This whole thing with Lineker has gone horribly for the Tories. It's opened them up to all manner of questions and easy hits. As for North of the border, the SNP are losing ground to Labour badly, according to the polls. That's self-inflicted, admittedly. The leadership campaign has been a disaster, so far. Beergate or whatever they dubbed it was a terrible decision that backfired completely. Starmer said that he'd quit if he was found to have done wrong and that they should investigate. They found nothing and the contrast with bullshitting Boris continues to this day. He had to quit, albeit for supporting a pervert and he's still under investigation to this day. Getting involved with any of the strikes would be a bad idea. The Tories are ****ing it all up and it's tainting them completely. Right now it's just another example of Broken Britain. Brexit's a ****ing plague. It was a terrible idea and it'll be demonstrated to be so over the years. Covid and Ukraine being invaded by Russia has given it's supporters excuses right now. It'll become clear over time that this is the case and touching it now would be silly. Any move in that direction would make the next election another ****ing referendum. It would be stupid to go near it now.
The Lineker thing has gone far worse for the BBC than the Tories, especially after Sunak dropped them in it last week. However it hasn't opened the Tories up for easy hits for one very simple reason: Yvette Cooper and Emily Thornberry were both on record supporting the BBC suspending Lineker last week, only for Labour to change their tune by the weekend - which leaves Starmer open for another airing of the old "Captain Hindsight" jab if he brings it up. Is that on Cooper and Thornberry more than Starmer? Obviously yes, but when have the facts ever mattered to the Tories or the Tory cheerleaders we call our national press? As for the SNP, their campaign hasn't been a disaster. They dream of it being a disaster, instead what they have is a cataclysm and that is mainly a result of this problem Kate Forbes has when she opens her mouth - although she seems to be trying to avoid that issue by answering questions in Scots Gaelic so journalists can't ask follow-up questions. And no, that is not a joke, here's the clip of her doing just that And they're still not asking what her favourite dinosaur is, FFS The whole issue with the Durham non-story is that, by appointing Sue Gray, Starmer's given the rabid section of society reason to believe that their beloved BoBo was stitched up and the whole Partygate enquiry was a sham. Complete bollocks of course, but that's the thing with insane people: you can't reason with them, as a cursory glance at Spurs' Twitter fanbase reveals at depressingly regular intervals, but you can reasonably guess who they'd vote for at an election. And the timing of announcing her appointment was clearly ill-judged One thing that does have to be said is that Starmer is a large part of why the last election was a Jonestown referendum, after he pledged for a second referendum without consulting Labour brass before he did it, which was also against Labour policy at the time (which is why Owen Smith was booted out the Shadow Cabinet, as he stated a second referendum should be policy and was out the door within 24 hours) which tied their hands and gave the Tory press an open goal, albeit that open goal happened to be an atomic bomb and the ball was a second atomic bomb while hedge fund managers whose assets were safely stashed in offshore accounts eagerly shouted "You can do it!" at the gormless whelp saying how much they wanted to kick the ball into the net
And the Lineler saga has just taken a very interesting turn ... As some may be aware, he is currently in dispute with the tax man for a bill of ~ 4m quid Specifically, they appear to be arguing on the basis that he is a "disguised employee" of those he has worked for - and they are not a client he is providing services to (see under IR35, "personal service companies" etc) . One of said "clients" (I would contend the primary one) is the BBC. One of the traits of "disguised employment" is the degree of "control" the "client" has over the person. So if the BBC can control his Twattery, then he can be deemed to be subject the same degree of control of other BBC workers. The speculation is that his legal team sh*t themselves at the prospect of the BBC imposing the above, and that since the incident this and not "free speech" is the real motivation for him now.
Doesn't matter. Lineker isn't the issue here, the BBC and Tory Party are. His original post had nothing to do with his tax status and neither did their reaction to it.
I really don't understand how anyone still contests the Trump/Russia connection. It's just so blatant.
Her response would be that she didn't murder anyone, of course. I'm not convinced that she did and I'm not 100% that she didn't, either. Regardless of that it's a rather tasteless comment, as a young woman was still murdered.
Do you have a source for Cooper and Thornberry supporting the BBC suspending Lineker? I don't think that this is true. They both criticised his comment, but didn't call for a suspension. The SNP campaign has been a disaster according to the polling. Labour have risen dramatically and the independence vote has swung to no. I'm surprised, as I didn't think that Sturgeon was that significant to SNP voters. Boris Johnson's about to get another grilling on Partygate. The Tories are stuck because most of their MPs want him gone, but the members don't.
It's hardly the only time she's made that exact same joke on Twitter, either Interesting that she insists on making Meredith Kircher's murder all about herself...
Assuming for a minute that she's innocent, then I can understand why she'd be pissed off. The prosecution for her case were terrible, as was the initial investigation. She seems to have forgotten that there was a much more obvious victim, though.
Oh it matters a lot, if via the "law of unintended consequences" you give the tax man more weaponry in their fight with you, or others working for (sorry - "providing services" to) the BBC.
You're right. But equally stupid to commit the comment at all, as, even if they personally didn't agree, to public do so just gave the Tory mob a free pass...
Here's the thing about that: assuming she was innocent actually makes her behaviour, specifically how every single time where something trends on Twitter that's tangentially linked to studying abroad she pops up with the exact same "Well my time study abroad sucked, tee hee!" joke, even more suspect By and large, if somebody is wrongfully convicted of murder they tend to keep their heads down afterwards, for example Colin Stagg has largely kept quiet after the Met Police tried to fit him up for the murder of Rachel Nickell, similarly Barry George didn't look to be in the public eye after being acquitted of murdering Jill Dando Now look at the people who have sought to be in the public eye after either being acquitted, or being released for whatever other reason OJ Simpson, who wrote a book about what the murder of his wife would have been like if he did it (which he never intended to publish, making that even dodgier) Mary Bell, a child serial killer (as in, she was eight when murdering people) who generated one hell of a kerfuffle in the late 90s when releasing an autobiography Issei Sagawa, who really took the piss not with a book but by writing restaurant reviews...after his book describing what eating somebody was like Seito Sakakibara, who not released an autobiography where he went into great detail about the children he murdered as a teenager, but had one hell of a ****ed up website to promote himself Charles Sohbraj, who as soon as he was released from jail in India after twenty years he returned to France and was keen to sell his story...then went back to Nepal where he was wanted for multiple murders, and after spending a further twenty years Nepalese jail late last year he returned to France started pontificating about his innocence Knox's highly suspect actions since returning to the US definitely fits in with the patterns of the above, as they want to make a spectacle of themselves as if they were the true victims
At this point can we accuse Martin Daubney of exploiting his own kind for profit considering what a monumental tit he is?
