Keir Starmer

117 M34 said:
Guy in front is the owner.
Le tissier is just to the left.
He's in the director's box not in the singing area.
Click to expand...
www.dailyecho.co.uk

Rishi Sunak in the crowd at St Mary's as Saints play Plymouth

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has been spotted taking selfies with Saints fans at St Mary's Stadium at Southampton FC play Plymouth
www.dailyecho.co.uk www.dailyecho.co.uk

And V Plymouth aswell, Honestly believe had Starmer accepted a seat in directors box rather than a premium box for his use the reaction would be different.
 
metalblue said:
Next you’ll be telling me he brought his own suits.
Click to expand...
Almost certainly didn't pay admission fee for that game but there is a world of difference in the PM being guest of the club to having a full hospitality box.
 
This is where the Labour Party is at. Only weeks after being elected the Prime Minister and the deputy Prime Minister has to publicly come out and state they won’t take anymore free clothes. Imagine the outrage on here if that was Boris and his missus. You really do have to chuckle.


IMG_2430.pngIMG_2431.png
 
PPT said:
This is where the Labour Party is at. Only weeks after being elected the Prime Minister and the deputy Prime Minister has to publicly come out and state they won’t take anymore free clothes. Imagine the outrage on here if that was Boris and his missus. You really do have to chuckle.


View attachment 132385View attachment 132386
Click to expand...


The free clothes always looked like a waste on Raynor she has that second hand look about her, Starmers however must have cost a fortune.
 
My thinking on the clothes and entertainment business is why the heck can’t they buy their own clothes?

They earn enough money to buy their own. The Starmers have 2 children, Angela Rayner has 3 and Rachel Reeves has 2, there are people in this country bringing up their children on 1 wage/salary with 2, 3 or 4 children not expecting anyone else to pay for their clothes.

I thought oh well we must be paying them a pittance but then saw their salaries.
They can’t even use the ‘ excuse’ that they are paying for their education. (Thank goodness).

Live within your means. Cut your coat according to your cloth!!
I’m sorry I can’t see any reason for someone else to buy their clothes.

The only time anyone buys me clothes is Christmas or Birthdays and even then only a Jumper, a blouse or a cardigan. I just wouldn’t allow it, I have my pride.
Puzzled of Eccles.

EDIT: Plus the entertainment, pay for your own!!!
 
Eccles Blue said:
My thinking on the clothes and entertainment business is why the heck can’t they buy their own clothes?

They earn enough money to buy their own. The Starmers have 2 children, Angela Rayner has 3 and Rachel Reeves has 2, there are people in this country bringing up their children on 1 wage/salary with 2, 3 or 4 children not expecting anyone else to pay for their clothes.

I thought oh well we must be paying them a pittance but then saw their salaries.
They can’t even use the ‘ excuse’ that they are paying for their education. (Thank goodness).

Live within your means. Cut your coat according to your cloth!!
I’m sorry I can’t see any reason for someone else to buy their clothes.

The only time anyone buys me clothes is Christmas or Birthdays and even then only a Jumper, a blouse or a cardigan. I just wouldn’t allow it, I have my pride.
Puzzled of Eccles.
Click to expand...


The frock's in the post :)
 
Am I the only one who finds it totally unbelievable and incomprehensible that the head of the CPS had no knowledge interaction or influence in the cases brought against Saville ad Al-fayed?

It is just not true, such stella high profile cases would have been the subject of very high level discussion and the highest level meetings and the head of the CPS and minister for justice would certainly have been briefed if not instrumental in the decisions taken not to proceed or prosecute.

If he wasn't involved in either of these cases, if they never did "cross my desk" then what the fuck is his role in the CPS? To make decisions on whether theft cases of £50 should proceed? These cases are about as high profile as you can get and he expects us to believe they never crossed his desk.... complete and utter bullshit.

They really do take us for fools. And there are plenty of fools that believe this bullshit walk among us.
 
hampshireblue said:
Labour are owning it. They are the ones who are, at present introducing it. It wasn't in the manifesto because they didn't know the extent of the finances-or maybe you believe they had full access to everything?

But to put it into context, not a single person has, as yet, lost any money. Not a single person is any worse off today. It is highly likely that people will suffer more from the forthcoming increase in fuel prices than they will the withdrawal of WFA. Yet I haven't read anything for you moaning about the energy market and how it works-apologies if you have and I'm happy to be corrected. I think it scandalous that the first £380 that we all pay in energy bills buys not one Kwh of energy. What are your views on this?
Click to expand...

IMG_4303.gif
 
BigJoe#1 said:
Am I the only one who finds it totally unbelievable and incomprehensible that the head of the CPS had no knowledge interaction or influence in the cases brought against Saville ad Al-fayed?

It is just not true, such stella high profile cases would have been the subject of very high level discussion and the highest level meetings and the head of the CPS and minister for justice would certainly have been briefed if not instrumental in the decisions taken not to proceed or prosecute.

If he wasn't involved in either of these cases, if they never did "cross my desk" then what the fuck is his role in the CPS? To make decisions on whether theft cases of £50 should proceed? These cases are about as high profile as you can get and he expects us to believe they never crossed his desk.... complete and utter bullshit.

They really do take us for fools. And there are plenty of fools that believe this bullshit walk among us.
Click to expand...

I believe he identified there was a problem at the CPS where cases like this DIDN'T get referred to him, or other senior figures.

It's pretty well established that he introduced a new senior role at the CPS to look into this, and that when the Saville was being looked at again, this did result in him seeing the case and taking action.

So, yes it is correct that despite being head of the CPS, he didn't initially see the Saville case, and that he also put in place systems which should have picked it up if they'd been in place at the time.
 
PPT said:
This is where the Labour Party is at. Only weeks after being elected the Prime Minister and the deputy Prime Minister has to publicly come out and state they won’t take anymore free clothes. Imagine the outrage on here if that was Boris and his missus. You really do have to chuckle.


View attachment 132385View attachment 132386
Click to expand...

Fuck me this is embarrassing. Charity Starmer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PPT
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top