BoJo banished - Liz Truss down. Is Rishi next for the toaster? **threadbans in OP**

On mobile it only works after you have quoted another post. So, when you've the two quotes there you can delete the one you don't want. If you just want to comment you'll have the original quote, you can't delete it

What "abusive digs" did Starmer make which equates to what Johnson said? Starmer's comments centered around Johnson repeatedly misleading the public and Parliament about the parties that happened in Downing Street, making him unfit for the office he holds due to lying and the disrespect he showed the public with the sacrifices they all made that Johnson didn't.

Johnson's comment centered around the failed prosecution of a prolific sex offender that Starmer wasn't even involved in, and therefore trying to link Starmer to the crimes of Jimmy Saville.

The two do not equate, but I'm not surprised you find no issue with Johnson's comment given your own posting history.

Don't bother. He knows his post is a load of shte and he will just say anything at this stage

What do you mean, you had a good laugh at that, especially coming from me? Brexit has happened, and I do not expect it to be reversed - indeed, I do not believe that it can be reversed. I'm sure I have said this many times on this board. You seem to be imputing to me views which I do not hold and have certainly never expressed. Perhaps it is you rather than I that has missed their true career.

Johnson is clearly not fit for office, why would the media not go after him?

I think someone did make a Mad Hatter reference in Parliament yesterday in relation to Johnson's parties.

Edit: Sorry, it was last week, not yesterday

"The MP for Brighton Kemptown hammered: "Happy un-Birthday to him!

"Just like the Mad Hatter, he didn’t need the excuse of a birthday to have a party! But it did help didn't it!"

Himself and Lumley were literally going to build Joni Mitchell's "tree museum" and charge the people to see them.

So, the great British press, only dong their jobs, as you'd expect them to do, who were 'disgusted and appalled' by the Savile remarks made in the HoC, where they sought out comments from abuse victims, not for show or anything, just for the righteousness of it, have themselves done a u turn and decided to use Savile as a weapon as well. Well well, what a surprise.

Anyone who thinks that the British press gives a flying eff about child abuse victims, or anything at all except their own self interests, including their own political opinions and their personal desires, and would never ever seek to create outrage, has lost the plot.

In an earlier post I mentioned I was holding myself back on the British media because the topics were sensitive. But because some think I've lost the plot I've decided to abandon that and tell you this I heard in British media 2 days ago.

It's a story about how a man wrote to the media, who spoke of how when his son was in a mental institution, and due to covid restrictions he couldn't visit him. Sadly his son committed suicide. He says 'if only I could have visited him and held his hand', maybe, maybe, he wouldn't have committed suicide. His passing occurred on one of the know partygate dates.

And I am telling you now, if you think this kind of journalism is genuine, that's it's not a sick tactic by the media, then not only have you lost the plot but more likely you are complicit is these sick media driven outrage games, if only for validating them.

What I have seen in the last year in British media is second only to the News of the World downfall affair. And I think the current state is all rooted in intellectual 'elitism'. Journalism, Politics, University 'intellect's', people who really think there shouldn't be any democratic elections or refs at all, and those people get to decide what's what. Like this thread and the Brexit thread and the UK politics thread, there is this constant stench of stuck up intellectual snobbery. We know best.

Oh yeah, my posts are all here to see, and I'm happy for it. More than happy. The idea that some would think that noone would agree with my opinions just goes to show you the arrogance of some people who have no time for anyone else's opinion because all opposing opinions are inferior to theirs.

Whether one believes me or not, I have no vested interest in Brexit. Or the Tory's remaining in power for that mater. But I sure as hell know one thing and that is some people in Ireland do, not least that it might hurt their pockets personally. What else could explain such long standing vitriol towards the Brits for doing what they did. Follow the money, as they say.

"Keir Starmer was forced to apologise for how ineffectual the CPS was in prosecuting Savile."

Interesting. Link to the apology, please, and then explain how it was "forced", and by whom.

"As the Director of Public Prosecutions, Starmer had a responsibility to ensure that Savile allegations were looked into. Starmer is now doing a Boris Johnson; blaming other people for the failure even though he was the DPP at the time. That's why he apologised to begin with, because of precisely the responsibility he held at the time."

Either you're making this stuff up, or someone else is making it up and you're very gullible. As DPP Starmer did not have a responsibility for making sure allegations against Savile were looked into; the DPP neither investigates nor directs investigations. Investigation is the responsibility of the police, over whom the DPP has - by design - no authority.

And what were the failings for which Starmer apologised? Your own link makes the point that "there is no evidence Starmer knew of Savile’s crimes or that he was directly responsible for the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to press charges", so he was clearly apologising for something else.

Whatever it was - I do not know if you know what it was, or whether you will deign to tell us - it was not, as your link makes clear, his own failure to prosecute. And Johnson's accusation, despite what you claim, is not that Starmer was responsible, as head of the agency, for any failure to prosecute on the part of the agency but that Starmer had failed to prosecute.

So, no; Starmer's apology does not - on the evidence of your own link - vindicate Johnson's accusation.

PS: you don't seem to be defending your assertion that Starmer was forced to apologise. Do I take it that you're dropping it?

Just because Tories have to be forced in to apologies doesn't mean that apologies are always forces.