The future of the Labour Party

[grunt]

Keir Starmer tells Peston he doesn't believe President Trump disrespected the G7 by leaving the summit early

'Not in the slightest... He was here for the full day of sessions yesterday and expressly stayed for the purpose of discussion of the Middle East'

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Keir Starmer tells Peston he doesn't believe President Trump disrespected the G7 by leaving the summit early

'Not in the slightest... He was here for the full day of sessions yesterday and expressly stayed for the purpose of discussion of the Middle East'

I know Starmer is in a difficult position as regards our historical closeness to the USA, I appreciate his need to "ride 2 horses simultaneously" at times and I get that a co-ordinated effort of some others being tough whilst Starmer is all pallsy with Trump might pay off in terms of getting him to do the right thing... but it absolutely makes my stomach crawl to see my elected representative cosying up to the prick like this. Utterly nauseating.

It would probably feel quite good in many ways to be Canadian right now, having Carney taking absolutely no **** from him, and very publicly too.

[JimBHibees]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I know Starmer is in a difficult position as regards our historical closeness to the USA, I appreciate his need to "ride 2 horses simultaneously" at times and I get that a co-ordinated effort of some others being tough whilst Starmer is all pallsy with Trump might pay off in terms of getting him to do the right thing... but it absolutely makes my stomach crawl to see my elected representative cosying up to the prick like this. Utterly nauseating.

It would probably feel quite good in many ways to be Canadian right now, having Carney taking absolutely no **** from him, and very publicly too.

Yep nauseating sums it up perfectly

[cabbageandribs1875]

[cabbageandribs1875]

wee shame for Sir Keir

[MKHIBEE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

wee shame for Sir Keir

I’m surprised that there are so many still satisfied with his performance. Who on earth did they ask? His family?

[Bostonhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’m surprised that there are so many still satisfied with his performance. Who on earth did they ask? His family?

A big fat Orange American guy?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[grunt]

[jamie_1875]

I am glad Anas Sarwar is focusing on the NHS when you read things like this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx234drv3dgo

"The percentage of Scottish cancer patients receiving treatment within the target time is the lowest since records began, new figures show.

Data released by Public Health Scotland, external reveals almost a third of patients referred to the NHS in Scotland with an urgent suspicion of cancer are waiting longer than the 62-day target to start treatment."

[He's here!]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Been pointed out already he was a defence barrister at the time, not a politician. Sultana's at it.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Been pointed out already he was a defence barrister at the time, not a politician. Sultana's at it.

So what?

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So what?

So he defended murderers and pedophiles as was his job, he has the right now to criticise murderers without being a hypocrit

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So he defended murderers and pedophiles as was his job, he has the right now to criticise murderers without being a hypocrit

What's that got to do with anything?

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What's that got to do with anything?

You must be at the ham if you can't see the connection?

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You must be at the ham if you can't see the connection?

No I'm not.

You can't just trot out the line about him defending "murderers and paedophiles" because every defence will be different based on the facts of the case. The only connection is that both cases are about criminal damage and Starmer has had something to say about both of them. There's no connection to him defending against other crimes, it's completely irrelevant and a red herring.

Regarding the Fairford attacks, his defence was that their actions were justified in that they were reasonable in trying to prevent war crimes. It seems that this defence was actually accepted by the jury on appeal - for some of the defendants, not all of them. He wasn't saying that it wasn't criminal damage, he was saying that it was reasonable as an action to prevent a war crime.

Now he's a politician, he's saying that criminal damage is NOT reasonable as an action to prevent a war crime. Furthermore, he's saying anyone who carries out criminal damage against an MoD site should be treated as a proscribed terrorist.

The way in which he may have defended potential murderers and paedophiles has nothing to do with his hypocrisy in this instance.

[He's here!]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No I'm not.

You can't just trot out the line about him defending "murderers and paedophiles" because every defence will be different based on the facts of the case. The only connection is that both cases are about criminal damage and Starmer has had something to say about both of them. There's no connection to him defending against other crimes, it's completely irrelevant and a red herring.

Regarding the Fairford attacks, his defence was that their actions were justified in that they were reasonable in trying to prevent war crimes. It seems that this defence was actually accepted by the jury on appeal - for some of the defendants, not all of them. He wasn't saying that it wasn't criminal damage, he was saying that it was reasonable as an action to prevent a war crime.

Now he's a politician, he's saying that criminal damage is NOT reasonable as an action to prevent a war crime. Furthermore, he's saying anyone who carries out criminal damage against an MoD site should be treated as a proscribed terrorist.

The way in which he may have defended potential murderers and paedophiles has nothing to do with his hypocrisy in this instance.

Sorry, but you're incorrect there. As a defence barrister he won't have chosen those clients. He'll have been appointed to defend them. It's known as the cab rank system, which helps ensure everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Nor will Starmer have necessarily agreed (privately) with his own legal argument. He'd just have been doing his job to act in his client's best interests. If his personal/political view is that this amounts to terrorist behaviour that's entirely separate.

I often find Starmer irritating on numerous issues but there's no hypocrisy here.

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No I'm not.

You can't just trot out the line about him defending "murderers and paedophiles" because every defence will be different based on the facts of the case. The only connection is that both cases are about criminal damage and Starmer has had something to say about both of them. There's no connection to him defending against other crimes, it's completely irrelevant and a red herring.

Regarding the Fairford attacks, his defence was that their actions were justified in that they were reasonable in trying to prevent war crimes. It seems that this defence was actually accepted by the jury on appeal - for some of the defendants, not all of them. He wasn't saying that it wasn't criminal damage, he was saying that it was reasonable as an action to prevent a war crime.

Now he's a politician, he's saying that criminal damage is NOT reasonable as an action to prevent a war crime. Furthermore, he's saying anyone who carries out criminal damage against an MoD site should be treated as a proscribed terrorist.

The way in which he may have defended potential murderers and paedophiles has nothing to do with his hypocrisy in this instance.

Absolute nonsense. He should and must defend those who he disagrees with as I'm sure he did many times. He should defend people who deface planes or even war criminals. There is zero hypocrisy in him privately disagreeing with those he gave a fair defence

[JimBHibees]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Absolute nonsense. He should and must defend those who he disagrees with as I'm sure he did many times. He should defend people who deface planes or even war criminals. There is zero hypocrisy in him privately disagreeing with those he gave a fair defence

Who said he privately disagrees with that position

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Who said he privately disagrees with that position

Well that is his position now. What he defended in court has relation to that whatsoever

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Absolute nonsense. He should and must defend those who he disagrees with as I'm sure he did many times. He should defend people who deface planes or even war criminals. There is zero hypocrisy in him privately disagreeing with those he gave a fair defence

You are completely missing the point. The fact that he defended them has NOTHING to do with the discussion, which relates to the argument he used in their defence.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well that is his position now. What he defended in court has relation to that whatsoever

I'm guessing there's a "no" missing here. You seem to say that what he said then is the opposite of what he's saying now, so I'll take that as agreement and we can move on.

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You are completely missing the point. The fact that he defended them has NOTHING to do with the discussion, which relates to the argument he used in their defence.

I'm guessing there's a "no" missing here. You seem to say that what he said then is the opposite of what he's saying now, so I'll take that as agreement and we can move on.

I don't think I've ever seen any argument so ridiculous. He defended them as was his job, now your calling him a hypocrit for saying a different opinion from his job. But yeah it's going in circles

[He's here!]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You are completely missing the point. The fact that he defended them has NOTHING to do with the discussion, which relates to the argument he used in their defence.

I'm guessing there's a "no" missing here. You seem to say that what he said then is the opposite of what he's saying now, so I'll take that as agreement and we can move on.

The argument he used in their defence was simply that. A legal argument. Not a statement of his personal/political beliefs. That's why there's nothing hypocritical. It's pretty straightforward.

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c335406gxdvo

First time British jets will carry nuclear warheads since the Cold War era.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You are completely missing the point. The fact that he defended them has NOTHING to do with the discussion, which relates to the argument he used in their defence.

I'm guessing there's a "no" missing here. You seem to say that what he said then is the opposite of what he's saying now, so I'll take that as agreement and we can move on.

The "argument" isn't his, though. It's the argument of the client and their instructing solicitors.

If he refused to take that on, he'd be open to disciplinary action.

[MKHIBEE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The argument he used in their defence was simply that. A legal argument. Not a statement of his personal/political beliefs. That's why there's nothing hypocritical. It's pretty straightforward.

I can see the reasoning behind people saying that, in this case, he is not hypocritical.
However there are instances when he has been nothing but a hypocrite. A thoroughly shameful, incompetent, embarrassing leader of a once great party now reduced to a shambles.

[He's here!]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The "argument" isn't his, though. It's the argument of the client and their instructing solicitors.

If he refused to take that on, he'd be open to disciplinary action.

Precisely. The only reason anyone is fabricating this as an example of hypocrisy is because they don't like Starmer.

[MKHIBEE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The argument he used in their defence was simply that. A legal argument. Not a statement of his personal/political beliefs. That's why there's nothing hypocritical. It's pretty straightforward.

I can see the reasoning behind people saying that, in this case, he is not hypocritical.
However there are instances when he has been nothing but a hypocrite. A thoroughly shameful, incompetent, embarrassing leader of a once great party now reduced to a shambles.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The "argument" isn't his, though. It's the argument of the client and their instructing solicitors.

So how do we know when a lawyer is lying? I guess we don't. Lying is his profession, he'd be disbarred if he didn't lie? So pleased we've got a liar as Prime Minister. How very depressing this all is.

[MKHIBEE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So how do we know when a lawyer is lying? I guess we don't. Lying is his profession, he'd be disbarred if he didn't lie? So pleased we've got a liar as Prime Minister. How very depressing this all is.

When the jury finds against his client

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The argument he used in their defence was simply that. A legal argument. Not a statement of his personal/political beliefs. That's why there's nothing hypocritical. It's pretty straightforward.

How do we know that what he said in the Fairford case was simply a defence? Maybe he believed it. Maybe his support for Yvette Cooper today is simply a legal argument used in her defence? How do we know what our Prime Minister stands for?