Breaking news others have been caught on video partying whilst calling our other fecwitts for doing the same .
Printable View
Breaking news others have been caught on video partying whilst calling our other fecwitts for doing the same .
The rule makers were the rule breakersQuote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
Do the maths .
https://twitter.com/essexpr/status/1...GHEleP8kkJbcZQ
The saintly lied and criticised the rule maker/breakers ,maths done . Even nylons Ange was there telling porkies, probably another booze freebie.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
Show us the legislation where they broke the rules. No you can’t because they didn’t.
Meanwhile, the Tories in April.
11 April - Tory MP Imran Khan guilty of child sex assault
17 April - Tory MP Andrew Bridgen “Lied under oath"
28 April - Tory MP Jamie Wallis charged with careless driving & not reporting crash
29 April - Tory MP Neil Parish suspended for allegedly watching porn in Parliament
Oh and if your struggling, this Tweet explains it all nicely for you :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by ninian opinian
https://twitter.com/adambienkov/stat...G5oykQ5EvLM3Zw
To be fair, Parish “may” have ended up watching the porn by mistake. He also probably forgot it was himself he was talking about when he gave this interview;-Quote:
Originally Posted by ninian opinian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvQWbqSABmQ
Still, he’s a Tory so none of it counts as far as the person who started this thread is concerned.
Oh come on Bob he was ambushed by porn.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
I see the Tory apologist hasn’t responded because yet again he’s wrong.
Here’s another explanation of the laws.
https://twitter.com/adamwagner1/stat...8olRiVfXY4QGHg
BBC are reporting that Parish will be announcing his resignation later today.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninian opinian
And so he should dreadful person, imagine how his family feel there so poorly let down .Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
The arrogance of position is widespread in Westminster in all parties.
Need more women in politics and one is well over due in the Labour Party, the Tories could well be on for a third anytime soon...
Good to see the story broke from the females of the Tory party ...
Well done ladies and the Telegraph. 👏
Did you just try to turn this story into a positive for the Tories and a negative for Labour? Wonders never cease :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
Neither its just hypocrisy, you get all this equality crap spouted and no one party means it think five thousand plus MP 's electected and something like 500 ladies .Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
My biggest disappointment is that Labour has not delivered a leader as its had some fine female MP's Harriet Harman being the best .
It's just funny how you took a story about a Tory MP resigning because he was caught watching porn on his phone (more than once) in the Commons but felt it necessary to bring up Labour.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
Have you ever tried criticising the Tories without mentioning Labour?
I think people mention Labour because they are keen to make sure this is a conversation about rule breaking and the application of the law as opposed to a party political broadcast by the CCMB Labour Party.
Net is tightening on Starmer. Personally I have little sympathy given how sanctimonious they have been. 30 currys at 10pm, beer...it sounds more like a party than a slice of cake and happy birthday in your office at lunchtime to me.
Sorry to use the word squirm alongside Susanna Reid, but here you go..
https://order-order.com/2022/05/04/k...-were-working/
And then posts Guido Fawkes with a straight face :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
It's a video from Good Morning Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Nonetheless, you clearly don't read Guido Fawkes. A quick glance through of the last 15 stories shows a pretty good balance of who they criticise - and they do criticise all sides.
So, do you read Guido Fawkes and therefore know it criticises all sides? Or do you not read it and therefore why would you pass judgment on it?
For me it's one of around 10-15 websites, blogs and newspapers that are required reading to have a good grasp of what is going on in British politics.
Last 15 stories:
1 - Story on Starmer and beer gate from GMB
2 - Story on informal Lib - Lab pact in parts of the country
3 - Story on Tory MP stepping down and criticising him
4 - Story mocking Labour election leaflets
5 - Boris's speech to the Ukraine parliament
6 - Lib Dem candidates saucy photos
7 - Murdoch owned Talk TV's shit viewing figures
8 - Full Trevor Noah speech given to white house press dinner
9 - Starmer and beer gate
10 - Tories allegedly giving sexiest of the year awards to MPs
11 - David Lammy on beergate
12 - Green Party on wanting to leave NATO
13 - Starmer interview pieces
14 - Kwasi Kwarteng interviews
15 -Tory MP resigns over porn
No.3 is a quick sentence, not a story.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Do you really believe the rest of those "stories" are fair and unbiased?
Guido Fawkes in a nutshell, here:
Attachment 4905
Links to other stories that meet the same criteria as Order Order. Seems balanced to me.
If you think that this is one of the 10-15 sites people should use to get a grasp on British politics, may I also suggest The Daily Mail website and comments section for further balance, neutrality and nuance.
James, you talk a lot about balance, nuance, political bias, political benefit - so to talk down people on here as being the CCMB labour party and straightaway linking to a right wing blog was notable.
"Net is tightening on Starmer. Personally I have little sympathy given how sanctimonious they have been. 30 currys at 10pm, beer...it sounds more like a party than a slice of cake and happy birthday in your office at lunchtime to me."
Is this balance to you? Are the Starmer and Johnson cases similar?
The facts are that the police investigated Starmer's gathering and didn't pursue it further. The police investigated Johnson's and have given 50 FPNs with more to come and at least one to Johnson.
Even if they had both received FPNs, Johnson's case would still be worse because he made the rules, every night he told the country that they had to stick to the rules or people would die, people resigned over the gatherings (not him, of course),and he lied to Parliament about what had happened.
I know that you know all this, because it's been said multiple times on here weekly and you've previously agreed that he should resign. It's clearly the worse of the two - so why is the whataboutery back again? Why are you back with the "happy birthday cake" line when you know that is not the problem with Johnson's behaviour?
Guido Fawkes has an angle; it's broadly libertarian and anti-establishment etc. But yes I think it is broadly neutral in terms of going after all political parties equally. Either way, only a fool would rely on it entirely, hence why I would say it's one of the top 15 or so sources to get a good grasp of whats going on. It's real strength is in it's scoops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
Incidentally; two new stories now up today. If you think they don't go after all parties, I would humbly suggest you are wrong, and if you read it more you would realise that
1 - Tom, Newton Dunns (ex Sun journalist) on Murdoch owned Talked TV being mocked for low viewing figures
https://order-order.com/2022/05/04/t...ers-on-talktv/
2 - Hartlepool Tories criticising the Westminster party
For what its worth, I think the following are required reading
1 - Guardian - for a slightly dreary, dreamy left wing perspective. Rolling daily news coverage is exceptional, opinion pieces very biased
2 - Daily Mail - for a spiky, populist right wing perspective. Digs up a lot of dirt, opinion pieces more diverse than people give it credit for
3 - BBC, obviously.
4 - WalesOnline. Not great, but required here.
5 -Reuters for an international perspective
6 - Euronews to keep abreast of european news
7 -TradingEconomics.com. For facts, devoid of opinion
8 - Guido Fawkes for scoops and it's perspective
9 - The NEw Statesman sometimes
10 - The Spectator sometimes
11 - The Times - paper of record, good diversity of opinion
12 - The i. An excellent newspaper
13 - Unherd website - does what it says on the tin - some excellent journalism on there
14 - Britainelects on twitter - excellent electoral analysis
15 -politics.co.uk. Good for general stuff.
https://order-order.com/2022/05/04/l...n-westminster/
I'll break it down for you:Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
1 - Yes, I think Starmers case and Johnsons case probably are similar.
2 - The police initially didnt investigate Johnson. They then did. There is no reason not to reinvestigate Starmer if new information emerges. It is critical all political parties are treated the same
3 - The CCMB Labour Party was of course said in jest. Although I don't doubt there are Labour party activists on here, which is fine of course. If that upsets you, you want to read what people call anyone who doesn't toe the line on here..
4 - I agree with you that Johnsons example would be worse, and the Tories generally worse given the parties at work (genuine boozy parties too). However, Labour positioned themselves as white than white, and it seems they may have been doing the same.
Why are you so worried about journalists investigating this? Surely holding all politicians to account is important? People were dying and couldnt go to funerals etc, so if the leader of the opposition and most likely next PM was drinking and eating in a group of 30, and spent months lying about it, is this not news?
A pretty textbook James Wales reply.
Wordy, a reference to the other person being upset/angry, overlooking the main point (despite me writing it in bold).
You clearly missed the point where I said:Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
"I agree with you that Johnsons example would be worse, and the Tories generally worse given the parties at work (genuine boozy parties too)."
That is addressing the nature of the events. It doesn't address lying to parliament oh god I'm so bored of writing this again and again and again.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
I've said....I agree with you that Johnsons example would be worse. I can't be clearer on it. I get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
But the point is, if Starmer essentially did the same, if he is found guilty and charged (as Johnson was) then that is still a very bad state of affairs.
In this hypothetical scenario, we could argue then which is worse; Johnson was the lawmaker tuned lawbreaker, Starmer (potentially) the person who claimed to be perfect who actually wasn't.
Either way, you should welcome scrutiny of Starmer on this as it's important to hold politicians to account.
And the bit about one of them lying to parliament?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Yes it's worse in my opinion than if Starmer was found guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Although people could then decide for themselves who is worse.
Let's say that Starmer (the leader of the opposition who has already been investigated but found to have not broken any laws) is guilty of breaking the law (the same thing that Johnson has already been guilty of on one occasion so far)...Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
If people think that is worse than Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister who made the laws in the first place, consistently lied in Parliament about knowing that these parties took place, then lied in Parliament again to say that they did happen but no rules were broken and then refused to resign...
Well, that would just signify that they don't care about what Johnson did and it's, what do keep referring to... Playing politics.
If Starmer is ever found guilty of breaking any laws, at least you can be pretty sure that he would resign (and so he should).
The fact that you're even contemplating that these two are comparable when one of the two is literally the Prime Minister is beyond parody.
You're legendary balance needs a top-up on one side methinks.
Typical desperate Tories. Drag everyone down to their own sordid level. Pity help us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
What I'm saying is that I think Starmers beer event probably, in reality was as bad as Johnsons cake event. Actually I genuinely think it was worse as at least Johnson was in the office. However, thats by the by.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
I have already said taking it all into account, Johnsons (and the Tories) behaviour was worse, and whats more it's proven, so thats not in question.
The issue now is that Labour made a huge deal of this - claimed the moral high ground, talked endlessly about it, and it may well be the case that actually they were involved in something similar.
I don't see how it's different. A cake at the end of a meeting, or a beer and curry? Thats what I'm saying.
Starmer should welcome an investigation to be able to clear his name.
How are you still missing the point:Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Johnson lied to Parliament about the parties (plural) and he's the Prime Minister of the country who was in charge of making the laws he broke. That's worse than Kier Starmer having a curry and any hypothetical crime he committed by doing so as leader of the opposition.
Starmer was already investigated and his name was cleared. How many investigations would you be happy with until he's found guilty?
:hehe: ffs mun!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
I've agreed with you on that! It is a bigger issue, but Starmer potentially covering something up is still news. He's quite possibly the next PM! By definition, if we dont want a liar as PM, we want to know he isnt!
Durham police didnt investigate it. They chose not to. Same as the Met initially chose to do.
Sorry, I misread your post :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales