|
|
Post by dodgydave on Apr 1, 2024 19:46:30 GMT
What she may or may not have done is not really the problem. It is the hypocrisy of her behaviour when faced with scrutiny. She is well known for shit-stirring, writing countless letters attempting to sniff out the smallest scandal. She even said Boris should resign because he was being "investigated". She also called out Tory MPs and said they publish their full tax records. It is Sturgeon all over again, if you consistently point your finger at others, people will be falling over themselves to point them back. You didn't answer my previous questions, would you like another go? 1) Do you think she got married, they lived apart from her husband for FIVE YEARS? 2) Do you think her neigbours, who have GONE ON THE RECORD and risk libel action, are lying? 3) Do you think it's likely that her brother lived with her husband for FIVE YEARS? I am not interested in your biased approaches. IF she is guilty she will face the problem sooner or later whether she chooses to or not. Meanwhile evil bigoted and or biased witch-hunts are for the lesser intelligent individuals to follow. You are not getting this whole debate thing are you. A debate is where you offer opinions / facts and try to persuade other people to agree with you, but crucially, you are open to changing your own mind when you hear their opinions / facts. My opinion is that I don't believe Rayner got married, then lived apart from her husband for 5 years... especially when they had two kids in those five years. You refuse to give your opinion, and just keep copying & pasting "bias / smear / insinuation" every time the debate is about somebody on the left. Why can't you just say you believe her, and you think her neighbours are lying? You are literally doing what has caused Rayner so much trouble. Finger pointing at the right and demanding scrutiny, then refusing any scrutiny of the left. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 1, 2024 19:56:17 GMT
I am not interested in your biased approaches. IF she is guilty she will face the problem sooner or later whether she chooses to or not. Meanwhile evil bigoted and or biased witch-hunts are for the lesser intelligent individuals to follow. You are not getting this whole debate thing are you. A debate is where you offer opinions / facts and try to persuade other people to agree with you, but crucially, you are open to changing your own mind when you hear their opinions / facts. My opinion is that I don't believe Rayner got married, then lived apart from her husband for 5 years... especially when they had two kids in those five years. You refuse to give your opinion, and just keep copying & pasting "bias / smear / insinuation" every time the debate is about somebody on the left. Why can't you just say you believe her, and you think her neighbours are lying? You are literally doing what has caused Rayner so much trouble. Finger pointing at the right and demanding scrutiny, then refusing any scrutiny of the left. Good post. As far as Rayner is concerned, this is a classic case of her past catching up with her. I'm reminded of something about glass houses and throwing stones. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 6, 2024 17:16:46 GMT
Not going well for Raynor - proof she has been lying.. Lock her up!...  |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Apr 6, 2024 17:55:12 GMT
If she had nothing to hide then she'd simply publish the advice. That she refuses to do so, well... Can you please post publicly a full register of all your financial assets, incomes and taxes paid. I mean if you have nothing to hide from the Tax-Man it won't be a problem, right? Refusing to do so, well... Being damned by unsubstantiated innuendo is not how things are done. Nor, when accused of such is it the accused's job to do the work of the accuser for them; the accuser MUST PROVE the accused is guilty, there is no imperative for the accused to prove their innocence. Rayner is, like everyone else, Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty. All The Best No so with HMRC , they investigate , make assessments and it is up to the taxpayer to pay up (including past tax , interest and penalty ) or try to disprove the assessment |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Apr 6, 2024 18:42:00 GMT
Not going well for Raynor - proof she has been lying.. Lock her up!... We DEMAND a police investigation, we DEMAND her resignation, We DEMAND and inquiry ... listen to me, I'm starting to sound like Angela when she was making these DEMANDS over Boris Johnson and Partygate. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 6, 2024 21:20:35 GMT
I am not interested in your biased approaches. IF she is guilty she will face the problem sooner or later whether she chooses to or not. Meanwhile evil bigoted and or biased witch-hunts are for the lesser intelligent individuals to follow. You are not getting this whole debate thing are you. A debate is where you offer opinions / facts and try to persuade other people to agree with you, but crucially, you are open to changing your own mind when you hear their opinions / facts. My opinion is that I don't believe Rayner got married, then lived apart from her husband for 5 years... especially when they had two kids in those five years. You refuse to give your opinion, and just keep copying & pasting "bias / smear / insinuation" every time the debate is about somebody on the left. Why can't you just say you believe her, and you think her neighbours are lying? You are literally doing what has caused Rayner so much trouble. Finger pointing at the right and demanding scrutiny, then refusing any scrutiny of the left. Yes, when there are facts that actually prove guilt. You are entitled to post your opinions and interpretations of so called facts. Your problem is that as far you are concerned there is no room for error in hearsay or claims made against her. You think you are fit enough to be judge and Jury, you're not, you just readily grab at anything that makes her look guilty. I'll wait for those who's job it is to decide if she is guilty or not. Meanwhile I have no opinion one way or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 6, 2024 21:27:30 GMT
Not going well for Raynor - proof she has been lying.. Lock her up!... We DEMAND a police investigation, we DEMAND her resignation, We DEMAND and inquiry ... listen to me, I'm starting to sound like Angela when she was making these DEMANDS over Boris Johnson and Partygate. I can't read the story / dossier because I refuse to sign up to one of the shittiest so called newspapers on sale. Because it is in the mail I still won't accept the accusation until it is proved by Law that she broke the Law. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 6, 2024 21:31:29 GMT
You are not getting this whole debate thing are you. A debate is where you offer opinions / facts and try to persuade other people to agree with you, but crucially, you are open to changing your own mind when you hear their opinions / facts. My opinion is that I don't believe Rayner got married, then lived apart from her husband for 5 years... especially when they had two kids in those five years. You refuse to give your opinion, and just keep copying & pasting "bias / smear / insinuation" every time the debate is about somebody on the left. Why can't you just say you believe her, and you think her neighbours are lying? You are literally doing what has caused Rayner so much trouble. Finger pointing at the right and demanding scrutiny, then refusing any scrutiny of the left. Good post. As far as Rayner is concerned, this is a classic case of her past catching up with her. I'm reminded of something about glass houses and throwing stones. His was a nonsense post, but there you go, birds of a feather. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 6, 2024 21:39:46 GMT
You are not getting this whole debate thing are you. A debate is where you offer opinions / facts and try to persuade other people to agree with you, but crucially, you are open to changing your own mind when you hear their opinions / facts. My opinion is that I don't believe Rayner got married, then lived apart from her husband for 5 years... especially when they had two kids in those five years. You refuse to give your opinion, and just keep copying & pasting "bias / smear / insinuation" every time the debate is about somebody on the left. Why can't you just say you believe her, and you think her neighbours are lying? You are literally doing what has caused Rayner so much trouble. Finger pointing at the right and demanding scrutiny, then refusing any scrutiny of the left. Yes, when there are facts that actually prove guilt. You are entitled to post your opinions and interpretations of so called facts. Your problem is that as far you are concerned there is no room for error in hearsay or claims made against her. You think you are fit enough to be judge and Jury, you're not, you just readily grab at anything that makes her look guilty. I'll wait for those who's job it is to decide if she is guilty or not. Meanwhile I have no opinion one way or the other. Raynor is the classic example of a low brow hate filled socialist. Should Labour win the impending election, which seems likely, she will remarkably become deputy prime minister, and is on record saying that all conservatives are, and I quote: ' Homophobic, racist, scum'. And she refuses to retract her comments. Raynor is a good example of the low standard of modern MP's. She sets herself a low bar, and fails to reach it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 7, 2024 7:28:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Apr 8, 2024 14:49:05 GMT
You are not getting this whole debate thing are you. A debate is where you offer opinions / facts and try to persuade other people to agree with you, but crucially, you are open to changing your own mind when you hear their opinions / facts. My opinion is that I don't believe Rayner got married, then lived apart from her husband for 5 years... especially when they had two kids in those five years. You refuse to give your opinion, and just keep copying & pasting "bias / smear / insinuation" every time the debate is about somebody on the left. Why can't you just say you believe her, and you think her neighbours are lying? You are literally doing what has caused Rayner so much trouble. Finger pointing at the right and demanding scrutiny, then refusing any scrutiny of the left. Yes, when there are facts that actually prove guilt. You are entitled to post your opinions and interpretations of so called facts. Your problem is that as far you are concerned there is no room for error in hearsay or claims made against her. You think you are fit enough to be judge and Jury, you're not, you just readily grab at anything that makes her look guilty. I'll wait for those who's job it is to decide if she is guilty or not. Meanwhile I have no opinion one way or the other. You haven't got an opinion? Are you a mindless robot or something? lol. Why can't you answer simple questions? How hard is it to say if you think she lived apart from her husband for the first five years of their marriage? lol. This is a website for "politcal debate". How are you engaging in debate exactly? All you seem to do is blindly defend people on the left, and offer no reasoning for that defense other than "it's right wing lies". Again, if you only want to talk about proven facts (although you bizarrely insist they must be proven in a court of law), then that is not really debate is it... its more like a news broadcast. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Apr 8, 2024 14:52:12 GMT
I'm afraid she is toast, The Mail on Sunday have trawled through her social media to prove she lived with her husband. Labour has cancelled all the social media ads she features in and she is back in hiding.
Looks like we will get 10-15 years of an un-challenged Starmer now, which on the bright side will be more stable for the country, just not much Socialism going on lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 8, 2024 15:13:12 GMT
Yes, when there are facts that actually prove guilt. You are entitled to post your opinions and interpretations of so called facts. Your problem is that as far you are concerned there is no room for error in hearsay or claims made against her. You think you are fit enough to be judge and Jury, you're not, you just readily grab at anything that makes her look guilty. I'll wait for those who's job it is to decide if she is guilty or not. Meanwhile I have no opinion one way or the other. Raynor is the classic example of a low brow hate filled socialist. Should Labour win the impending election, which seems likely, she will remarkably become deputy prime minister, and is on record saying that all conservatives are, and I quote: 'Homophobic, racist, scum'. And she refuses to retract her comments. Raynor is a good example of the low standard of modern MP's. She sets herself a low bar, and fails to reach it. As I recall the events around her comment she never said that ' all conservatives are Homophobic, racist, scum'. If you have proof of here saying that I would appreciate it if you, or anyone else, would post it. I really do like to be properly informed. She is a bit of a tigress, but if she did say as you claim, which I believe is an exaggerated version of an off the cuff remark she made at some Labour meeting of some sort, (I might be wrong,) then she was obviously wrong and foolish to have made it. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 8, 2024 15:26:43 GMT
Yes, when there are facts that actually prove guilt. You are entitled to post your opinions and interpretations of so called facts. Your problem is that as far you are concerned there is no room for error in hearsay or claims made against her. You think you are fit enough to be judge and Jury, you're not, you just readily grab at anything that makes her look guilty. I'll wait for those who's job it is to decide if she is guilty or not. Meanwhile I have no opinion one way or the other. You haven't got an opinion? Are you a mindless robot or something? lol. Why can't you answer simple questions? How hard is it to say if you think she lived apart from her husband for the first five years of their marriage? lol. This is a website for "politcal debate". How are you engaging in debate exactly? All you seem to do is blindly defend people on the left, and offer no reasoning for that defense other than "it's right wing lies". Again, if you only want to talk about proven facts (although you bizarrely insist they must be proven in a court of law), then that is not really debate is it... its more like a news broadcast. I refuse to answer insinuations. Insinuations are the weapons used by the the sick people in society the more so when they are a part of a clearly biased posts. Why have you resorted to insinuating a lie about me? I have weighed up the pros and cons offered by different posters, they are overwhelmingly full of attacks on Rayner. i.e. full of opinions. As there is no positive evidence either way, as far as I'm concerned it remains on the 'unknown' shelf for me. I don't have any interest in the repeated bile posted against her because I cannot prove one why or the other whether she is innocent or guilty. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Apr 8, 2024 15:49:43 GMT
You haven't got an opinion? Are you a mindless robot or something? lol. Why can't you answer simple questions? How hard is it to say if you think she lived apart from her husband for the first five years of their marriage? lol. This is a website for "politcal debate". How are you engaging in debate exactly? All you seem to do is blindly defend people on the left, and offer no reasoning for that defense other than "it's right wing lies". Again, if you only want to talk about proven facts (although you bizarrely insist they must be proven in a court of law), then that is not really debate is it... its more like a news broadcast. I refuse to answer insinuations. Insinuations are the weapons used by the the sick people in society the more so when they are a part of a clearly biased posts. Why have you resorted to insinuating a lie about me? I have weighed up the pros and cons offered by different posters, they are overwhelmingly full of attacks on Rayner. i.e. full of opinions. As there is no positive evidence either way, as far as I'm concerned it remains on the 'unknown' shelf for me. I don't have any interest in the repeated bile posted against her because I cannot prove one why or the other whether she is innocent or guilty. Rayner is a vicious bad mouthed lefty, who is forever calling out the Tories with her moral high ground, now she's been caught out we DEMAND the same moral high ground for her, or do you think the lefties should get away with it?
Most of us are fed up to the back teeth with her rantings and name calling, and people like you are just as bad has her, the lefties think they have some sort entitlement every one has to follow their rules, but they don't have to if they choose not to, that's why we don't want a Labour government running this country EVER.
|
|
