borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Jul 20, 2024 4:55:30 GMT
A pre-election article but worth reading nonetheless, from the liberal New York Times and not the Daily Express (or the Sun!) or Torygraph etc etc NYT:Goodness. You know, I had no idea about any of this. Are you guys really going to continue defending him? ??
|
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Jul 20, 2024 4:56:34 GMT
This is really horrific stuff you know. You can't just wish this away or pretend like it didn't happen, this is the PM we're talking about here - it's really unacceptable conduct in all cases listed above in that article..
|
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Jul 21, 2024 17:46:20 GMT
This is pretty damning stuff, guess it's no surprise the regular defenders of Starmer have nothing to say
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 21, 2024 19:35:46 GMT
This is pretty damning stuff, guess it's no surprise the regular defenders of Starmer have nothing to say What is there to say. There is no content here to answer. Is there something more significant about the fact Starmer wasn't involved in the prosecution of these people.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 21, 2024 19:40:20 GMT
This is pretty damning stuff, guess it's no surprise the regular defenders of Starmer have nothing to say Because it was a load of rubbish that's been debunked before and that it was yet another unecessary extra thread. Why do people want to start a new thread each and every time they find a new article or a new thought pops in their heads?
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jul 21, 2024 21:52:00 GMT
This is pretty damning stuff, guess it's no surprise the regular defenders of Starmer have nothing to say Because it was a load of rubbish that's been debunked before and that it was yet another unecessary extra thread. Why do people want to start a new thread each and every time they find a new article or a new thought pops in their heads? Why shouldn’t he or anyone else start a new thread that’s how forums remain active and interesting. The fact you think it rubbish doesn’t mean everyone will,if you don’t like the subject say why or don’t post in it,forums are full of differing opinions neither you nor anyone else is the arbiter of what you call another unnecessary thread so long as it doesn’t break the rules and as as far as I can see it doesn’t.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 21, 2024 23:07:40 GMT
Of course it's rubbish to make false accusations about Starmer
|
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Jul 21, 2024 23:43:13 GMT
Proof please they are false accusations?
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 22, 2024 0:30:10 GMT
Start with the accusation he refused to prosecute over the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. The decision was made in 2006 2 years before Starmer became DPP
|
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Jul 22, 2024 1:16:10 GMT
Yeah, we've read enough about it to know that's misleading in and of itself. LinkSo let me guess, he was right about Simon Harwood who murdered Ian Tomlinson the innocent bystander too - right?
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 22, 2024 8:56:21 GMT
Yeah, we've read enough about it to know that's misleading in and of itself. LinkSo let me guess, he was right about Simon Harwood who murdered Ian Tomlinson the innocent bystander too - right? I suggest you read the article your link links to and relies on. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888385.stm The CPS could not legally reopen the case because there was not significant new evidence. Harwood wasn't prosecuted for murder (a) because it was manslaughter and (b) because the evidence was hopelessly corrupted (thanks to his colleagues) Interesting that you wish to denigrate Starmer for not breaking the law
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 22, 2024 9:31:09 GMT
Yeah, we've read enough about it to know that's misleading in and of itself. LinkSo let me guess, he was right about Simon Harwood who murdered Ian Tomlinson the innocent bystander too - right? I suggest you read the article your link links to and relies on. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888385.stm The CPS could not legally reopen the case because there was not significant new evidence. Harwood wasn't prosecuted for murder (a) because it was manslaughter and (b) because the evidence was hopelessly corrupted (thanks to his colleagues) Interesting that you wish to denigrate Starmer for not breaking the law I now agree with you Steve. This was all debunked elsewhere, starting a new thread to make the same debunked claims is ridiculous and dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 22, 2024 9:33:22 GMT
I suggest you read the article your link links to and relies on. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888385.stm The CPS could not legally reopen the case because there was not significant new evidence. Harwood wasn't prosecuted for murder (a) because it was manslaughter and (b) because the evidence was hopelessly corrupted (thanks to his colleagues) Interesting that you wish to denigrate Starmer for not breaking the law I now agree with you Steve. This was all debunked elsewhere, starting a new thread to make the same debunked claims is ridiculous and dishonest. is Steve moderating this forum by suggestion to you?
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 22, 2024 9:38:03 GMT
I now agree with you Steve. This was all debunked elsewhere, starting a new thread to make the same debunked claims is ridiculous and dishonest. is Steve moderating this forum by suggestion to you? No. Its my own opinion based on what I'm reading. Further it was not a mod comment, it was my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 22, 2024 9:41:45 GMT
is Steve moderating this forum by suggestion to you? No. Its my own opinion based on what I'm reading. Further it was not a mod comment, it was my opinion. so why do you , a moderator , feel the need to qualify something with a mere forum member? conveniently.
|
|