Jim Jeffies comedy routine on guns is a good watch. 1st and 2nd amendment comm comments etc. coming from an Aussie (many years) post Port Arthur. Search YouTube for it,funny and has a big dollop of truth about it.
When the Tories got like this, they done the right thing and changed the leadership. Starmer will do anything to cling on to power.
Ok nice deflection now let's take this back to the original conversation. You made derogatory comments about the person that was killed and based the foundation of it around his thoughts on gun laws. The problem was you didn't take it in it's full context, and I expect like many you didn't even know, you just spouted the **** being spouted on social media. ie Twitter and other sources. In the ful context that got mentioned by no one, he was making a comparison to vehicle deaths, to which I supplied a link via a fact checker. I also did a quick random search on google of vehicle deaths in America, the total for the past 4 years, to which I supplied the stats, showed a total of 160,000 deaths, now just think about that for a minute, it's ****ing disgraceful we accept this death toll continually every year in excess of 40,000 per year. Your excuse for the above was well we can't live without cars or words to that affect. Now let's look at the gun deaths, to which I also supplied the stats, and it became quickly obvious why Charlie Kirk made the comparison, because the numbers are very similar, one thing he never mentioned though in his orginal comments was 56% of gun deaths are suicide. The UK has shown for a number of years now that road deaths are uneccessary, not ok and not an acceptable part of life. We've changed a lot of legislation to make people more accountable, such as banning the use of mobile phones. Making people go on driver awareness courses. Making cars safer (worldwide), it is not acceptable even one death by a motor vehicle - and humans certainly don't need vehicles as much as you claim, we lived for thousands of years without them. So I find vehicle deaths as crass as gun deaths, the latter I would ban, but I'm British so certainly don't think it's right of me to tell the Americans what they should do. But no way is vehicle deaths ever acceptable, so the comparison if misjudged by Charlie Kirk was a correct one. So what more could we do, we could ban poor drivers for life, we could make prison sentences longer for road deaths, plenty can be done to improve on the numbers even more. I've done an advanced test decades years ago which taught what you can do to avoid an accident, it's customary to blame the other driver at fault, but it's what you could have done to avoid an accident with the poorer driver or careless pedestrian. It taught you defensive driving, how to reduce the risk on yourself. But I'll tell you what's really going on here, the comments about guns were to justify in someway his death, and I feel that's crass and you even called him evil. I'm no fan of Charlie, i know **** all about him, but let me remind you of your defence regardng vehicle deaths one last time.... You seem to have forgotten about the lunatic that tried to mow people down in Liverpool on parade day. Now that's for trial so we can't say anymore at this stage, but cars can be used as weapons to and often are, just the same as guns!
I'll also accept in my 45 years of driving sometimes it's just a case of being lucky or unlucky, and I've travelled as many miles as long distant lorry drivers when I was much younger, thankfully fate has treated me kindly and my driving record is unblemished, I'd like to put some of that down to being an experienced motorist, but I've made the same mistakes as other drivers, it's just I've got away with them, but please never find road deaths as an acceptable consequence because...
... absolutely ... and Starmer has acted decisively on the back of additional information that was not in the public domain at the time of Mandelson's appointment... ... and let's not forget, Mandelson was initially appointed US ambassador on the strength of another 'strong relationship' he had ... one with Donald J Trump ... the social circles they moved in eh?
He didn't act decisively that's total bollocks, I said 8 months ago that Mandelson should not be representing this country, that's how long it's taken him to act. Hopefully his removal will piss Trump off and stop him coming on this state visit, next week I think?
I said 'decisively on the back of additional information' that many, including me ... and you... saw for the first time yesterday... I'd say within 24 hours is pretty decisive ... but it's all about opinions
The reality is Starmer didnt act on new information. He sacked him because of the way Kemi crucified him in parliament and because of the pressure from his own backbenchers. Starmer was supporting him yesterday despite Mandelson’s position being clearly untenable.
The birthday letter from Mandelson to Epstein and related e-mails were released by US Lawmakers ...on Tuesday this week...
The explanation being given by the government for Mandelson’s sacking is that there was new information in the emails released between him and Jeffrey Epstein yesterday. Crucially, this new information was “materially different” from what was known at the time of his appointment. I have already heard from several people within Labour who anticipate that pressure will build on the government to release documents associated with the vetting process in order for the government to prove that that is indeed the case. Mandelson’s past relationship with Epstein was a matter of public record for some time before his appointment. What exactly did Starmer know, or not know, beyond that which was in the public domain? That question is not going to go away.
It wasn't decisive at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few more MP's that have to come to light yet OR European representatives. Mandelson never felt right to me, he looked like a Tory, he acted like a Tory, he also had his hands in the till like a Tory. Was also European Commissioner and he even used that role to his advantage with certain people and super yachts. Something very unsavoury about this character and Starmer must be blind as a bat not to see it. He didn't have to give him the job, he didn't have to put himself in that situation, but he did....now the question for me is why was that, what is Starmer not telling us. Mandelson is as shifty as they come.
Starmer employed him when it was already known that Mandelson had been mixing with Epstein before, during and after he had been convicted. It’s indefensible.
Thing is as well, I voted Labour in, I also stand by that they are currently better than any other party out there at the mo, but what I will not excuse is him making such a terrible mistake as this one. I hope he don't get ousted but this is not a good look for Labour and even worse knowing Trump is coming over soon.
I have a feeling Trump could reschedule his visit over here, now. Apart from Charlie Kirk being killed, I don’t think he wants more heat now about Epstein which will happen because of Mandelson’s dismissal. Politics over here and the US is ****ed. China and Russia must be rubbing their hands knowing the time for them to be ruling the world is coming.
Yeah I think his visit must clash with any potentital funeral date, Trump is due to arrive on the 16th Sept and leave on the 18th Sept, so unless they do the funeral after that date, Trump could otherwise cancel (I hope so) - as much as I don't want Trump here, I fear it will go ahead. I don't think there is any public facing meet scheduled for the visit, it will all be in protected grounds, because people will be wanting to protest, although I can't see that being avoided completely.
Can’t discuss the current PM without acknowledging the corruption, incompetence and criminality of the shysters whose mess he is left trying to clear up.
