Chomper Higgot

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.

So 100 normally armed Met officers are all up for upholding the law until it’s one of their own charged with murder after shooting an unarmed man in the head. Braverman jumps right in, but has she said anything about the unarmed murder victim?

Indeed it is not. Feel free to get back on topic and off personal attacks.

Oh look, another personal attack.

It’s not a law is the Salisbury-Addison Convention, as I stated earlier. It never ceases to amaze me how little folk know about how their own Government functions. Perhaps past time for the UK to introduce Civics as a mandatory lesson in schools. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldconst/28/2804.htm

You perhaps miss the vitriol frequently heaped on women who report rape and other sexual crimes. Women do not report rape without suffering consequences for having done so. Here on this forum Brand’s accusers have been openly referred to as ‘sluts’.

Regardless, the Government’s manifesto is what provides legitimacy to Government policies, refer above.

Yes some people will always vote for a political party, others might vote because they fancy the candidate, or despise the opposition candidate. Nevertheless, political parties stand for election on the basis of their manifesto. The Salisbury-Addison Convention is founded on the principle that the Government’s manifesto has been given legitimacy by voters and hence shall not be challenged by the House of Lords. Sunak is setting up for yet another U-Turn over H2S to Manchester and with it another abandonment of ‘Leveling Up’. A double U-turn and betrayal of those ‘borrowed red wall votes’.

Well he is at the moment. But there’s something else, parties are elected on their manifesto. People who voted Tory voted for the party manifesto, regardless of who eventually gets to be PM. Sunak is performing multiple U-Turns on the manifesto on which the Tories were elected.

No, but they vote for a party in the knowledge of who the PM is.

So you accept yet another example of the UK relinquishing any kind of moral authority on the world stage? While ignoring investment in green technologies: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/NEW-INVESTMENT-IN-RENEWABLE-ENERGY-BY-COUNTRY-AND-ASSET-CLASS-2016-AND-GROWTH-ON-2015_fig8_318987792