Jump to content

Recommended Posts

wtf is the matter with you?


where do you get off with a post like that - I said nothing of the sort


is it because I said "the MAIN aim was.." re next election - there can be more than one devastating effect/aim


Answer the points made instead of this nonsense

Categorically yes


As has been pointed out, there is no record of Starmer being harrassed and called paedo prior to Johnson's comments


And again, acceptance that what he said was wrong is across the political spectrum, and not confined to this forum


And the reason people think it was wrong for him to say is because of the risks involved of something like the other night happening. Or worse


And for you - or anyone - to try and deny any link at all - is just grim


There are still people (no surprise if you are one of them) who think the events at the White House was nothing to do with Trump - but people in these elevated positions know how dog whistles work

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Okay, let me try and put it in the simplest terms

> I can for you.

>

> Do you think Johnson was responsible for, or

> caused, Starmer to be harassed by a group of

> people the other night?


YES


Because psychologically he was advised to do this before (it was pre-planned not spur of the moment) to associate in the minds of voters Starmer and Savile - this is what analysts are telling us and why Johnson won't apologise.


The people who harassed Starmer did exactly as planned but with more aggression.

JohnL wrote:

> Because psychologically he was advised to do

> this before (it was pre-planned not spur of

> the moment) to associate in the minds of voters

> Starmer and Savile - this is what analysts are

> telling us and why Johnson won't apologise.


Information sources please. I'd like to be able to judge the veracity, likeliness, etc of reports at first hand.


My own, rebuttable, presumption about Johnson's refusal to apologise further has been that it was probably based on previous experience of the other side blaming him as a departmental head for the actions of subordinates. I guess that ploughing through PMQs etc might well find some examples.

Unbelievable.


KK asked a reasonable question and the CORRECT answer is Boris?s slur was used by at least one of the protestors (among other insults) but the slur did not cause these protestors to get out of bed on Monday morning and decide to head to Westminster and wait around in the hope that Starmer might appear so they could call him paedo and shout Savile at him.


The protestors had better things to do involving all manner of conspiracy theories and it just so happened Starmer came along. It was opportunism.


In short, to say a categorical yes that Boris was responsible for, or caused, Starmer to be harassed is WRONG and deluded.

It's not just about ''blaming him as a departmental head for the actions of subordinates''.


What's upset many people ian is that Johnson knowingly wrongly smeared Starmer with the failure to prosecute Saville, and therefore the associated child sex aspect therein. That crossed a line of decency.


I don't recall anyone on 'the other side' ever criticising Johnson for the mistakes of underlings with similar repulsive overtures...

Sorry to disappoint you keano, but I'm not in the public eye let alone the PM, so I, and anyone else on here for that matter, doesn't have to adhere to the high standards we expect of those that hold elected public office.


Anyway, shouldn't you be washing your socks tonight?...

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> The protestors had better things to do involving

> all manner of conspiracy theories and it just so

> happened Starmer came along. It was opportunism.

>

> In short, to say a categorical yes that Boris was

> responsible for, or caused, Starmer to be harassed

> is WRONG and deluded.


Go to Telegram and check out what they've been talking about since Boris mentioned it.


"In one Telegram group, Hine appeared to share a video of herself at the protest where she claimed the Labour leader was ?told some truths?, spurring her users to claim ?police protecting the ultimate paedophile?."


https://inews.co.uk/news/boris-johnson-jimmy-savile-slur-far-right-telegram-conspiracy-groups-1448637

The Savile thing is just another example of Johnson trying to say something outrageous and Google search exploding in an attempt to distract attention from his own misconduct. The fact that he's going as far as to give fuel to conspiracy theories (as opposed to just nonsense about making model buses for fun) shows how deep in trouble he thinks he is.


Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Keano has a

> long long history (along with uncle) of not just

> being "right wing" but outright wrong and

> offensive. If people lose patience and call him on

> it that doesn't mean we drop the "mask of

> tolerance"


Yeah but you also don't get to play the civility card when you've just called someone a sock-wanker.

Nope, last Friday there was a deadline for the 'suspects' to fill out a Met questionnaire, so presume they are now collating that info and cross-referencing with Sue Gray report and anything else they've unearthed.


Standby for the Tories next line of apologia...''now isn't the time to change leader because of the Russkis etc''...

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


Standby for the Tories next line of apologia...''now isn't the time to change leader because of the Russkis etc''...



This could be Defence Secretary Ben Wallace's ''Hold my beer'' moment...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The main problem Post Offices have, IMO, is they are generally a sub optimal experience and don't really deliver services in the way people  want or need these days. I always dread having to use one as you know it will be time consuming and annoying. 
    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...