Rusty Nails
Country Member
And we cannot make weasel word comments about people, even politicians, being serial offenders when there is absolutely no evidence.
The whiff is growing- £2k worth of football tickets for Mr Starmer
- Thread starter Craig the cyclist
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
And we cannot make weasel word comments about people, even politicians, being serial offenders when there is absolutely no evidence.
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
Who did I accuse of being a serial offender?
Rusty Nails
Country Member
Sorry, not you, but making a follow-up point about the poster who raised it as an issue.
Craig the cyclist
Über Member
Hahaha, you are seriously saying that we cannot make comments about anyone until they have actually been found to be serial offenders?
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
So, why not quote said poster?
Rusty Nails
Country Member
"Cannot" is not an order, just a saying as in "we cannot say naughty words like that, can we children".
Rusty Nails
Country Member
Because I was responding to, and expanding on, what you had said in your post. It's not rocket science.
icowden
Squire
But he has reported it. Just late.
This is different from not reporting it (see Boris Johnson) and having to be dobbed in.
icowden
Squire
It's not a weird group think, and I am not particularly a Labour supporter. However on the available evidence it is usually true to say that when a Labour politician is caught in a lie, it's not *usually* because they are trying to conceal something for personal gain, whereas the opposite tends to be true of Conservative politicians. That's the nature of the beast.
Someone who supports capitalist "me first" policies, is naturally going to screw the system as much as they can and put themselves first. Someone who supports left wing socialist policies is more likely to use the system to benefit many people rather than only themselves.
Craig the cyclist
Über Member
You accept that they are lying, but then say they are not trying to conceal anything.
Why are they lying then?
fozy tornip
At the controls of my private jet.
To give you something to mither about?
Last edited:
fozy tornip
At the controls of my private jet.
For a dare?
icowden
Squire
You are quite right. I misspoke. Allow me to rewrite it so you can better understand it:-
However on the available evidence it is usually true to say that when a Labour politician is accused of lying, it's not *usually* because they are actually lying or trying to conceal something for personal gain, it is more *likely* to be a mistake, or a statement which can be later contradicted because the speaker was not aware of a fact at the time they were speaking.
Craig the cyclist
Über Member
What you mean is that when a Conservative politician lies you are unwilling to ever believe they may have made a mistake or were not in full possession of all the facts. When a Labour politician lies you are more than happy to believe that a genuine mistake was made because you are a Labour supporter.
I broadly support the Conservatives (but do not always vote Conservative and voted remain in the referendum) and believe that Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and the party machine lied about events in Durham. I also believe that David Lammy lied about his expenses, but we don't know why yet, as someone pointed out, he declared money before and after the ones he didn't. Some of you say 'look, that proves it was an honest mistake', I think if he was Conservative you would be more likely to say 'that's weird, why did he declare those, but not the others? What is he hiding?'
Mr Celine
Well-Known Member
At least @Pale Rider , for all his other faults, knew the difference between a lie and a misrepresentation.
Similar threads
