It's potentially more serious than currygate imo. The Times is reporting today that she was shown electorally to live in a different house to her son. As you say, we'll wait to see
Well the point about currygate was that Starmer was falsely accused as a Tory distraction. I believe this will prove to be the same.
Right-of-centre politician accused of doing something is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Their innocence, of course, isn’t believed because it will have been a stitch-up somewhere along the line. Left-of-centre politician accused of doing something is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Their guilt, of course, isn’t believed because it will have been a stitch-up somewhere along the line. Them is the rules.
Just applying some logic. I can see why Zahawi might want to avoid paying £3.7m tax - it's a lot of money. I can't see why Rayner would risk her career for the sake of £1,500. How many Tory MPs is it now that have been found to have been up to no good? I've lost count.
The relativity should be applied by the law in judgement and punishment if applicable. Now, you and I might want the law to operate differently, but that’s a different question. The media is biased one way or the other definitely. Today’s Times has a lot on Rayner. But it was also the paper which actually investigated and broke the Menzies story, which sounds like something infinitely weird. Both cases have had MPs of opposite sides hassling the police to investigate, presumably for pre election political points scoring. Seems like anything is better than discussing the rather major issues, home and abroad, that we are facing. This version of ersatz democracy is becoming farcical. And people get wound up when I tell them I don’t vote very often.
From afar, the UK political scene looks like like a very very bad joke Sunak is a pygmy following the US coat tails and Starmer seems lost between Labour ideology and the reality of possibly running the UK Both options are frankly terrifying
OK another relatively innocent question from me....(but with connotations obviously) Has anyone tried to enter the wrong pub on match day and been told that as I am obviously a QPR fan (bobble hat probably)...I couldnt come in Has anyone tried to go to away match and got a ticket for the home stand and been denied entry (actually I havent ...but when I have gone in to home areas I have been VERY GOOD) Has anyone tried to cross a road (lets say playing Aston Villa a couple of years ago) and been prevented by a copper, because you are (obviously) aRangers fans have to go the other way....and been physically prevented . Just wondering what the difference is .... (in each case it was probably for my own safety, and to prevent a scene...or the possibility of such)
I’ll bite. If the Palestine mob wish to be treated like football fans that’s fine with me. And yes I’ve sat in the home end plenty of times.
A better analogy is - you were walking home after work as normal, came across the football crowd that called you a murderer and a Nazi and threatened you with violence, and the police rush over and tell you if you don't leave and go elsewhere, they'll arrest you for offending the sensibilities of the hateful football crowd
The point I am making . The police said to him he was overtly or obviously Jewish. When I go to a football match..I am overtly or obviously a QPR fan. And when the police tell me not to do something on the whole I dont ( because I realise they are doing for my safety, to avoid a worse situation). I am not talking about the rights of Palestinian marches etc here...I was just talking about the police response to the man ( and very rude and nasty things have been shouted at me, and I have been threatened too...a while ago I must admit..even hooligans don't usually bother with 70 year old grey haired grannies)
The staunch feminist that I am would equate this stuff to the rozzers telling a woman she was asking to be sexually assaulted by wearing clothing considered too revealing for some.
A lot of things are best left to the imagination bobmid, and that includes beautiful young ladies as well as chubby old grannies
Had a think You are right Uber, but there are still two sceanarios here ...1. if the Rozzer stopped a young lady from walking into a gang of boozed up/ drugged up lads ...by saying "young lady ( see is obviously/ overtly a pretty young girl ) I wouldn't walk that way, because they are all stoned out of their minds and I don't trust them an inch... GOOD 2. A rozzer saying " those girls deserved to be molested because they were provocative/ revealing clothes" BAD.. It is the exact circumstances of the event ...not what was exactly said. Thanks for that...cleared my thoughts a bit I think in this case, the rozzer was right, to suggest the guy didn't cross the road into the march....hecwas acting without malace
To be fair even I don’t think he was entirely in the right. He went there looking for something to happen. It wasn’t a random bloke out shopping. But, the words of the copper were very stupid. It shows up the Met’s tactics for policing these things.
