Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on May 09, 2022, 04:54:48 PM
-
Interesting gamble from Starmer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61383091
-
A bit high risk.
Didn't take him for a gambler.
It's not in my mind the smartest move. Could be seen as trying to pressurise Durham constabulary, and if he's hoping to shame Johnson hasn't he figured out by now that Johnson is shameless.
-
This is amusing. Just have to wait for the Mail's headline tomorrow to see how they manage it:
-
This is amusing. Just have to wait for the Mail's headline tomorrow to see how they manage it:
Here it is
-
Here it is
Nothing if not predictable.
-
It is a gamble but it's one he has to make, or he can't credibly attack Boris on the same subject. If he wins, great. If he loses, at least his successor has got some good ammunition.
-
It is a gamble but it's one he has to make, or he can't credibly attack Boris on the same subject. If he wins, great. If he loses, at least his successor has got some good ammunition.
Yes, I'd agree with that. I'm just surprised he's done it.
-
Here it is
"Starmer accused.." means "we are accusing Starmer...". Similarly, "...his opponents said....." means "we are saying". This is an old trick of the right-wing gutter-press. Why it puts the fuzz in a difficult position is anyone's guess. Why should the police care if the leader of the opposition resigns?
-
It is a gamble but it's one he has to make, or he can't credibly attack Boris on the same subject. If he wins, great. If he loses, at least his successor has got some good ammunition.
I agree - and I suspect as a very experienced lawyer he will be pretty confident in his case. I gather the whole 'but they didn't do any work afterwards' argument has been potentially closed down as they have documentary evidence of people who were present, including Starmer, continuing to work on drafting, editing, sharing media content until nearly 1am.
-
Apparently this is a devious way of Starmer getting away with NOT breaking any law.
Which reminds me ... the Tories could have put all the various restrictions necessary to manage Covid in place under Public Health legislation existing pre-2020, and did not have to put through the Coronavirus Act that criminalised their leaders subsequent behaviours.