Jump to content

Defending the indefensible - another PM thread

malumbu

By malumbu
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sephiroth

Sephiroth

Posted
Posted

wtf is the matter with you?


where do you get off with a post like that - I said nothing of the sort


is it because I said "the MAIN aim was.." re next election - there can be more than one devastating effect/aim


Answer the points made instead of this nonsense

Sephiroth

Sephiroth

Posted
Posted

Categorically yes


As has been pointed out, there is no record of Starmer being harrassed and called paedo prior to Johnson's comments


And again, acceptance that what he said was wrong is across the political spectrum, and not confined to this forum


And the reason people think it was wrong for him to say is because of the risks involved of something like the other night happening. Or worse


And for you - or anyone - to try and deny any link at all - is just grim


There are still people (no surprise if you are one of them) who think the events at the White House was nothing to do with Trump - but people in these elevated positions know how dog whistles work

JohnL

JohnL

Posted
Posted

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Okay, let me try and put it in the simplest terms

> I can for you.

>

> Do you think Johnson was responsible for, or

> caused, Starmer to be harassed by a group of

> people the other night?


YES


Because psychologically he was advised to do this before (it was pre-planned not spur of the moment) to associate in the minds of voters Starmer and Savile - this is what analysts are telling us and why Johnson won't apologise.


The people who harassed Starmer did exactly as planned but with more aggression.

ianr

ianr

Posted
Posted

JohnL wrote:

> Because psychologically he was advised to do

> this before (it was pre-planned not spur of

> the moment) to associate in the minds of voters

> Starmer and Savile - this is what analysts are

> telling us and why Johnson won't apologise.


Information sources please. I'd like to be able to judge the veracity, likeliness, etc of reports at first hand.


My own, rebuttable, presumption about Johnson's refusal to apologise further has been that it was probably based on previous experience of the other side blaming him as a departmental head for the actions of subordinates. I guess that ploughing through PMQs etc might well find some examples.

keano77

keano77

Posted
Posted

Unbelievable.


KK asked a reasonable question and the CORRECT answer is Boris?s slur was used by at least one of the protestors (among other insults) but the slur did not cause these protestors to get out of bed on Monday morning and decide to head to Westminster and wait around in the hope that Starmer might appear so they could call him paedo and shout Savile at him.


The protestors had better things to do involving all manner of conspiracy theories and it just so happened Starmer came along. It was opportunism.


In short, to say a categorical yes that Boris was responsible for, or caused, Starmer to be harassed is WRONG and deluded.

diable rouge

diable rouge

Posted
Posted

It's not just about ''blaming him as a departmental head for the actions of subordinates''.


What's upset many people ian is that Johnson knowingly wrongly smeared Starmer with the failure to prosecute Saville, and therefore the associated child sex aspect therein. That crossed a line of decency.


I don't recall anyone on 'the other side' ever criticising Johnson for the mistakes of underlings with similar repulsive overtures...

diable rouge

diable rouge

Posted
Posted

Sorry to disappoint you keano, but I'm not in the public eye let alone the PM, so I, and anyone else on here for that matter, doesn't have to adhere to the high standards we expect of those that hold elected public office.


Anyway, shouldn't you be washing your socks tonight?...

JohnL

JohnL

Posted
Posted

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> The protestors had better things to do involving

> all manner of conspiracy theories and it just so

> happened Starmer came along. It was opportunism.

>

> In short, to say a categorical yes that Boris was

> responsible for, or caused, Starmer to be harassed

> is WRONG and deluded.


Go to Telegram and check out what they've been talking about since Boris mentioned it.


"In one Telegram group, Hine appeared to share a video of herself at the protest where she claimed the Labour leader was ?told some truths?, spurring her users to claim ?police protecting the ultimate paedophile?."


https://inews.co.uk/news/boris-johnson-jimmy-savile-slur-far-right-telegram-conspiracy-groups-1448637

Dogkennelhillbilly

Dogkennelhillbilly

Posted
Posted

The Savile thing is just another example of Johnson trying to say something outrageous and Google search exploding in an attempt to distract attention from his own misconduct. The fact that he's going as far as to give fuel to conspiracy theories (as opposed to just nonsense about making model buses for fun) shows how deep in trouble he thinks he is.


Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Keano has a

> long long history (along with uncle) of not just

> being "right wing" but outright wrong and

> offensive. If people lose patience and call him on

> it that doesn't mean we drop the "mask of

> tolerance"


Yeah but you also don't get to play the civility card when you've just called someone a sock-wanker.

diable rouge

diable rouge

Posted
Posted

Nope, last Friday there was a deadline for the 'suspects' to fill out a Met questionnaire, so presume they are now collating that info and cross-referencing with Sue Gray report and anything else they've unearthed.


Standby for the Tories next line of apologia...''now isn't the time to change leader because of the Russkis etc''...

diable rouge

diable rouge

Posted
Posted

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


Standby for the Tories next line of apologia...''now isn't the time to change leader because of the Russkis etc''...



This could be Defence Secretary Ben Wallace's ''Hold my beer'' moment...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • alice
      Just found these matches!

      By alice · Posted

      And from what I remember, she eventually cut the tea shop for a similar  reason to chandelier.  Chariot style buggies
    • Sue
      Just found these matches!

      By Sue · Posted

      Oh yes, it could have been about there, I can't remember exactly. At one point there seemed to be a load of pizza places opening on NCR. I vaguely remember the one we used to use was put out of business by another one which opened. Wasn't Grace and Favour's food offering more of a tea shop at the back of the actual shop? If memory serves the owner, whose name escapes me now, was one of the earliest people I know to move to Hastings. Which must now be crammed with South East Londoners 🤣
    • Sue
      Excellent Christmas meal at Franklins!

      By Sue · Posted

      That Neal Street veggie cafe was great. Food For Thought ❤️
    • James Barber
      The Mansion Tax

      By James Barber · Posted

      Hi Dogkennelhillbilly, You won't be aware that i proposed infill sites for housing in East Dulwich - the garages on Bassano Street and Henslowe that respectively became 1-4 Dill Terrace family houses and the 78, 80, 80A Henslowe Street family houses. These were council owned garages and it was frustrating how slow the council was to go from my idea to completion (roughly eight years). East Dulwich has some other vacant WW2 bomb sites I'm guessing that the private land owners have been sitting on.Owe for a land tax for vacant land.  WRT to the builders yard by East dulwich station. Southwark Council has an agreed policy the area should remain suburban 2/3 storeys maximum. But the approved scheme is 9 storeys of student accommodation. Very hard to put this genie back in the bottle. The council has recently publicly stated lower ratios of social housing will be required. I will be amazed if the developer doesn't submit another application now they have the 9 storeys approved but with significantly less social housing. The less social housing the higher the land values. The higher the land values the less social housing viability reports state are possible.  If we really want to increase home supply - Southwark have over 6,000 empty homes. Vancouver charges a low % of the value of empty homes and rapidly eased this problem. Parts of Wales have introduced under Article 4 planning permission is required for second homes seeing within 12 months a dramatic decrease in property prices. Southwark Council have Article 4 requirements - why not add this one? It takes National political will to solve this AND regional and local authorities such as the second home council tax premium and these being used promptly. 

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...