British Politics spam thread

Why did ITV bother with an election debate when neither of the two leaders involved has actually published a Manifesto yet? Officially neither of them has any policies, just soundbites. From reports it just ended up a shouting match and one of these dolts will be Prime Minister on July the Fifth.

All Starmer has had for the last two years is soundbites. The working class man with a £2m house and a big fat pension written into law is as duplicitous as any politician currently active. He has already reneged on all of his commitments that he made to get elected as Labour leader and changes his mind about anything he says he is going to do within days of saying it.

Sunak is an irrelevance. Everyone knows that his party is going to crash and even his own party members did not vote for him to be Prime Minister so he cannot claim any political legitimacy.

Neither leader is prepared to tell anyone what they actually intend doing, just mudslinging about how bad the other one will be in office. It does not occur to Labour that the reason they have not been in power for 14 years is because of the unelectable leaders that they kept offering as an alternative to the Conservatives.

 

Will they be having a debate out at sea?

 

I hope not, that has the potential to be worse than the one last night.

 

A last desperate attempt from Cnut Sunak to turn the tide.

 

Genghis Khan's decree exempting Buddhists (toyin), Christians (erke'üd), Taoists (xiansheng) and Muslims (dashmad) from tax duties were continued by his successors until the end of the Yuan dynasty in 1368

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Mongol_Empire

 

You mean he changed his policies once the Tories spaffed all the money away? What a ****ing surprise. If he kept them and didn't fulfill them you mongs would be gloating about it, it's a lose-lose situation and the Tories are to blame.

Brexit ****ed this country. We're 100bn (at least) worse off per year. The ****ty trade deals signed with some islands of Australia or *****lia aren't going to make up for lost trade with the EU. You clueless ****ing gammon ****s.

 

Most UK MPs are taking money from the pro Israeli terrorist lobby

**** there's about 70 US Congress members who have sworn allegiance to terrorist Israel

But Rochdale is a concern

Nigel "up the Ra" Farange and Galloway are both grifters but Galloway has his red lines

 

Working class people are allowed to be successful and buy a nice house.

 

How did the tories spaffing money away effect his 10 pledges he broke within a year?

How does a lost trade deal 8 years ago effect pledges he made and broke over the last 4?

The only promise Starmer kept was to Jimmy Savile

 

Now then, now then LOL

 

He had nothing to do with Saville, it's low-IQ mongs that think he's responsible.

 

Not directly, but he was head of the CPS at the time, I think.

 

Irrelevant. It's been debunked numerous times. Only desperate gullible ****wits cling onto it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/60213975.amp

 

Head of CPS

Had nothing to do with Savile

Had everything to do with all other convictions

How lucky was that

 

I don't care one way or the other, but the laws of the jungle tell us that the buck eventually stops with the head of companies etc. People are always going to mention that he was head of the CPS at the time.

 

From that link. BBC

Sir Keir was head of the Crown Prosecution Service in 2009 when Surrey Police interviewed Savile and consulted a CPS lawyer who decided there was insufficient evidence for a prosecution to take place.

As Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Keir Starmer was the most senior public prosecutor in England and Wales and responsible for leading the CPS.

In 2012, Sir Keir commissioned a report, external from Alison Levitt QC into why Savile was not prosecuted.

In three cases investigated by Surrey Police, no prosecutions were brought on the basis that none of the victims was prepared to give evidence in court.

The report suggested that had the victims known there were other people making similar complaints they might have been prepared to do so. Prosecutions could have been possible "had the police and prosecutors taken a different approach".

 

The obvious source of information on Saville should be the ones who protected him

 

https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/

 

He was not the reviewing lawyer, but as head of CPS he has to take some responsibility. There have been numerous examples in all walks of life of the head guy having to resign or take the blame for the failings of somebody below them.

 

The victims wouldn't testify, should he have forced them to?