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....

2 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. 

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.

 

 

2 hours ago, baboon said:

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

Told you...

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.

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."

1 hour ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

C'mon, you are not THAT naïve surely?

 

 

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

 

 

Something's rotten in the state of Durham.

 

(with acknowledgment to Bill Shakespeare)

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

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 

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. 

10 minutes ago, Loiner said:

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

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

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?

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" ?

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. 

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?

8 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Why do you care?
 

They wish to be identified as he/him.

 

Simple. 

Why did the report feel the need to mention "transgender " , why not just call him by his male name and refer to him as a male ?

3 hours ago, Loiner said:

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

But not against the law or regulations in place at the time.

 

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

49 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Why did the report feel the need to mention "transgender " , why not just call him by his male name and refer to him as a male ?

Again, why do you care?

1 hour 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 does it bother you so much?

 

I get through the day without fretting over how others live their own life.

 

It’s easy, effortless even.

3 hours ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

C'mon, you are not THAT naïve surely?

 

 

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

 

 

Where’s your evidence?

 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Where’s your evidence?

They never produce any and it's impacting on the forum experience because it becomes impossible to have a good faith debate.

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. 

8 minutes ago, Loiner said:

 

 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. 

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.

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. 

1 minute ago, Loiner said:

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. 

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’.

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. 

As disgraceful and unacceptable as Johnson’s constant lying is, I believe there is something far more serious deserving of a full and public investigation.

 

Johnson has admitted to having a private meeting with an ex-KGB spy on the immediate aftermath of Putin’s use of biological weapons to murders political opponent in the UK.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/boris-johnson-a-risk-to-the-country-over-private-meeting-with-ex-kgb-agent-alexander-lebedev-12648085

 

We could of course simply ask Johnson to explain, but he would almost certainly lie.

29 minutes ago, Loiner said:

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

There is no ‘Police Cover-Up’.

 

Refer forum rules on spreading misinformation.

14 hours ago, transam said:

We will forget the first bit, that's usually from those in a corner....????

 

I will as again, have you insider info on Boris making deals with the EU to improve the UK economy, or do anything to make himself more popular....?

If your info came from Dianne Abbott, don't bother....????

Unbelievable - absolutely irrelevant as ever - you ability to not understand is breathtaking!

Troll post removed.