mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
Come on Chippy, it's well known you hate Labour but I thought you were better than that.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
No mate, he CLEARLY influenced them. I think he was in his element actually, former DPP etc. He presumably knows how the system works, inside out, and knows who to put calls into.Come on Chippy, it's well known you hate Labour but I thought you were better than that.
There can be no other explanation for some of the sentences. Middle aged woman with no prior convictions getting 15 months prison time for a since-deleted tweet? Now come on, that's unprecedented. There are plenty of other examples. Why do you think ALL the courts were deeming no release on bail for anyone charged. Hence so many guilty pleas from people who on face value should or could have pled not guilty. They were told they would be held on remand for longer than their sentences. This was not all independent conclusions of courts, clearly. Why would you not let someone who has only made a facebook post, out on bail pending trial?
Last edited:
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
And what if he did, the riots have been quelled and bad guys are serving time, win winNo mate, he CLEARLY influenced them. I think he was in his element actually, former DPP etc.
metalblue
Well-Known Member
Are you seriously trying to suggest that ticket touts don’t declare all their earnings to HMRC?!!!
Haha. I was shocked mate. Upstanding citizens that they are.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
No-one objects to sending violent rioters to prison, of course. But there are other aspects to this as I listed above, which I am quite concerned about.And what if he did, the riots have been quelled and bad guys are serving time, win win
It seems to me he is trying to supress any protest or objection to mass migration, instead trying to pretend that there's only a tiny minority of right wing thugs who are concerned about it. The question is why would he do that? Why would he not - like he did with the Black Lives Matter riots - say he would meet with community leaders to understand their concerns etc. He's done none of that.
My suspicion is that it is because as a strong europhile and Remainer, he is actually pro-freedom of movement and not really planning or expecting to reduce legal migration much at all. And he doesn't want a huge backlash when hundreds of thousands are reported as entering the country every year. So make people afraid of posting about it.
I would not be at all surprised if he is secretly planning on agreeing to limited free movement for the under 30's. He denies it of course, for now. We will see.
Last edited:
metalblue
Well-Known Member
I’ve always said the same, I’ve always paid my tax through PAYE, when I got a tattoo it’s nearly all cash, do you really think they declare that £600! I guarantee the tax man thinks the average tattooist is on £300 a day.
Likewise mate.
Best thing about COVID furlough thing for the self employed was how all those that had fiddled their books got very little as they’d said they’d earned so little over the years. Poetic justice and all that.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,264
The judiciary needs to be fully independent of political influence in any democracy. I am sure you agree with that Mossi?And what if he did, the riots have been quelled and bad guys are serving time, win win
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
But aren't your concerns based on your perceptions rather than facts?No-one objects to sending violent rioters to prison, of course. But there are other aspects to this as I listed above, which I am quite concerned about.
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 24,268
You believe this because it chimes in with your politics. We've always had two tier policing, one for the rich and one for the poor, I don't recall you complaining too much about that.I don't agree with that at all. Sure he condemned the riots, well done.
He also clearly leaned on the judiciary, presumably through influence and former contacts to dish out sentences which in some cases were utterly ludicrous. I find that VERY disconcerting indeed. The judiciary are supposed to be impartial, but demonstrably in many cases, they were not.
I don't know what pressure he applied to the police either, because we CLEARLY saw two-tier policing in action. White people being arrested for doing nothing more than shouting, and in other situations, Muslim gangs with knives just being asked nicely by the police if they wouldn't mind dropping them off at the Mosque. And when asked about two-tier policing, all he does is get tetchy about it, rather than addressing the question and the issue.
He also alienated thousands of Labour voters in deprived areas, branding anyone who was outside anywhere near a riot as a far-right thug/racist. I am sure that went down well. And given his massive pro-European anti-brexit mindset, he has completely failed to make any comment about him understanding tension and issues caused by mass immigration, which was what the protests were all about.
I would not call all of the above "spot on". The public don't either, hence his approval ratings. Do you not realise that immigration is THE biggest issue the electorate are concerned about, and throughout the disturbances, he didn't mention it at all. Which IMO shows his arrogance and complete lack of political nouse. This will ultimately cost him IMO.
What we have here is not two tier policing, but a policy decision by the police to view the race rioters as perpetrators and the "Muslim gangs" as victims, those kind of distinctions have been made by coppers since the days they were actually paid in coppers.
What vexes you is you don't agree with the distinction here.
I urge you to watch this, it's hard to find two people you equally despise slugging it out, but it's John McTernan saying the quiet part out loud that has had my wife and I talking about it....
At the core of this debate, the debate no one ever has, is nativism.....
Nativism
Political ideology
Description
Nativism is the political policy of promoting or protecting the interests of native-born or indigenous people over those of immigrants, including the support of anti-immigration and immigration-restriction measures.............
if you believe in nativism, as you clearly do, then what has happened with these riots is slam dunk two tier policing directed by Starmer.
If you don't believe in it, as McTernan doesn't, then this is a clear cut case of racist perpetrators versus victims.
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
I never said it was or wasn't fully independent. My point was we don't know whether Starmer leant on itThe judiciary needs to be fully independent of political influence in any democracy. I am sure you agree with that Mossi?