reeves being any different, but for the sake of the Country, they need to be.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
I think you'll find that the CPS had the final say on the matter along with a complete lack off due diligence by the BBC. I don't need to mention again under whose tenure in the CPS these decisions were made.

But of course he stated he knew nothing about it..... Very high profile Celebrity paedo, of course it totally bypassed him.
Click to expand...
Nah. Don’t buy the “Honest Coppers thwarted by the Evil CPS” narrative.

Your lot knew what was going on. You turned a blind eye. And are now trying to pass the buck.

Own Your Own Shit.
 
Bisphamtang said:
I ghink the Tories have simply run out of ideas
I terms of the economy both Hunt and Reeves make some good points.
Whilst gge Tories shout that there is no magic money tree to fund Labour's spending plans they,under Truss were willing to borrow massive amounts to fund tax cuts - hardly prudent with countries finances - fortunately the market kicked back . Truss' plans fir the economy where as daft as anything Jezza Corbyn could gave dreamt up.

Starmer is not unlike Critch - professional , competent but not thr mist charismatic of leaders .

Everyone is talking of an inevitable Labour's victory. I'm not so certain , England is generally a Conservative country with a small c .
I never discount the shy or secret Tories - why they are shy I have no idea
Click to expand...
What secret Tories there ardn;t any. I,m assuming you're talking about this crazy electoral system that gave us bloody Johnson with an 80 seat majority when nearly two thirds voted more progressively.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Your lot knew what was going on. You turned a blind eye. And are now trying to pass the buck.
Click to expand...
My lot haha

Im Derbyshire mate, and last time I checked, we had nothing to do with the **.

And just for your agenda driven drivel....most bobbies want to exercise the law as it should be done,but are restricted by incompetent Supervisory officers. Like the Army. officers on the beat have to do what they are told.

So stereotyping 'The Police Service' as turning a blind eye is pretty naive at best.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
My lot haha

Im Derbyshire mate, and last time I checked, we had nothing to do with the **.

And just for your agenda driven drivel....most bobbies want to exercise the law as it should be done,but are restricted by incompetent Supervisory officers. Like the Army. officers on the beat have to do what they are told.

So stereotyping 'The Police Service' as turning a blind eye is pretty naive at best.
Click to expand...
Ah yes. So full on “honest coppers thwarted by authority” narrative.

Just like I said.
 
TangerineBayern said:
Voters have lost faith in our political system and the way politicians are behaving so l fully agree, the turnout at the next GE will be the lowest ever. I’ve voted all my life and next time round l don’t think l'll bother as non of them deserve my vote. This country has gone from one of the strongest and richest in the world to heading to be a 3rd world country with everything from not being capable to defend ourselves and not being able to find a NHS dentist all turning to rat shit. I fear for the future generations in this country unless there is massive turn round in the way we are governed!
Click to expand...
A lot of what you say is true. As for the next GE I think the turnout will be rather high. Perhaps 80%.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
He made no indication it was anything to do with Brianna, and it was blindingly obvious to anyone following politics or PMQ's that it was a dig at Starmer with his pathetic attempt of categorising a 'woman'.

The way Starmer showed his faux indignation was laughable.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The put-down by Sunak was scripted and he didn't have the whits to think about what he was saying. Starmer's indignation was well justified.
 
Eternaloptimist said:
If anyone thinks Labour can/will do a better job then sorry but you will be in for a big shock if they get elected.
Politics is just like Groundhog Day.
Let’s say Labour get in then at the very first PMQs Rishi ( if he is still in charge) will congratulate him and that is where any civility ends because everything will immediately revert to the status quo with the Tories slagging off every single thing that Labour proposes. Just like Labour do with the Tories.
They behave like children and are pathetic and embarrassing to have them running our Country and it just seems to be an acceptable part of being the opposition that you have to act like that.
A prime example was yesterday when Rishi called out Starmer for not being able to identify what a girl is
This was well aired at the time and Starmer was embarrassing. I honestly believe that it was taken totally out of context by the public because Starmer wanted to divert the attention away from himself so made a big issue of it
Had he not responded the way he did then no-one would have said a word. It was in no way a joke or even aimed at Brianna Ghey or her family and if people can’t see that then they are far too sensitive.
This is typical though of our politicians, all they want to do is slag the opposition off. And Angela Raynor is the worst of the lot.
Sadly for us it’s Labour or Tory, always has been, always will be but we need a strong leader and, at this moment in time there seems to be no-one in politics who fits that criteria.
I don’t give a monkey’s who gets in but I do want a party that will do what is best for our Country.


.
Click to expand...
Yep not aimed at Brianna at all and also it wasn't even offensive in it's own right, he was stating a fact. Starmer did struggle to identify a woman, a point of much ridicule.

I don't get why some tie themselves in knots over this. Surely it's easy, just say they are trans women.

However for me maybe he should have read the room a little, although her parents weren't actually there at that time I don't think.

Starmer also by the way he responded has also used it to create a big issue when should he have even done that?

Some interesting points raised on this and surely captain flip-flop didnt break the parliamentary rules? But looks like he did.

 
1966_and_all_that said:
A lot of what you say is true. As for the next GE I think the turnout will be rather high. Perhaps 80%.
Click to expand...
Wow 1966 80% no chance! Hope I’m wrong but I’d be surprised if it was 60%. The older generation are disillusioned but as they’re set in their ways will probably vote as normal, but the majority (my opinion) of the younger generation haven’t got a clue and won’t vote anyway! l don’t want to do them a disservice but l would be amazed if they did vote it would be for either of the main parties.🤷‍♂️
 
TangerineBayern said:
Wow 1966 80% no chance! Hope I’m wrong but I’d be surprised if it was 60%. The older generation are disillusioned but as they’re set in their ways will probably vote as normal, but the majority (my opinion) of the younger generation haven’t got a clue and won’t vote anyway! l don’t want to do them a disservice but l would be amazed if they did vote it would be for either of the main parties.🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Bookmarked accordingly.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
I think you'll find that the CPS had the final say on the matter along with a complete lack off due diligence by the BBC. I don't need to mention again under whose tenure in the CPS these decisions were made.

But of course he stated he knew nothing about it..... Very high profile Celebrity paedo, of course it totally bypassed him.
Click to expand...
Not having that. It’s the police that crimes are reported to and they decide what resources to put on a case to gather evidence. Then that evidence goes to the CPS which decides whether to prosecute or not.

Many of Savile’s victims have said they were not believed and the police did not pursue their allegation. Many more kept quiet because of attitudes to celebrities and sexual assault.

A very few cases went to be handled by junior CPS staff who decided the evidence was insufficient to prosecute. Maybe because the police did not take their evidence-gathering seriously enough?

The allegation about Starmer ignoring or covering up for Savile is a dirty smear, he was never informed of any of the few possible cases. Frankly, it’s beneath you, imho. Do you want to put yourself on the same level as Boris Johnson who made that same smear in PMQs and was roundly condemned for it?
 
Last edited:
I have a mate who is ex-Glos police, just a PC, probably left over 20 years ago. When Savile died in 2011, I said something along the lines “that’s a shame, he raised a lot of money for charity”.

That ex-PC immediately said, “no, he was an evil bastard and I have no sympathy” and then proceeded to give chapter and verse of what he knew. Glos police, mind you, not the Met.

That certainly opened my eyes. It was only a few weeks later that all the truth started to come out.

So Derbyshire vs Gloucestershire? What’s the difference? Not much in terms of distance from London and the BBC. And he knew about Savile from before the year 2000.

I can accept that you might not have done, Bendit.
 
Last edited:
1966_and_all_that said:
Wrong. The put-down by Sunak was scripted and he didn't have the whits to think about what he was saying. Starmer's indignation was well justified.
Click to expand...
Indignation for what? As I said where in the so called ‘scripted’ response did Sunak mention anything about BG? It was a direct jibe at Lego head Starmer who still can’t work out what a woman is, even though he’s married to one.

It’s typical political posturing on Starmers part and no coincidence it coincided with yet another U - turn
 
There is a lot of desperation on the right to stick something on Starmer. So far none of it has gained traction, the Jimmy Savile stuff in particular s disgraceful and has been shown to be untrue. Of course that doesn't stop some on here repeating it, although it is interesting to see how defensive bendit is when the same sort of accusation is made of the police. The U-turn stuff is the latest attempt to make something stick.

Sunak making crass jibes at Starmer in parliament is very poor. At the centre of the culture wars are real people who can [and have] been affected by the environment they live in. The PM seemingly mocking Starmer over trans women is not a good thing for them and Sunak should remember this and behave with more dignity as PM. He is the PM of a country that has trans people in its population.

Anyway none of it is sticking at the moment and it reeks of desperation.
 
Starmer
ElBurroSinNombre said:
There is a lot of desperation on the right to stick something on Starmer. So far none of it has gained traction, the Jimmy Savile stuff in particular s disgraceful and has been shown to be untrue. Of course that doesn't stop some on here repeating it, although it is interesting to see how defensive bendit is when the same sort of accusation is made of the police. The U-turn stuff is the latest attempt to make something stick.

Sunak making crass jibes at Starmer in parliament is very poor. At the centre of the culture wars are real people who can [and have] been affected by the environment they live in. The PM seemingly mocking Starmer over trans women is not a good thing for them and Sunak should remember this and behave with more dignity as PM. He is the PM of a country that has trans people in its population.

Anyway none of it is sticking at the moment and it reeks of desperation.
Click to expand...
Starmer attacks on Sunak are OK then?
It wasn't that long ago he was taking a pop at his wife and also saying RS did not think adults convicted of child sex assaults should go to prison.

Both as bad as each other and it sums them both up they really are bad.

Wouldn't have a clue who to vote for if the GE was tomorrow certainly not the blue lot but Jesus Starmer is making it hard to vote for the red lot.
 
Archibald Knox said:
I have a mate who is ex-Glos police, just a PC, probably left over 20 years ago. When Savile died in 2011, I said something along the lines “that’s a shame, he raised a lot of money for charity”.

That ex-PC immediately said, “no, he was an evil bastard and I have no sympathy” and then proceeded to give chapter and verse of what he knew. Glos police, mind you, not the Met.

That certainly opened my eyes. It was only a few weeks later that all the truth started to come out.

So Derbyshire vs Gloucestershire? What’s the difference? Not much in terms of distance from London and the BBC. And he knew about Savile from before the year 2000.

I can accept that you might not have done, Bendit.
Click to expand...
Archie,on the whole, grass root bobbies will have known Saville as a vile creature but most would probably have little info of his misdemeanours.
Intelligence sharing between Forces was in its infancy at the height of his offences.

For people to constantly protect Starmer regarding his knowledge of Saville is frankly a joke. Ive said before, Saville was one of the most high profile people in the Country, and Starmer must have known with his position the allegations surrounding him.Having said that, its been easy for him to distance himself from it.

To put it into perspective, many Politicians and Senior Police Officers have proverbially fallen on their sword for a lot less.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
There is a lot of desperation on the right to stick something on Starmer. So far none of it has gained traction, the Jimmy Savile stuff in particular s disgraceful and has been shown to be untrue. Of course that doesn't stop some on here repeating it, although it is interesting to see how defensive bendit is when the same sort of accusation is made of the police. The U-turn stuff is the latest attempt to make something stick.

Sunak making crass jibes at Starmer in parliament is very poor. At the centre of the culture wars are real people who can [and have] been affected by the environment they live in. The PM seemingly mocking Starmer over trans women is not a good thing for them and Sunak should remember this and behave with more dignity as PM. He is the PM of a country that has trans people in its population.

Anyway none of it is sticking at the moment and it reeks of desperation.
Click to expand...
EBSN - Im only protective over the Police Service when justified, I have many posts where Im uber critical of them.

Starmers ignorance of the facts isn't an excuse, not in the position he was.
 
poolseasider said:
Starmer

Starmer attacks on Sunak are OK then?
It wasn't that long ago he was taking a pop at his wife and also saying RS did not think adults convicted of child sex assaults should go to prison.

Both as bad as each other and it sums them both up they really are bad.

Wouldn't have a clue who to vote for if the GE was tomorrow certainly not the blue lot but Jesus Starmer is making it hard to vote for the red lot.
Click to expand...

Yep, the Labour attack you mention was unedifying, as was Sunak`s reference on PMQ`s this week, where he showed himself - for the second time this week - to be emotionally unintelligent and unable to read the room or deviate from a script.

Standards in public life are pretty abysmal and need to be addressed, and the Nolan principles given more respect by all politicians.

By the way you could vote for the Green lot. They seem rather nice people...
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
There is a lot of desperation on the right to stick something on Starmer.
Click to expand...

More observation than desperation. Starmer would merit more respect for his unachievable policies if he stuck to them rather than changing his mind. How many times has he done this now? Must be 10 surely. A weak leader by any measure.
 
tommytwojags said:
More observation than desperation. Starmer would merit more respect for his unachievable policies if he stuck to them rather than changing his mind. How many times has he done this now? Must be 10 surely.
Click to expand...
It's been documented, and highlighted on several News Channels to be 60 times....yes 60 U -Turns, yet the Labour apologists think he's the answer.
 
“A wise man changes his mind sometimes, but a fool never. To change your mind is the best evidence you have one.” Desmond Ford.

“Do not correct a scoffer [who foolishly ridicules and takes no responsibility for his error] or he will hate you; Correct a wise man [who learns from his error], and he will love you.”
Proverbs 9:8 13-18

"A wise man changes his mind, a fool never will". Japanese proverb.

“A sign of intellect is the ability to change your mind in the face of new facts. A mark of wisdom is refusing to let the fear of admitting you were wrong stop you from getting it right. The joy of learning something new eventually exceeds the pain of unlearning something old.”

“The man who asks a question is a fool for a minute, the man who does not ask is a fool for life.” Confucius.

“Only a fool never changes his mind.”
Richard Branson.
 
Last edited:
Archibald Knox said:
“A wise man changes his mind sometimes, but a fool never. To change your mind is the best evidence you have one.” Desmond Ford.

“Do not correct a scoffer [who foolishly ridicules and takes no responsibility for his error] or he will hate you; Correct a wise man [who learns from his error], and he will love you.”
Proverbs 9:8 13-18

"A wise man changes his mind, a fool never will". Japanese proverb.
Click to expand...
In your case Archie.....prophetic

In Starmer's case.....pathetic
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
EBSN - Im only protective over the Police Service when justified, I have many posts where Im uber critical of them.

Starmers ignorance of the facts isn't an excuse, not in the position he was.
Click to expand...

You have just repeated the lie again. Please read this article;


The decision not to prosecute was nothing to do with Starmer. He wasn't personally responsible for every decision the CPS made under his tenure just as say the chief constable of Surrey police isn't personally responsible for every mistake the police made in the case.

BTW if we are going to play this game perhaps we should remind ourselves who invited Savile to Xmas dinner [Thatcher], who knighted him [Thatcher], which newspapers didn't report stuff, which institutions enabled him etc, etc.

It's desperate stuff tbh
 
poolseasider said:
Starmer

Starmer attacks on Sunak are OK then?
It wasn't that long ago he was taking a pop at his wife and also saying RS did not think adults convicted of child sex assaults should go to prison.

Both as bad as each other and it sums them both up they really are bad.

Wouldn't have a clue who to vote for if the GE was tomorrow certainly not the blue lot but Jesus Starmer is making it hard to vote for the red lot.
Click to expand...

No they are not OK in my opinion, I said so at the time. Saying Sunak wanted to keep sex offenders out of prison was wrong IMO - I am not sure if Starmer actually said that but there was a poor Labour party attack advert with it on.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
BTW if we are going to play this game perhaps we should remind ourselves who invited Savile to Xmas dinner [Thatcher], who knighted him [Thatcher], which newspapers didn't report stuff, which institutions enabled him etc, etc.

It's desperate stuff tbh
Click to expand...

And who asked Savile for marriage guidance counselling ! Prince Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales (I reckon she might have been reluctantly dragooned into it, though). That worked out well didn't it ?
 
poolseasider said:
Starmer

Starmer attacks on Sunak are OK then?
It wasn't that long ago he was taking a pop at his wife and also saying RS did not think adults convicted of child sex assaults should go to prison.

Both as bad as each other and it sums them both up they really are bad.

Wouldn't have a clue who to vote for if the GE was tomorrow certainly not the blue lot but Jesus Starmer is making it hard to vote for the red lot.
Click to expand...
I understand what you mean PS. Of course, I'm Labour and will vote accordingly. The country needs to move on, as well as giving the Conservative Party some time to move itself back to the centre. Even so, Starmer's latest moves to drop opposition to bankers' bonuses then dropping the ÂŁ28bn promise are giving me cause to rage at his actions.
 
Archibald Knox said:
“A wise man changes his mind sometimes, but a fool never. To change your mind is the best evidence you have one.” Desmond Ford.

“Do not correct a scoffer [who foolishly ridicules and takes no responsibility for his error] or he will hate you; Correct a wise man [who learns from his error], and he will love you.”
Proverbs 9:8 13-18

"A wise man changes his mind, a fool never will". Japanese proverb.

“A sign of intellect is the ability to change your mind in the face of new facts. A mark of wisdom is refusing to let the fear of admitting you were wrong stop you from getting it right. The joy of learning something new eventually exceeds the pain of unlearning something old.”

“The man who asks a question is a fool for a minute, the man who does not ask is a fool for life.” Confucius.

“Only a fool never changes his mind.”
Richard Branson.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if facts change you can change your mind.

But if you keep u turning then you're clearly either just saying popular things and backing out when reality strikes or having no actual beliefs and will to stick with them.

If it was on the other side many would be mocking and I doubt you'd be using proverbs to try and excuse the u turns.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
A lot of people would disagree with that statement including the Police Service
Click to expand...
I take it you've been watching the Miners Strike 1984 on Channel 4, how corrupt police officers trumped up charges and lied? The same ones who five years later did the same at Hillsborough.
 
Wizaard said:
I take it you've been watching the Miners Strike 1984 on Channel 4, how corrupt police officers trumped up charges and lied? The same ones who five years later did the same at Hillsborough.
Click to expand...
Nope, didn’t watch it but know it happened. Likewise I was on duty at both events so have first hand knowledge that a lot don’t. Inexcusable behaviour by Plod , but Miners and Scousers weren’t angels either.

Oh and for the umpteenth time, I wasn’t S.Yorks Police
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
Nope, didn’t watch it but know it happened. Likewise I was on duty at both events so have first hand knowledge that a lot don’t. Inexcusable behaviour by Plod , but Miners and Scousers weren’t angels either.

Oh and for the umpteenth time, I wasn’t S.Yorks Police
Click to expand...
I'm not blaming you or saying you were. With the miners, cops were brought in from all over the place and given prepared statements, none of which actually happened.

We're living with the consequences of that still.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
Nope, didn’t watch it but know it happened. Likewise I was on duty at both events so have first hand knowledge that a lot don’t. Inexcusable behaviour by Plod , but Miners and Scousers weren’t angels either.

Oh and for the umpteenth time, I wasn’t S.Yorks Police
Click to expand...

So are you going to correct the lies that you have told on this thread about Starmer?
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
Eh?
Click to expand...
Linking Starmer to the Jimmy Savile case as you have done several times on this thread. The decisions made not to prosecute were nothing to do with him despite what you have posted more than once. Read the link that I have posted above.

You then say that Starmer must have known about the allegations against Savile. This is completely irrelevant because prosecution couldn't take place in the cases at the time of Starmer as the complainants didn't want to give evidence in court.

You are simply repeating a lazy smear that is known to be false. If you care about the truth you should withdraw it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top