Jump to content

BREAKING NEWS ! Boris Johnson to resign as Prime Minister


CharlieH

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

You do understand that Starmer didn't commit an infraction, don't you?

 

That's what it means when the police say that after conducting an investigation that was described as "thorough, detailed and proportionate" they "concluded that there is no case to answer...."

 

This is of course, in complete contrast to the actions of Boris and his minions at Number 10 where after a similarly thorough investigation a total of 126 fixed penalty notices were issued. 

 

Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner cleared by Police

I'm afraid the actual facts won't get you very far....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

You do understand that Starmer didn't commit an infraction, don't you?

 

That's what it means when the police say that after conducting an investigation that was described as "thorough, detailed and proportionate" they "concluded that there is no case to answer...."

 

This is of course, in complete contrast to the actions of Boris and his minions at Number 10 where after a similarly thorough investigation a total of 126 fixed penalty notices were issued. 

 

Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner cleared by Police

 

 

C'mon, you are not THAT naïve surely?

 

 

He got away with one, same as the odious Dominic Cummings.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

You do understand that Starmer didn't commit an infraction, don't you?

 

That's what it means when the police say that after conducting an investigation that was described as "thorough, detailed and proportionate" they "concluded that there is no case to answer...."

 

This is of course, in complete contrast to the actions of Boris and his minions at Number 10 where after a similarly thorough investigation a total of 126 fixed penalty notices were issued. 

 

Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner cleared by Police

To the right wing's willing cannon fodder it's not a crime if you are one of the annointed, and if you are not, then it's a crime whatever you do.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Loiner said:
3 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

You do understand that Starmer didn't commit an infraction, don't you?

 

Guilty. As seen in the video, regardless of what the police say. 

Not as guilty as the hundreds of photos of the multiple indiscretions at #10 have obviously portrayed.

 

"regardless of what the police say."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Slip said:

To the right wing's willing cannon fodder it's not a crime if you are one of the annointed, and if you are not, then it's a crime whatever you do.

This must be all a bit of a ball tearer, eh?

 

I mean if the Rt. Hon. Jamie Wallis: Conservative MP for Bridgend hasn't been anointed yet?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-62118964

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

This must be all a bit of a ball tearer, eh?

 

I mean if the Rt. Hon. Jamie Wallis: Conservative MP for Bridgend hasn't been anointed yet?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-62118964

"The Conservative MP, who was elected in 2019, became the first MP to come out as transgender in March. He identifies as he/him."

 

   This where it gets confusing 

  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Not as guilty as the hundreds of photos of the multiple indiscretions at #10 have obviously portrayed.

 

"regardless of what the police say."

But still guilty though? Regardless of what anybody else may have done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

"The Conservative MP, who was elected in 2019, became the first MP to come out as transgender in March. He identifies as he/him."

 

   This where it gets confusing 

Why? It’s quite clear how he wishes to be identified. What’s confusing?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

Why? It’s quite clear how he wishes to be identified. What’s confusing?

Is it a person who was born a female who now identifies as a male ?

Or is it a born male who is transitioning into a Female but still wants to be referred to as a "he" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Is it a person who was born a female who now identifies as a male ?

Or is it a born male who is transitioning into a Female but still wants to be referred to as a "he" ?

Why do you care?
 

They wish to be identified as he/him.

 

Simple. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Is it a person who was born a female who now identifies as a male ?

Or is it a born male who is transitioning into a Female but still wants to be referred to as a "he" ?

Are you just wanting to bash a transvestite or are you actually trying to make a cogent and socially acceptable point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Not as guilty as the hundreds of photos

 

"regardless of what the police say."

 

1 hour ago, baboon said:

No. He isn't. At least until you can produce evidence of police corruption regarding the case, which you can't. 

 The other poster above seems to think he’s a bit guilty. 
 

I don’t have to produce evidence of anything. It’s already there in the video. The camera doesn’t lie. He’s as guilty as sin. Plus even more guilty of being a lying hypocrite. 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Cameras produce images taken at a moment in time.

 

At the moment in time when the images of Starmer drinking beer with his takeaway food was taken, he was not breaking any law or regulations in place at that time.

 

As the police unequivocally stated ‘No case to answer’.

 

Try to grasp that reality.

We saw him on video at the afterwork party.
Starmer, Angela and the rest of the Labour Party lied and are hypocrites. That’s the only reality to grasp here. 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes you did.

 

But at the time it took place it was not in breach of any law or regulations.

 

As the police have unequivocally stated:

 

’No case to answer’.

We saw it.
Not interested in the police cover up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...