|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Apr 10, 2023 23:24:45 GMT
So made up then, but posted as "fact". Listen up Mr. Brown. I couldn't say with any certainty that Fairsociety's version is correct but what I can say, with considerable certainty, is that mainstream party politicians will connive, tell lies and commit other jiggery pokery, either of their own volition or on instruction from above, including the party whips. I've met and/or questioned many politicians, some at the top of the game but I've only met one who I would say was totally honest and he lasted one term in office. That's since I became what you might call politics aware over 70 years ago and I've been trying to get hold of footage from a sixties TV series called "The Interlocutor", including writing to the presenter, Michael Mansfield. Since I've got nowhere I suspect the footage was destroyed on the basis it was too embarrassing for politicians, civil servants and other charlatans of all main parties.. Oh I don't doubt. I even gave him the chance to provide evidence, rather than just dismissing what he said, as I wasn't saying it was impossible. However, he then admitted it was just an opinion dressed up as fact, something he does often. I call it "making things up". You can call it how you see it. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 11, 2023 1:00:13 GMT
Listen up Mr. Brown. I couldn't say with any certainty that Fairsociety's version is correct but what I can say, with considerable certainty, is that mainstream party politicians will connive, tell lies and commit other jiggery pokery, either of their own volition or on instruction from above, including the party whips. I've met and/or questioned many politicians, some at the top of the game but I've only met one who I would say was totally honest and he lasted one term in office. That's since I became what you might call politics aware over 70 years ago and I've been trying to get hold of footage from a sixties TV series called "The Interlocutor", including writing to the presenter, Michael Mansfield. Since I've got nowhere I suspect the footage was destroyed on the basis it was too embarrassing for politicians, civil servants and other charlatans of all main parties.. Oh I don't doubt. I even gave him the chance to provide evidence, rather than just dismissing what he said, as I wasn't saying it was impossible. However, he then admitted it was just an opinion dressed up as fact, something he does often. I call it "making things up". You can call it how you see it. The remnants conviently dismissed what ever Boris said.....So why are they bleating on now when the tables are turned? The usual lefties love dishing it out but cry foul when the tables are reversed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2023 7:07:14 GMT
Do you know what 'insufficient evidence' means? Yes.
It means that when Starmer was no longer the DPP, and Savile had popped his clogs the evidence against Savile became OVERWHELMING, so much so there is no way he wasn't a person of interest, what it means it was too delicate for Starmer to handle, so therefore there was 'insufficient evidence' .... LOL
After he died the evidence came out. The crown can only prosecute if there is evidence the real villains are those that concealed the evidence, unless you are saying the crown withheld the evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 11, 2023 7:11:08 GMT
Yes.
It means that when Starmer was no longer the DPP, and Savile had popped his clogs the evidence against Savile became OVERWHELMING, so much so there is no way he wasn't a person of interest, what it means it was too delicate for Starmer to handle, so therefore there was 'insufficient evidence' .... LOL
After he died the evidence came out. The crown can only prosecute if there is evidence the real villains are those that concealed the evidence, unless you are saying the crown withheld the evidence. Sarmer hid the evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Apr 11, 2023 7:21:46 GMT
After he died the evidence came out. The crown can only prosecute if there is evidence the real villains are those that concealed the evidence, unless you are saying the crown withheld the evidence. Sarmer hid the evidence. More made up shit. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 11, 2023 7:23:59 GMT
Is it? So you will beable to prove different then. But I won't be holding my breath. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 11, 2023 7:24:59 GMT
After he died the evidence came out. The crown can only prosecute if there is evidence the real villains are those that concealed the evidence, unless you are saying the crown withheld the evidence. Sarmer hid the evidence. Without proof that is just a typical right-wing idiotic post. It exposes just how low right-wingers WILL and DO stoop. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 11, 2023 7:32:01 GMT
Yes, and IIRC she did eventually acknowledge that. .....but very belatedly and she and Dromey should never have gone along with it. In hindsight I agree, initially I did think she had a case for free speech in controlled circumstances, and the exposure that came with it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2023 7:39:34 GMT
Do you know what ' insufficient evidence' means?Yes but you don't. Ridiculous statement.😔 |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 11, 2023 7:39:44 GMT
Some of us who were actually in the party at the time spotted Starmer's brand of "honesty" and "integrity" early on, and have been drawing attention to it ever since. It is the same brand of honesty and integrity you might expect from a dodgy used car salesman. His opponents will naturally keep drawing everyone's attention to it as the election nears, all his opponents, not just us on the left. The right wing tabloids will do a number on him and as the message sinks home his poll lead will diminish. Many people do not want to be led by yet another blatant liar prepared to say anything to get elected and meaning none of it. Some of those in the party at the time were so biased that they attacked the moderate left with a hatred that is quite disturbing to normal people. Their apparent need to attack and condemn the moderates is a testament to their own weakness of mind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2023 7:43:05 GMT
After he died the evidence came out. The crown can only prosecute if there is evidence the real villains are those that concealed the evidence, unless you are saying the crown withheld the evidence. Sarmer hid the evidence. That has got to be the stupidest thing you have said to date, don't you wish you could retract?😂 |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Apr 11, 2023 7:43:14 GMT
Is it? So you will beable to prove different then. But I won't be holding my breath. Come on, you're not that thick. YOU made the allegation. YOU prove it's true, or withdraw it. It's not up to me to prove it's not true. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 11, 2023 7:43:29 GMT
All you have is your seriously biased opinion, but you are correct everyone learnt about Savile after his death, that's when all the information emerged. But you cannot show that Starmer or the DPP had the full knowledge on Savile before his death. If you have such PROOF please post it, along with: the quotations in quotation marks, the names and the dates. If you cannot then I suggest you at least consider that you have it all wrong, but you like it that way  Without stating the obvious, it was far harder for Savile to deny any allegations of being a pedophile, and he had the best defense of all ..... He was Dead.
Starmer was told to drag it out until Savile and Co. were so old and no longer a danger to children and when they snuffed it Starmer would be off the hook, but that's not the case now, it's becoming clearer and clearer that Starmer knew exactly what Savile was up to, so now we need answers. I hope Labour have no choice but to elbow Starmer and vote for a new leader.
Your opinions on Starmer are ridiculous, yet you persist in posting them without any proof. You do not live in the real world. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 11, 2023 7:43:39 GMT
Ridiculous statement.😔 States someone who thought starmer was innocent over his piss up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2023 7:44:08 GMT
Is it? So you will beable to prove different then. But I won't be holding my breath. You made the statement it is up to you to 'prove' it before someone can refute it.😔 |
|
