The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
SpursDisciple said:
Have to say, I don't think he should be named until or unless there is a case to proceed with charging. Removing the whip from Julian Lewis was disgraceful, but that doesn't excuse dragging a man's name through the mud until you know there is a case to answer. Have to separate the people (allegedly) involved and the general principle. There are double standards when you recall the Cliff Richard case (Police invited the press to cover the initial arrest) but in general I think anonymity until we know there is a credible case. You have to announce then so that potential witnesses can come forward (on both sides).

It follows then that removing the whip would have to wait, as that would rather give away the name.
Click to expand...
There's a certain beautiful irony about how the Tories have normalised lying for a decade, to the point there's several absolute whoppers from Cameron, May and especially De Pfeffel forever enshrined in the Hansard that it fell to fact checkers to debunk after the fact when the Narrative had already been set so the lies had become fact by default, so they have little grounds for complaint about what amounts to an educated guess about the identity of the ex-minister in their mid-50s who was arrested as, while it may not be a curated, has a better grounding in fact than any sound bite from PMQs
 
SpursDisciple said:
Have to say, I don't think he should be named until or unless there is a case to proceed with charging. Removing the whip from Julian Lewis was disgraceful, but that doesn't excuse dragging a man's name through the mud until you know there is a case to answer. Have to separate the people (allegedly) involved and the general principle. There are double standards when you recall the Cliff Richard case (Police invited the press to cover the initial arrest) but in general I think anonymity until we know there is a credible case. You have to announce then so that potential witnesses can come forward (on both sides).

It follows then that removing the whip would have to wait, as that would rather give away the name.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that nobody expects justice to be done and the Tories already appear to have attempted a cover-up.
 
I've heard of a "School for Scoundrels" but....there must be a "School for Liars" where politicians are sent to learn their craft!!!!
 
bigsmithy9 said:
I've heard of a "School for Scoundrels" but....there must be a "School for Liars" where politicians are sent to learn their craft!!!!
Click to expand...
There is

Eton
PleaseNotPoll said:
I think the problem is that nobody expects justice to be done and the Tories already appear to have attempted a cover-up.
Click to expand...
The story;s already falling apart, as the initial version said they knew a month ago - but it;s since come to light the initial complaint was made four months ago

Just a reminder, but four months ago the country hadn't begun lockdown yet...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alfie Conn
Thailand has laws against criticising the monarch, so pro-democracy protesters have gone Harry Potter themed.
They're not talking about the King, honest. It's He Who Must Not Be Named! <laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon
.....and the American people still allow dipstick to run riot in the White House.......and ride the Air Force 1 Jumbo jet down to his local golf court at....how much a flight?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back