|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 16, 2023 12:18:56 GMT
OFFS not again. The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU... Not really true though is it? Given that membership of one mandates membership of the other. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 16, 2023 12:23:08 GMT
Read this slowly >>> Keir Starmer has stated many times that there is no case for rejoining the EURead this slowly >>> Keir Starmer HAS NOT said that he will revisit the referendum or take the UK back into the EUGB News is proven to be utterly biased, very unreliable, and its presenters are very clearly liars, and it makes no difference what Keir Starmer said in 2015 or 2016 or prior to the UK leaving the EU. Once we left, he said it is the end of the issue... But Starmer is a proven massive liar and Labour can't be trusted. What is it that you don't understand about that? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 16, 2023 12:32:20 GMT
Read this slowly >>> Keir Starmer has stated many times that there is no case for rejoining the EURead this slowly >>> Keir Starmer HAS NOT said that he will revisit the referendum or take the UK back into the EUGB News is proven to be utterly biased, very unreliable, and its presenters are very clearly liars, and it makes no difference what Keir Starmer said in 2015 or 2016 or prior to the UK leaving the EU. Once we left, he said it is the end of the issue... But Starmer is a proven massive liar and Labour can't be trusted. What is it that you don't understand about that? sids too busy trying to work out excuses for why Starmer couldn't answer Yes or No to a straight forward question |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2023 12:43:26 GMT
Read this slowly >>> Keir Starmer has stated many times that there is no case for rejoining the EURead this slowly >>> Keir Starmer HAS NOT said that he will revisit the referendum or take the UK back into the EUGB News is proven to be utterly biased, very unreliable, and its presenters are very clearly liars, and it makes no difference what Keir Starmer said in 2015 or 2016 or prior to the UK leaving the EU. Once we left, he said it is the end of the issue... But Starmer is a proven massive liar and Labour can't be trusted. What is it that you don't understand about that? So because in your opinion, Keir Starmer is a "massive liar" but without expanding what exactly you mean, you believe that its fine for a GB News presenter to simply make something up. ? You have to deal in facts, and you are not dealing with facts, you are working on assumptions, guess work and with a TV presenter who makes incredible statements. So why not give us a few examples of where Keir Starmer has told lies to the electorate ? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 16, 2023 12:48:27 GMT
But Starmer is a proven massive liar and Labour can't be trusted. What is it that you don't understand about that? So because in your opinion, Keir Starmer is a "massive liar" but without expanding what exactly you mean, you believe that its fine for a GB News presenter to simply make something up. ? You have to deal in facts, and you are not dealing with facts, you are working on assumptions, guess work and with a TV presenter who makes incredible statements. So why not give us a few examples of where Keir Starmer has told lies to the electorate ? still thinking sid? ....... LOL |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2023 12:50:22 GMT
On the so called "Beergate" issue, which actually was not an issue, Sir Keir Starmer did not ever say that Angela Raynor was there, and he never said that she was not there, he at no time ever commented.As regards Sue Gray, anyone is entitled to state their opinion as to whether ( in their view ) someone broke the rules, but it does not make that person a liar if a committee then decide that in their view she did break the rules. Your posts are getting desparate Joknsy Why would he not say?
Only guilty people withhold information, he should know that he's ex-DPP.
If someone asked me was a particular person present at a meeting, I would instantly reply Yes or No, there isn't any ifs or buts, so why did Starmer not say yes or no?
There are two conclusions
1. He was that pissed at his 'business meeting' he genuinely couldn't remember
2. He was 'covering up' for her, and realised they were in shit, meaning he knew they were breaking the rules, that's why he withheld information.
Ok sid so what reason would you give if you were asked them same question if someone was present at a business meeting you were in charge of?
Perhaps if someone had actually asked Mr Starmer if Angela Rayner was at the meeting in Durham, he would have answered YES she was, but the point is no one asked him. The Labour leader has never ever said that she was not there, therefore he is not a liar, he s not covering anything up because there's nothing to cover up. This is all pointless dribble, because it makes not a shit of difference whether Angela Rayner was / or was not there. No one did anything wrong or illegal, as confirmed TWICE by police investigations, its all pointless froth. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 16, 2023 13:01:58 GMT
Why would he not say?
Only guilty people withhold information, he should know that he's ex-DPP.
If someone asked me was a particular person present at a meeting, I would instantly reply Yes or No, there isn't any ifs or buts, so why did Starmer not say yes or no?
There are two conclusions
1. He was that pissed at his 'business meeting' he genuinely couldn't remember
2. He was 'covering up' for her, and realised they were in shit, meaning he knew they were breaking the rules, that's why he withheld information.
Ok sid so what reason would you give if you were asked them same question if someone was present at a business meeting you were in charge of?
Perhaps if someone had actually asked Mr Starmer if Angela Rayner was at the meeting in Durham, he would have answered YES she was, but the point is no one asked him. The Labour leader has never ever said that she was not there, therefore he is not a liar, he s not covering anything up because there's nothing to cover up. This is all pointless dribble, because it makes not a shit of difference whether Angela Rayner was / or was not there. No one did anything wrong or illegal, as confirmed TWICE by police investigations, its all pointless froth. He was asked sid...
Labour had said that Rayner was not present at the Durham meal, but later acknowledged she had been there, and their initial statement had been a mistake. Starmer said to reporters, "Whether Angela Rayner was there or not makes absolutely no difference".
If it was a criminal case he would be done for contempt of court by not answering a 'direct question'... Yes or No.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2023 13:10:55 GMT
A spokesperson for The Labour Party did state that Angela Rayner was not present, that spokesperson later apologised and said that Angela Rayner WAS present at the meeting, and that they had made a mistake.
That spokesperson was not Keir Starmer
Starmer did not lie, he did not say at any time that Angela Rayner was not at that meeting, and no he would not have been done for "contempt of court" because it never went as far as a court, because no charges were ever brought, because no crime had been committed.
Questions by journalists are not required by law to be answered, Kier Starmer was not compelled to answer ANY questions from journalists, but he did correctly point out that Angela Rayners presence made absolutely no difference, and he was correct, and still is.
Is there anything else ?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 16, 2023 13:36:04 GMT
On the so called "Beergate" issue, which actually was not an issue, Sir Keir Starmer did not ever say that Angela Raynor was there, and he never said that she was not there, he at no time ever commented. As regards Sue Gray, anyone is entitled to state their opinion as to whether ( in their view ) someone broke the rules, but it does not make that person a liar if a committee then decide that in their view she did break the rules. Your posts are getting desparate Joknsy Aint the truth a total bitch when the truth is revealed? Starmer never said she wasn't there either. How the fuck could he have missed the precense of that foul mouthed trollop? And as for Sue Gray she should have been impartial rather than be alying lefty arsehole who knew she had the most to gain. This is exactly the lefts total hypocrisy of don't do as we do but do as we say... |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 16, 2023 13:37:55 GMT
Read this slowly >>> Keir Starmer has stated many times that there is no case for rejoining the EURead this slowly >>> Keir Starmer HAS NOT said that he will revisit the referendum or take the UK back into the EUGB News is proven to be utterly biased, very unreliable, and its presenters are very clearly liars, and it makes no difference what Keir Starmer said in 2015 or 2016 or prior to the UK leaving the EU. Once we left, he said it is the end of the issue... I wonder what size peg SF has on his nose? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 16, 2023 13:41:55 GMT
A spokesperson for The Labour Party did state that Angela Rayner was not present, that spokesperson later apologised and said that Angela Rayner WAS present at the meeting, and that they had made a mistake. That spokesperson was not Keir Starmer Starmer did not lie, he did not say at any time that Angela Rayner was not at that meeting, and no he would not have been done for "contempt of court" because it never went as far as a court, because no charges were ever brought, because no crime had been committed. Questions by journalists are not required by law to be answered, Kier Starmer was not compelled to answer ANY questions from journalists, but he did correctly point out that Angela Rayners presence made absolutely no difference, and he was correct, and still is. Is there anything else ? The crime commisioner of Durham who starmer helped to get the job has never ever proven that she wasn't at starmers pissup either. Is there anything else you require help with SF? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 16, 2023 14:04:25 GMT
Perhaps if someone had actually asked Mr Starmer if Angela Rayner was at the meeting in Durham, he would have answered YES she was, but the point is no one asked him. The Labour leader has never ever said that she was not there, therefore he is not a liar, he s not covering anything up because there's nothing to cover up. This is all pointless dribble, because it makes not a shit of difference whether Angela Rayner was / or was not there. No one did anything wrong or illegal, as confirmed TWICE by police investigations, its all pointless froth. He was asked sid...
Labour had said that Rayner was not present at the Durham meal, but later acknowledged she had been there, and their initial statement had been a mistake. Starmer said to reporters, "Whether Angela Rayner was there or not makes absolutely no difference".
If it was a criminal case he would be done for contempt of court by not answering a 'direct question'... Yes or No.
Tell me sid, if it made no difference whether Angela Rayner was there or not a beergate, why did Starmer want, no demand the name of every single person who attended partygate?
Ooops forgot it's the lefty double standard hypocrisy again.
A spokesperson for The Labour Party did state that Angela Rayner was not present, that spokesperson later apologised and said that Angela Rayner WAS present at the meeting, and that they had made a mistake. That spokesperson was not Keir Starmer Starmer did not lie, he did not say at any time that Angela Rayner was not at that meeting, and no he would not have been done for "contempt of court" because it never went as far as a court, because no charges were ever brought, because no crime had been committed. Questions by journalists are not required by law to be answered, Kier Starmer was not compelled to answer ANY questions from journalists, but he did correctly point out that Angela Rayners presence made absolutely no difference, and he was correct, and still is. Is there anything else ? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 16, 2023 14:15:43 GMT
He was asked sid...
Labour had said that Rayner was not present at the Durham meal, but later acknowledged she had been there, and their initial statement had been a mistake. Starmer said to reporters, "Whether Angela Rayner was there or not makes absolutely no difference".
If it was a criminal case he would be done for contempt of court by not answering a 'direct question'... Yes or No.
Tell me sid, if it made no difference whether Angela Rayner was there or not a beergate, why did Starmer want, no demand the name of every single person who attended partygate?
Ooops forgot it's the lefty double standard hypocrisy again.
A spokesperson for The Labour Party did state that Angela Rayner was not present, that spokesperson later apologised and said that Angela Rayner WAS present at the meeting, and that they had made a mistake. That spokesperson was not Keir Starmer Starmer did not lie, he did not say at any time that Angela Rayner was not at that meeting, and no he would not have been done for "contempt of court" because it never went as far as a court, because no charges were ever brought, because no crime had been committed. Questions by journalists are not required by law to be answered, Kier Starmer was not compelled to answer ANY questions from journalists, but he did correctly point out that Angela Rayners presence made absolutely no difference, and he was correct, and still is. Is there anything else ? The Labour spokesperson only apologised because they had run out of options mate. But I guess SF already knew that when he posted in defence of the lying shower of shit. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 16, 2023 14:31:29 GMT
Tell me sid, if it made no difference whether Angela Rayner was there or not a beergate, why did Starmer want, no demand the name of every single person who attended partygate?
Ooops forgot it's the lefty double standard hypocrisy again.
The Labour spokesperson only apologised because they had run out of options mate. But I guess SF already knew that when he posted in defence of the lying shower of shit. We expect nothing less from lefty double standard hypocrites. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2023 14:32:57 GMT
Read this slowly >>> Keir Starmer has stated many times that there is no case for rejoining the EURead this slowly >>> Keir Starmer HAS NOT said that he will revisit the referendum or take the UK back into the EUGB News is proven to be utterly biased, very unreliable, and its presenters are very clearly liars, and it makes no difference what Keir Starmer said in 2015 or 2016 or prior to the UK leaving the EU. Once we left, he said it is the end of the issue... But Starmer is a proven massive liar and Labour can't be trusted. What is it that you don't understand about that? One lie please? |
|
