Brave, brave soldiers

[icowden]

If cars on the motorway are driving 90, you follow them at 90 then get pulled over, is you defence going to be you were applying the rules in the same way as others and should not be prosecuted?
It is pretty much exactly what you are slagging Boris Johnson off for doing.

No it isn't. A better analogy would be that you are driving at 40mph down a road, the last sign you saw said "40" because the "30" sign had been obscured by a tree. The police have pulled you over, they explain this, you are apologetic and apologise, they caution you and let you go on your way.

Whereas Boris was caught doing 70mph in a 30mph zone multiple times having put up the signposts himself, and told everyone else in the country about the new speed restrictions, and also having denied that he had erected any signposts that it was someone else and no-one had told him about the signposts. Then, when punished told the police to p*ss off because he had better things to do and no-one cares about speed limits anyway.

D'you see?

 

[icowden]

So is it the EHRC or Jeremy Corbyn that lied?

It is neither as you well know.

The EHRC found that

he Labour Party breached the Equality Act 2010 by committing unlawful harassment through the acts of its agents in two of the complaints we investigated. These included using antisemitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of antisemitism were fake or smears. As these people were acting as agents of the Labour Party, the Labour Party was legally responsible for their conduct. This is by no means the full extent of the issues we identified within the files in our sample; it represents the tip of the iceberg. We also saw a further 18 ‘borderline’ cases. In these cases, there was not enough evidence to conclude that the Labour Party was legally responsible for the conduct of the individual. These were people such as local councillors, local election candidates and Constituency Labour Party office holders. In many more files, evidence of antisemitic conduct by an ‘ordinary’ member of the Labour Party. These members did not hold any office or role, therefore the Labour Party could not be held directly responsible for their conduct under the Equality Act 2010. In light of our position as a regulator, we only made findings of unlawful conduct in cases that were sufficiently clear-cut, in Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 terms. We explain this in Chapter 3.

No mention of 1%.

Corbyn was suspended in part for deliberately undermining the Leader of the Opposition (political) and in part for his comments that anti-Semitism in the Labour party was exaggerated. I suspect that he failed to make a distinction between the Parliamentary Labour Party, where that could be argued to have been true given that the EHRC analysis really boils down to offences by 2 people, and the Labour Party itself where a previous dossier had shown the issue to be widespread and which he had done nothing to address.

 

[icowden]

You appear to misunderstand. Sir Kier is a backstabbing, deceitful Red Tory who you'd happily vote for if he had a blue sticker on his arse.

OK - looking forward to a coherent argument supporting the above...

 

[Deleted member 49]

OK - looking forward to a coherent argument supporting the above...

Looking forward to someone explaining what he actually stands for ?

 

[icowden]

Looking forward to someone explaining what he actually stands for ?

I'm happy that he appears to be a middle of the road Labour Party leader and isn't Boris Johnson. Isn't that enough?

 

[Deleted member 49]

I'm happy that he appears to be a middle of the road Labour Party leader and isn't Boris Johnson. Isn't that enough?

That's exactly the answer I expected,and exactly the reason he can feck right off from me.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I'm happy that he appears to be a middle of the road Labour Party leader and isn't Boris Johnson. Isn't that enough?

It's already a lot! In passing, he appears to have played yesterday's motion very calmly and competently.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

No it isn't. A better analogy would be that you are driving at 40mph down a road, the last sign you saw said "40" because the "30" sign had been obscured by a tree. The police have pulled you over, they explain this, you are apologetic and apologise, they caution you and let you go on your way.

Whereas Boris was caught doing 70mph in a 30mph zone multiple times having put up the signposts himself, and told everyone else in the country about the new speed restrictions, and also having denied that he had erected any signposts that it was someone else and no-one had told him about the signposts. Then, when punished told the police to p*ss off because he had better things to do and no-one cares about speed limits anyway.

D'you see?

But Caroline Lucas also knew where the signs were (in the book she was given), so it's either
a. she said she understood them, then ignored them and lied
b. did not understand them and should have got clarification, in which case she lied
c. followed others blindly as an elected politician while saying she was following the rules as she understood them, and bearing in mind a. above, she then lied.

 

[icowden]

But Caroline Lucas also knew where the signs were (in the book she was given), so it's either
a. she said she understood them, then ignored them and lied
b. did not understand them and should have got clarification, in which case she lied
c. followed others blindly as an elected politician while saying she was following the rules as she understood them, and bearing in mind a. above, she then lied.

You can't try to simplify with an analogy and then complain it is too simple. She understood the rules but the rules were open to interpretation. Multiple MPs had interpreted the rules in the same way on previous occasions. The standards committee clarified the rules, she accepted that and apologised. There was no lie.

I know that you like things to be black and white, but this is rarely the case.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

She understood the rules but the rules were open to interpretation.

She didn't understand the rules that she said she understood?

Now we have it all clarified. Thanks.

But why is it that whenever a Conservative MP does exactly the same they are accused of lying and sleaze? Is misunderstanding not a thing that could happen to a Conservative MP.

We should also look at the expenses scandal through the same lens maybe? Everyone else was playing the same game, why prosecute some for misunderstanding the rules but not others, everyone was flipping houses and claiming for things they shouldn't have done.

 

[newfhouse]

Do all lies, all misunderstandings, all mistakes carry equal weight or do we make a judgement about seriousness? Your attempt to say that everyone lies and therefore this person is no more trustworthy than that person strikes me as either argument for its own sake, or infantile.

 

[icowden]

Now we have it all clarified. Thanks.
But why is it that whenever a Conservative MP does exactly the same they are accused of lying and sleaze? Is misunderstanding not a thing that could happen to a Conservative MP.

I don't think your thanks are sincere. In fact you still seem very confused.

We have a Supreme Court whose duty is solely to rule on points of law where laws are open to misinterpretation. Boris did not misinterpret anything. He just abused the laws he set because he was PM and thought they didn't apply to him. Nothing applied to Boris ever. Hence he purchased an illegal water cannon whilst Mayor of London and nearly got involved in a plot to beat up a journalist.

Of course a misunderstanding could happen to a Conservative MP, it just doesn't tend to due to their venal and self-serving nature. There are some very good Conservative MPs and former Conservative MPs, who know that if you make a serious mistake, lie to parliament and get found out, you resign (Anna Soubry, Rory Stewart, arguably people like David Davis and John Major), who understand where the lines are . Then there is Boris, Nadine, Priti, the Raabster, Gove and Hancock.

 

[FishFright]

She didn't understand the rules that she said she understood?

Now we have it all clarified. Thanks.

But why is it that whenever a Conservative MP does exactly the same they are accused of lying and sleaze? Is misunderstanding not a thing that could happen to a Conservative MP.

We should also look at the expenses scandal through the same lens maybe? Everyone else was playing the same game, why prosecute some for misunderstanding the rules but not others, everyone was flipping houses and claiming for things they shouldn't have done.

You really need to pay attention more , it's getting silly now.

 

[icowden]

That's exactly the answer I expected,and exactly the reason he can feck right off from me.

So you'd really prefer to keep Johnson, Dorries, Patel, Raab, Gove et al than cast a vote in Starmer's direction?

Personally I think the best outcome at the next election would be a liberal alliance between labour / lib-dem / green and possibly snp. Seats like Raab's are unwinnable by Labour, but victory is achievable by lib-dems. I suspect the former red wall will turn red again, and many blue seats will go yellow.

 

[Deleted member 49]

So you'd really prefer to keep Johnson, Dorries, Patel, Raab, Gove et al than cast a vote in Starmer's direction?

Personally I think the best outcome at the next election would be a liberal alliance between labour / lib-dem / green and possibly snp. Seats like Raab's are unwinnable by Labour, but victory is achievable by lib-dems. I suspect the former red wall will turn red again, and many blue seats will go yellow.

Lol...the same people who were against Labour/Corbyn telling people to vote Starmer as it's the only choice 🙄
I won't vote for Starmer.....don't even go there with the Lib Dems !
I'll more than likely vote green.I know it's a strange thing but there has to be something I want to vote for....Starmer offers feck all.