Chomper Higgot

If might remind you. It was you who introduced George Floyd into the discussion. Pot, kettle and all that.

I’m not siding with him at all. He’s not a criminal he’s dead. He was a criminal and he served his time for those crimes. A little reminder of that innocent until proven guilty argument you so often make.

Oh dear. So you don’t understand that Manifestos are only applicable to the election fir which they are formulated and published. I really do see the merits of introducing Civics in UK schools.

I see you’ve moved on to deliberate misspelling my username and inventing points of view for me.

So here’s a question. Should armed police officers be subject to the law?

Erm no.

Because the Home Secretary’s remarks might very well impact the trial. She doesn’t have to be corrupt to do so, she might be simply stupid. She certainly should not be making comments on cases being sent to trial.

Yes I did. I did not dispute he was attempting to ram his way out of a police road block: “But witnesses claimed the driver ignored police requests to give himself up and when he attempted to ram his way out of the roadblock, officers opened fire.” Please point out which bit of the witness accounts I have objected to.

No I haven’t.

Has anyone disputed that?

The UK don’t execute criminals. He’s under investigation, he hasn’t been charged with any crime. It’s not at all unusual for sex abusers to commit their crimes over many years before being brought to Justice. The UK’s media sits on a spectrum between rightwing through to left wing. The allegations against Brand were investigated and exposed by both right and left leaning media.

I’m not siding with any criminals. The allegations and charges have not yet been proven in a court of law.

No I am not suggesting corruption. So therefore no link to something I did not suggest.

Maybe the officer will be found innocent, maybe not. The Home Secretary expressing views on the matter doesn’t bode well for a fair trial. Are soldiers being deployed, or is that just a suggestion?

More conspiracy nonsense. Oddly, the media reporting allegations against Brand span the political spectrum. It might just be, and I’m putting this out there, that the serious allegations against Brand are newsworthy, especially given he’s famous.

Clearly the CPS also know what he did. It’s the CPS, not me, that have brought the murder charge.

“The car he was driving was being investigated for gun crime the previous day.“ It wasn’t the car that was shot was it?! “Stop painting this as a man being assassinated on the way to buy a pint of milk.” I never even suggested he was in his way to buy a pint of milk, though he might have been, he certainly didn’t have any guns on his person or in the vehicle. Interestingly, you argue elsewhere that those accused of crimes should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This guy has been shot dead for trying to evade arrest. Whoever would you bring George Floyd up? “We don't need your baiting in the UK” Thankfully the limits of your belief in freedom of speech don’t get to dictate to me, or anyone else, on where we get to express our thoughts on masters of interest.

Where is your evidence to back your repeated claims that Brand’s political views are anything at all to do with the allegations made against him?

Indeed, but when alleging the use of a car a a weapon it’s fir the person making the allegation to provide a link. Not for others to have to go looking.

Oh, so not using the car as a weapon. And the ‘gun charges’, there were no non police guns, no justified claim of ‘gun charges’. The CPS obviously see grounds for murder charges.

More whataboutary.

A bit of a false equivalence. Starmer hasn’t written any policy commitments into a Manifesto, presented it to the electorate and win an election on that manifesto.

Maybe they are, maybe they are not. Meanwhile Rishi is U-turning again and shedding more Tory donors: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/24/tory-donor-threatens-pull-funding-sunak-scraps-northern-hs2-rail-line

Link?

Strawman alert, I never said it was a law. And no not an agreement between Tories and Labour but a long standing Convention between the House of Lords and the Government of the day. The Liberal Democrats, who have never won an election, might not wish to be bound by the S-A Convention, but it’s not for them them to implement, it is implemented by The House of Lords in deference to the elected Government’s Manifesto.