Frosty
Logical and sensible but turns women gay
I like to think you are deep cover at the Mail, slowly plotting to bring the whole rotten edifice down.What a plot twist.
I like to think you are deep cover at the Mail, slowly plotting to bring the whole rotten edifice down.What a plot twist.
Here's the owner of the Daily Mail in the 1930s (he's the one on the left)Has the Daily Mail always been like this?
I actually know one personally. Shes a rather cold lady but the pieces that she does for the mail are probably the only things worth reading.Any normal journalist working for the Mail should be embarrassed.
Don't remember it being this bad as a kidHas the Daily Mail always been like this?
Thanks for the disclaimer!Here's the owner of the Daily Mail in the 1930s (he's the one on the left)
Also:
Price, G. Ward. “The Fruits of Fascism.” Daily Mail, 16 July 1926
R. Moore, T. C., C. B. E., M. P. “The Blackshirts Have What The Conservatives Need.” Daily Mail, 25 Apr. 1934
Viscount Rothermere. “Hurrah for the Blackshirts!” Daily Mail, 15 Jan. 1934
Viscount Rothermere. “Give the Blackshirts a Helping Hand.” Daily Mail, 22 Jan. 1934
I know five to varying degreesI actually know one personally. Shes a rather cold lady but the pieces that she does for the mail are probably the only things worth reading.
Of course he isn't an honourable politician, he's in his position off the back of ten false promises and he'd rather bash the left and wank over flags than oppose the Tories.
Did the count here last Thursday. Took great pleasure in watching them get battered. Funnily enough, prospective councillors from Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens all came over to say thankyou (for doing the job). Not one single Tory did the same.So what about that council seat result huh?
We actually had our own national newspaper (Aftenposten) that were also fairly positive about Hitler in the 30s, in the name of anti-communism, and also furthered anti-Semitic stereotypes. Today they're probably the most professional, serious newspaper in Norway, and have apologized for their past. In 2019 they published an in-depth editorial about this. In it they also point out how they were too easily controlled by the Nazis during the occupation. It's weird how the two newspapers can be so utterly different.Here's the owner of the Daily Mail in the 1930s (he's the one on the left)
Also:
Price, G. Ward. “The Fruits of Fascism.” Daily Mail, 16 July 1926
R. Moore, T. C., C. B. E., M. P. “The Blackshirts Have What The Conservatives Need.” Daily Mail, 25 Apr. 1934
Viscount Rothermere. “Hurrah for the Blackshirts!” Daily Mail, 15 Jan. 1934
Viscount Rothermere. “Give the Blackshirts a Helping Hand.” Daily Mail, 22 Jan. 1934
Better hope the Police think the same ...otherwise this turns out to be a real humdinger/og for Starmer and its a Tory serenade of "cheerio cheerio cheerio" as he leaves the field. It would go down in Tory annals as the easiest bring down of a Labour leader in history.... big, big. gamble for Sir Keir!I think it unlikely that he will actually be served with a FPN, so better to make his statement now than be forced to later.
He’s a former prosecutor. He’s not going to have gone down this route unless he is absolutely certain of the rules and the police aren’t going to try to fine him unless they are absolutely certain the rules were broken.Better hope the Police think the same ...otherwise this turns out to be a real humdinger/og for Starmer and its a Tory serenade of "cheerio cheerio cheerio" as he leaves the field. It would go down in Tory annals as the easiest bring down of a Labour leader in history.... big, big. gamble for Sir Keir!
Has Starmer never heard of... 'don't give hostages to fortune'
I agree, but could it be the case of 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. Its a hell of a gamble!He’s a former prosecutor. He’s not going to have gone down this route unless he is absolutely certain of the rules and the police aren’t going to try to fine him unless they are absolutely certain the rules were broken.
If you look at what actually happened, they stopped to eat and then continued working until 1.30am. During that lockdown there is absolutely nothing illegal about that. People were allowed to eat.
By all accounts he’s been praised for it as a political move and lots of Tories have briefed that it puts them in a lose lose situation.I agree, but could it be the case of 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. Its a hell of a gamble!
I think it ridiculous that a man who wants the trust of the nation is prepared to give 'hostage to fortune' a run out... that's Boris's game for goodness sake.
Starmer shouldn't be getting into a pi**ing/'holier than thou' contest with him, the whole point of Starmer is that he is different than Boris, this risk-taking shows he's a 'chancer' just like Boris, will say anything at the time, but hope to make good later... only in this case if it goes 'tits up' for him, Sir Keir will be gone!
Or maybe because in a 2020 Durham police statement read: "In line with [our] approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action... since this would amount to treating [x] differently... Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person". X being Mr Cummings. As a prosecutor, KS will know all about legal precedent.He’s a former prosecutor. He’s not going to have gone down this route unless he is absolutely certain of the rules and the police aren’t going to try to fine him unless they are absolutely certain the rules were broken.
I think with hindsight (ironically) he probably wishes he had not tweeted that boris should resign before the police investigation was concludedBy all accounts he’s been praised for it as a political move and lots of Tories have briefed that it puts them in a lose lose situation.
I’m interested to know what you would have done in his position.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The only Tories this applies to are those trying to oust Boris anyway, his own 'awkward squad'. I wouldn't get too comfortable around what they have to say!By all accounts he’s been praised for it as a political move and lots of Tories have briefed that it puts them in a lose lose situation.
I’m interested to know what you would have done in his position.
He’s a former public prosecutor that knows all the facts about this situation and knows the law at the time. There’s no hostage to fortune, it’s not even a calculated risk. He’s just absolutely certain he will be cleared.The only Tories this applies to are those trying to oust Boris anyway, his own 'awkward squad'. I wouldn't get too comfortable around what they have to say!
What I think he should have done was demonstrate his difference to Boris, e.g.
Apologise first, (if deemed necessary) e.g. he doesn't think he needs to do, but "recognises the hurt this sort of thing could cause other people" , then just stand back, keep mouth shut and wait 'for the truth to set him free'... then go for Boris's throat.
Giving a hostage to fortune even if it turns out OK for him will make people wonder, is he just a 'chancer' like Boris, a variation maybe, but still a 'chancer'.
He had better hope so (and so will the party), imagine the chaos if he has to make good on his pledge to resign!!There’s no hostage to fortune, it’s not even a calculated risk. He’s just absolutely certain he will be cleared.
Would the right wing press have allowed him to keep his mouth shout? The longer he kept his mouth shout the more pressure builds, and the longer it allows the daily mail to dictate the narrative surely? I'm not sure what the best approach would be, but it is clear that the goal is to show that not all politicians and political parties are the same. A goal that would not have been achieved by just keeping quiet and hoping it all blows over - the Johnson playbook.He had better hope so (and so will the party), imagine the chaos if he has to make good on his pledge to resign!!
If he is so sure then for goodness sake keep your mouth shut and then bask in the glory you know is coming your way when the truth comes out and then go hunting for Boris in a pure white suite!
Trying to be 'too clever' just puts him into the Boris 'play pen', even if he gets the result!
What narrative?Would the right wing press have allowed him to keep his mouth shout? The longer he kept his mouth shout the more pressure builds, and the longer it allows the daily mail to dictate the narrative surely? I'm not sure what the best approach would be, but it is clear that the goal is to show that not all politicians and political parties are the same. A goal that would not have been achieved by just keeping quiet and hoping it all blows over - the Johnson playbook.
Starmer took the job of leader of the opposition. I think that is enough to convict him of some sort of wrong doing.What is he meant to have done wrong? Is it the beer bit? Because people only drink beer at social events or something?
Just a thought, but why do your political talking points often read like they are lifted directly out of the Daily Mail or Guido?I think with hindsight (ironically) he probably wishes he had not tweeted that boris should resign before the police investigation was concluded
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
But given that was on public record he has probably made the right strategy call (particularly if they have a very high confidence in the outcome)
Ultimately if Starmer is investigated and gets no fine (after having offered to resign) and the PM gets several fines (and does not resign) I can only see that playing well for Starmer
Arguably standing down temporarily whilst the investigation is concluded could have been an option if the deputy wasn't eating a curry with him but given the circumstances I think he's made decent calls and it could end up working out pretty well for him
calm down lad dont strain yourself trying something newJust a thought, but why do your political talking points often read like they are lifted directly out of the Daily Mail or Guido?
In most workplaces, drinking alcohol while working is a sackable offence. Recent revelations suggest this is not the case in British politics.
Well this is it with Starmer, his whole leadership has been based on fear of the right wing media going after him. This episode has shown how foolish this is.What narrative?
If Starmer is innocent as he seems to think he is, then why respond to and get pushed around by the Daily Mail... he is better than that, and that is the whole point for goodness sake!
Nothing comes across more strongly than an innocent man, pillared in the right wing press' who doesn't have to get down in the mud (something he accuses others of doing) to defend himself, he just lets others prove him innocent.
I honestly believe in situations like this, over the years, that the right wing press only win when Labour politicians set them selves up to be hit, again and again. Starmer doesn't have to dodge any bullets, so why put himself in the firing line; is he being a 'strong leader' by such actions, or a dangerous fool who is showing the preponderance at some point, to lead his troops into the enemy cross-fire on a futile mission?
Make no mistake if this goes badly for him, Jeremy should try for a comeback, even he would not have gone down this crazy route!
What narrative?
If Starmer is innocent as he seems to think he is, then why respond to and get pushed around by the Daily Mail... he is better than that, and that is the whole point for goodness sake!
Nothing comes across more strongly than an innocent man, pillared in the right wing press' who doesn't have to get down in the mud (something he accuses others of doing) to defend himself, he just lets others prove him innocent.
I honestly believe in situations like this, over the years, that the right wing press only win when Labour politicians set them selves up to be hit, again and again. Starmer doesn't have to dodge any bullets, so why put himself in the firing line; is he being a 'strong leader' by such actions, or a dangerous fool who is showing the preponderance at some point, to lead his troops into the enemy cross-fire on a futile mission?
Make no mistake if this goes badly for him, Jeremy should try for a comeback, even he would not have gone down this crazy route!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
“He’s the one on the left”Here's the owner of the Daily Mail in the 1930s (he's the one on the left)
Also:
Price, G. Ward. “The Fruits of Fascism.” Daily Mail, 16 July 1926
R. Moore, T. C., C. B. E., M. P. “The Blackshirts Have What The Conservatives Need.” Daily Mail, 25 Apr. 1934
Viscount Rothermere. “Hurrah for the Blackshirts!” Daily Mail, 15 Jan. 1934
Viscount Rothermere. “Give the Blackshirts a Helping Hand.” Daily Mail, 22 Jan. 1934
I think it probably is...if Starmer and his legal buddies are all rock solidly certain he has no case to answer, why make the stepping down, promise statement... to gain political advantage perhaps?This is all lining up very nicely for the PM
Christ, that is quite the conflation you are making there.I think it probably is...if Starmer and his legal buddies are all rock solidly certain he has no case to answer, why make the stepping down, promise statement... to gain political advantage perhaps?
Would the use of this legal 'insider knowledge' be seen as the equivalent of profiting from 'insider trading' on the stock market, i.e. gambling on something you already know the outcome of??
The right wing press will have a field day with that outcome!
Important to remember that it was only a few days ago that Durham Police had said that they were not investigating the incident.True. It is impossible for the Tories to bring up their 'hypocrisy' now without being asked 'Starmer was prepared to resign, why hasn't Johnson?', whilst it doesn't prevent Labour mentioning it again and again.
It is a pity he didn't declare this earlier, but he is obviously extremely cautious by nature and no doubt wanted to be 100% sure he was right. Given Starmer's nature Labour really needs a Prescott-type attack dog or two to go with him, that might work better for them.
Im sorry, what?Would the use of this legal 'insider knowledge' be seen as the equivalent of profiting from 'insider trading' on the stock market, i.e. gambling on something you already know the outcome of??
No.I think it probably is...if Starmer and his legal buddies are all rock solidly certain he has no case to answer, why make the stepping down, promise statement... to gain political advantage perhaps?
Would the use of this legal 'insider knowledge' be seen as the equivalent of profiting from 'insider trading' on the stock market, i.e. gambling on something you already know the outcome??
The right wing press will have a field day with that outcome!
Spot on.He’s a former prosecutor. He’s not going to have gone down this route unless he is absolutely certain of the rules and the police aren’t going to try to fine him unless they are absolutely certain the rules were broken.
If you look at what actually happened, they stopped to eat and then continued working until 1.30am. During that lockdown there is absolutely nothing illegal about that. People were allowed to eat.