switchlogic:
FFSyou always have to be more hard done by no matter what anyone says. Like a ■■■■ measuring contest but to find shortest.
Franglais:
Monkey241:
Franglais:
switchlogic:
I had great hopes for Starmer, I voted for him and supported him but sadly while I think he’d be a decent PM his lack of personality is made starkly obvious up against Johnson and as it stands he wouldn’t winSad, but might be true.
And to answer this
Carryfast:
Exactly what’s the supposed big difference between Boris and StarmerOne was sacked from his job (as a journalist) for lying.
One was a defence lawyer, who was knighted for his services to the CPS and DPP.Who gets the vote of Joe Public as prospective PM? The one who might be a laugh down the pub!
Do we chose financial advisors, teachers or surgeons the same way?A defence lawyer…hmm. one can be quite cynical about defence lawyers and their propensity to play with the truth.
Nor was his record as DPP stellar.Seem to recall one or two little scandals. Much of the recent controversy over ■■■■ convictions can be traced back to changes he made as DPP. Then of course there’s the little issue of Saville and grooming.
As for the argument of electing the bloke who might be a laugh down the pub, human nature is to trust who you can relate to.
Do we choose surgeons etc?
I thought they professionally qualified through years of study and on the job training. I’m not sure what the professional qualification is for a politician but clearly neither have it.They both have years of on the job training though only one has held any Ministerial office.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
Do we choose surgeons etc?We can certainly choose surgeons for elective procedures. We can ask for 2nd opinions, and go with, or reject, whoever we choose. We talk to our GP about who we are referred to.
Monkey241:
Seem to recall one or two little scandals.Depends on your definition of scandal, but I grant you that Johnson is the clear leader there.
Monkey241:
They both have years of on the job training though only one has held any Ministerial office.Yes.
One used his professional training at the bar to undertake pro bono work.
One used his ministerial role to get free home decor and holidays.
Bit of a none response there
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Franglais:
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
switchlogic:
I had great hopes for Starmer, I voted for him and supported him but sadly while I think he’d be a decent PM his lack of personality is made starkly obvious up against Johnson and as it stands he wouldn’t winSad, but might be true.
And to answer this
Carryfast:
Exactly what’s the supposed big difference between Boris and StarmerOne was sacked from his job (as a journalist) for lying.
One was a defence lawyer, who was knighted for his services to the CPS and DPP.Who gets the vote of Joe Public as prospective PM? The one who might be a laugh down the pub!
Do we chose financial advisors, teachers or surgeons the same way?Which just goes to show that the honours system is corrupt. Two wrongs don’t make a right you cannot excuse Starmer’s failings at the CPS just because the current PM has failings.
If “two wrongs made a right” Johnson would be soooo right…
But, please tell us about Starmers failings at the CPS? (Sorry, my www here is a bit slow, and it hasnt yet downloaded Johnsons failngs)(been on the case since last Tuesday) I wont argue about the honours system, because it is very flawed, however, I wont accept that Starmers award was “corrupt”, and I don`t think (remembering site rules) you would either.
Starmer’s gong?
Depends how you define earned on merit I guess.
If you aren’t aware of Starmer’s failings at the CPS one wonders why you’re engaging in a political discussion.
It helps to come armed with the facts
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
I think Angela Rayner nee Catherine Tate will probably oust Andy Burnham into 2nd place, pregnant at 16, worked as a carer and rose through the trade union movement.
I am not generally a Labour supporter but if he had been my MP I would have voted for the late John Smith. I would probably vote for Angela if she moved to this area.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
If you aren’t aware of Starmer’s failings at the CPS one wonders why you’re engaging in a political discussion.
It helps to come armed with the facts
The world is full of facts.
And full of rumour, conjecture, insinuation, and snide remarks too.
It would move any discussion along if you would be specific rather than say “the facts”.
Franglais:
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
switchlogic:
I had great hopes for Starmer, I voted for him and supported him but sadly while I think he’d be a decent PM his lack of personality is made starkly obvious up against Johnson and as it stands he wouldn’t winSad, but might be true.
And to answer this
Carryfast:
Exactly what’s the supposed big difference between Boris and StarmerOne was sacked from his job (as a journalist) for lying.
One was a defence lawyer, who was knighted for his services to the CPS and DPP.Who gets the vote of Joe Public as prospective PM? The one who might be a laugh down the pub!
Do we chose financial advisors, teachers or surgeons the same way?Which just goes to show that the honours system is corrupt. Two wrongs don’t make a right you cannot excuse Starmer’s failings at the CPS just because the current PM has failings.
If “two wrongs made a right” Johnson would be soooo right…
But, please tell us about Starmers failings at the CPS? (Sorry, my www here is a bit slow, and it hasnt yet downloaded Johnsons failngs)(been on the case since last Tuesday) I wont argue about the honours system, because it is very flawed, however, I wont accept that Starmers award was “corrupt”, and I don`t think (remembering site rules) you would either.
The grooming gangs for a start a and the legal systems inability to see what was happening including the CPS, the failure to raise charges against Jimmy Saville despite overwhelming evidence. Yep he’s definatly worth a knighthood oh yeah forgot he did some work for free so he must be good oh hang on didn’t Jimmy Saville also do a lot of charity work
As for his honour there are certain jobs that if you hold the post you get honoured regardless of your performance only one ex head of the CPS has not received a knighthood or Damehood so it would appear that the head of the CPS is one of those jobs where an honour is automatic.
Mazzer2:
The grooming gangs for a start a and the legal systems inability to see what was happening including the CPS, the failure to raise charges against Jimmy Saville despite overwhelming evidence. Yep he’s definatly worth a knighthood oh yeah forgot he did some work for free so he must be good oh hang on didn’t Jimmy Saville also do a lot of charity work
As for his honour there are certain jobs that if you hold the post you get honoured regardless of your performance only one ex head of the CPS has not received a knighthood or Damehood so it would appear that the head of the CPS is one of those jobs where an honour is automatic.
Yes, during Starmers tenure we did have the grooming gangs and Saville. If you want to argue that the buck stops with the head of a dept, then you do have a point, but how far should that go? Does the head of the CPS see all the paper for every case? Did the papers for those cases ever cross Starmers desk?
And from earlier:
Franglais:
I wont argue about the honours system, because it is very flawed, however, I wont accept that Starmers award was "corrupt", and I dont think (remembering site rules) you would either.
Franglais:
Mazzer2:
The grooming gangs for a start a and the legal systems inability to see what was happening including the CPS, the failure to raise charges against Jimmy Saville despite overwhelming evidence. Yep he’s definatly worth a knighthood oh yeah forgot he did some work for free so he must be good oh hang on didn’t Jimmy Saville also do a lot of charity work
As for his honour there are certain jobs that if you hold the post you get honoured regardless of your performance only one ex head of the CPS has not received a knighthood or Damehood so it would appear that the head of the CPS is one of those jobs where an honour is automatic.Yes, during Starmer
s tenure we did have the grooming gangs and Saville. If you want to argue that the buck stops with the head of a dept, then you do have a point, but how far should that go? Does the head of the CPS see all the paper for every case? Did the papers for those cases ever cross Starmers desk?And from earlier:
Franglais:
I wont argue about the honours system, because it is very flawed, however, I wont accept that Starmers award was "corrupt", and I dont think (remembering site rules) you would either.
Funny how when it’s someone a person supports then it isn’t practical for them to be able to see all that is going on in their department yet when it is someone they don’t support then the head of a failing department should be sacked
If you are the head of a department or organisation then the fact that you are the head means you are responsible for all that goes on in that department after all they are quick enought to take the credit when something goes well.
Mazzer2:
The grooming gangs for a start a and the legal systems inability to see what was happening including the CPS, the failure to raise charges against Jimmy Saville despite overwhelming evidence. Yep he’s definatly worth a knighthood oh yeah forgot he did some work for free so he must be good oh hang on didn’t Jimmy Saville also do a lot of charity work
As for his honour there are certain jobs that if you hold the post you get honoured regardless of your performance only one ex head of the CPS has not received a knighthood or Damehood so it would appear that the head of the CPS is one of those jobs where an honour is automatic.
Nah, come off it. What “overwhelming” evidence? In his lifetime I think two people went to the police and when the police interviewed Saville they were practically saying “Sorry Sir”. All the top police were pals with him - I remember a copper riding his bike came across Saville in his Rolls with an underage lass - cop asked “What are you doing” Jimmy said “Waiting for her 16th birthday, now hurry up and ■■■■ off”. When the copper asked his superior he was told “friends in high places”>
JeffA:
Mazzer2:
The grooming gangs for a start a and the legal systems inability to see what was happening including the CPS, the failure to raise charges against Jimmy Saville despite overwhelming evidence. Yep he’s definatly worth a knighthood oh yeah forgot he did some work for free so he must be good oh hang on didn’t Jimmy Saville also do a lot of charity work
As for his honour there are certain jobs that if you hold the post you get honoured regardless of your performance only one ex head of the CPS has not received a knighthood or Damehood so it would appear that the head of the CPS is one of those jobs where an honour is automatic.Nah, come off it. What “overwhelming” evidence? In his lifetime I think two people went to the police and when the police interviewed Saville they were practically saying “Sorry Sir”. All the top police were pals with him - I remember a copper riding his bike came across Saville in his Rolls with an underage lass - cop asked “What are you doing” Jimmy said “Waiting for her 16th birthday, now hurry up and ■■■■ off”. When the copper asked his superior he was told “friends in high places”>
Nothing like hearsay to prove your point do you seriously believe that took place and if it did just shows how corrupt our legel system is of which Starmer was a major part as head of the CPS
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
Mazzer2:
The grooming gangs for a start a and the legal systems inability to see what was happening including the CPS, the failure to raise charges against Jimmy Saville despite overwhelming evidence. Yep he’s definatly worth a knighthood oh yeah forgot he did some work for free so he must be good oh hang on didn’t Jimmy Saville also do a lot of charity work
As for his honour there are certain jobs that if you hold the post you get honoured regardless of your performance only one ex head of the CPS has not received a knighthood or Damehood so it would appear that the head of the CPS is one of those jobs where an honour is automatic.Yes, during Starmer
s tenure we did have the grooming gangs and Saville. If you want to argue that the buck stops with the head of a dept, then you do have a point, but how far should that go? Does the head of the CPS see all the paper for every case? Did the papers for those cases ever cross Starmers desk?And from earlier:
Franglais:
I wont argue about the honours system, because it is very flawed, however, I wont accept that Starmers award was "corrupt", and I dont think (remembering site rules) you would either.Funny how when it’s someone a person supports then it isn’t practical for them to be able to see all that is going on in their department yet when it is someone they don’t support then the head of a failing department should be sacked
If you are the head of a department or organisation then the fact that you are the head means you are responsible for all that goes on in that department after all they are quick enought to take the credit when something goes well.
Can you not see the difference between a failing department, and separate failures within a department?
Should all dept heads resign after any individual failing? Really?
In an ideal world that may be the target, but it isn`t where we are.
In this world the current PM doesn`t acknowledge or apologise for his own shortcomings and errors, let alone those of his appointees etc. Are you blind to that?
Franglais:
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
Mazzer2:
The grooming gangs for a start a and the legal systems inability to see what was happening including the CPS, the failure to raise charges against Jimmy Saville despite overwhelming evidence. Yep he’s definatly worth a knighthood oh yeah forgot he did some work for free so he must be good oh hang on didn’t Jimmy Saville also do a lot of charity work
As for his honour there are certain jobs that if you hold the post you get honoured regardless of your performance only one ex head of the CPS has not received a knighthood or Damehood so it would appear that the head of the CPS is one of those jobs where an honour is automatic.Yes, during Starmer
s tenure we did have the grooming gangs and Saville. If you want to argue that the buck stops with the head of a dept, then you do have a point, but how far should that go? Does the head of the CPS see all the paper for every case? Did the papers for those cases ever cross Starmers desk?And from earlier:
Franglais:
I wont argue about the honours system, because it is very flawed, however, I wont accept that Starmers award was "corrupt", and I dont think (remembering site rules) you would either.Funny how when it’s someone a person supports then it isn’t practical for them to be able to see all that is going on in their department yet when it is someone they don’t support then the head of a failing department should be sacked
If you are the head of a department or organisation then the fact that you are the head means you are responsible for all that goes on in that department after all they are quick enought to take the credit when something goes well.Can you not see the difference between a failing department, and separate failures within a department?
Should all dept heads resign after any individual failing? Really?
In an ideal world that may be the target, but it isn`t where we are.In this world the current PM doesn`t acknowledge or apologise for his own shortcomings and errors, let alone those of his appointees etc. Are you blind to that?
Not at all but funny how you always bring it back to the current PM so because he has failings then we excuse all those who have failed in the past.
Mazzer2:
Not at all but funny how you always bring it back to the current PM so because he has failings then we excuse all those who have failed in the past.
Wow! You dont think that the current incumbent and his failings is a subject for discussion? More so than any opposition MP, with no election on the horizon? And I have said nowhere, nor have I consciously implied anywhere that his failings are any excuse for others. I am realistic enough to recognise that all real people make errors (and I dont call for their immediate resignation because of such) but do say that the level of demonstrable incompetence, and dishonesty of Johnson is remarkable…so I do remark on it.
Franglais:
Mazzer2:
Not at all but funny how you always bring it back to the current PM so because he has failings then we excuse all those who have failed in the past.Wow! You don
t think that the current incumbent and his failings is a subject for discussion? More so than any opposition MP, with no election on the horizon? And I have said nowhere, nor have I consciously implied anywhere that his failings are any excuse for others. I am realistic enough to recognise that all real people make errors (and I dont call for their immediate resignation because of such) but do say that the level of demonstrable incompetence, and dishonesty of Johnson is remarkable…so I do remark on it.
But the point that you raised was that Johnson was unsuitable because he lied to his boss and Karmer was suitable because he did a bit of pro bono work I just pointed out that Karmer is perhaps not as clean as people would believe and poll ratings seem to also suggest that he is not a shoe in for the next PM so how bad do you have to be if you cannot poll above Johnson? Karmer has very little sway in the Labour party and it is now looking increasingly unlikely that any reforms he wants to bring in to make the party more appealing to mainstream voters aren’t going to happen, hardly leadership material if he can’t even get his own party to follow him.
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
Mazzer2:
Not at all but funny how you always bring it back to the current PM so because he has failings then we excuse all those who have failed in the past.Wow! You don
t think that the current incumbent and his failings is a subject for discussion? More so than any opposition MP, with no election on the horizon? And I have said nowhere, nor have I consciously implied anywhere that his failings are any excuse for others. I am realistic enough to recognise that all real people make errors (and I dont call for their immediate resignation because of such) but do say that the level of demonstrable incompetence, and dishonesty of Johnson is remarkable…so I do remark on it.But the point that you raised was that Johnson was unsuitable because he lied to his boss and Karmer was suitable because he did a bit of pro bono work I just pointed out that Karmer is perhaps not as clean as people would believe and poll ratings seem to also suggest that he is not a shoe in for the next PM so how bad do you have to be if you cannot poll above Johnson? Karmer has very little sway in the Labour party and it is now looking increasingly unlikely that any reforms he wants to bring in to make the party more appealing to mainstream voters aren’t going to happen, hardly leadership material if he can’t even get his own party to follow him.
Is Starmer an effulgent saint? I doubt it, and havent said so. Is Johnson an agent of the devil? I doubt it, and havent said so.
I do say that Starmers record of public service is better than Johnsons, and his record on veracity is far better too.
Mazzer2:
Johnson was unsuitable because he lied to his boss
No, he lied to his bosses, including the Queen, voters, and Parliament.
Franglais:
Mazzer2:
Johnson was unsuitable because he lied to his bossNo, he lied to his bosses, including the Queen, voters, and Parliament.
No doubt you’ll accept that he didn’t lie concerning a deliberately staged false flag panic buying fuel crisis supposedly being caused by a sudden shortage of tanker drivers since last week.
As opposed to wants to speed up the take up of EV’s to meet the aims of his UN masters.
Let alone that he would end EU freedom of movement and us being subject to EU legislation.
Why do you view it as anti Starmer = pro Bozo when they are both of the same lying globalist ilk like Macron.
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
Mazzer2:
Not at all but funny how you always bring it back to the current PM so because he has failings then we excuse all those who have failed in the past.Wow! You don
t think that the current incumbent and his failings is a subject for discussion? More so than any opposition MP, with no election on the horizon? And I have said nowhere, nor have I consciously implied anywhere that his failings are any excuse for others. I am realistic enough to recognise that all real people make errors (and I dont call for their immediate resignation because of such) but do say that the level of demonstrable incompetence, and dishonesty of Johnson is remarkable…so I do remark on it.But the point that you raised was that Johnson was unsuitable because he lied to his boss and Karmer was suitable because he did a bit of pro bono work I just pointed out that Karmer is perhaps not as clean as people would believe and poll ratings seem to also suggest that he is not a shoe in for the next PM so how bad do you have to be if you cannot poll above Johnson? Karmer has very little sway in the Labour party and it is now looking increasingly unlikely that any reforms he wants to bring in to make the party more appealing to mainstream voters aren’t going to happen, hardly leadership material if he can’t even get his own party to follow him.
Who’s Karmer?
switchlogic:
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
Mazzer2:
Not at all but funny how you always bring it back to the current PM so because he has failings then we excuse all those who have failed in the past.Wow! You don
t think that the current incumbent and his failings is a subject for discussion? More so than any opposition MP, with no election on the horizon? And I have said nowhere, nor have I consciously implied anywhere that his failings are any excuse for others. I am realistic enough to recognise that all real people make errors (and I dont call for their immediate resignation because of such) but do say that the level of demonstrable incompetence, and dishonesty of Johnson is remarkable…so I do remark on it.But the point that you raised was that Johnson was unsuitable because he lied to his boss and Karmer was suitable because he did a bit of pro bono work I just pointed out that Karmer is perhaps not as clean as people would believe and poll ratings seem to also suggest that he is not a shoe in for the next PM so how bad do you have to be if you cannot poll above Johnson? Karmer has very little sway in the Labour party and it is now looking increasingly unlikely that any reforms he wants to bring in to make the party more appealing to mainstream voters aren’t going to happen, hardly leadership material if he can’t even get his own party to follow him.
Who’s Karmer?
The Marx Brother that always bites yer ■■■?
switchlogic:
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
Mazzer2:
Not at all but funny how you always bring it back to the current PM so because he has failings then we excuse all those who have failed in the past.Wow! You don
t think that the current incumbent and his failings is a subject for discussion? More so than any opposition MP, with no election on the horizon? And I have said nowhere, nor have I consciously implied anywhere that his failings are any excuse for others. I am realistic enough to recognise that all real people make errors (and I dont call for their immediate resignation because of such) but do say that the level of demonstrable incompetence, and dishonesty of Johnson is remarkable…so I do remark on it.But the point that you raised was that Johnson was unsuitable because he lied to his boss and Karmer was suitable because he did a bit of pro bono work I just pointed out that Karmer is perhaps not as clean as people would believe and poll ratings seem to also suggest that he is not a shoe in for the next PM so how bad do you have to be if you cannot poll above Johnson? Karmer has very little sway in the Labour party and it is now looking increasingly unlikely that any reforms he wants to bring in to make the party more appealing to mainstream voters aren’t going to happen, hardly leadership material if he can’t even get his own party to follow him.
Who’s Karmer?
lol fair one
Franglais:
Monkey241:
If you aren’t aware of Starmer’s failings at the CPS one wonders why you’re engaging in a political discussion.
It helps to come armed with the factsThe world is full of facts.
And full of rumour, conjecture, insinuation, and snide remarks too.
It would move any discussion along if you would be specific rather than say “the facts”.
Type in Starmer CPS scandals as a starting point on Google.
Less rumour and conjecture than events that occurred under his tenure as DPP
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk