ebikeerwidnes
Senior Member
Sorry - missed that!I was joking. But admit it wasn’t obvious.
Sorry - missed that!I was joking. But admit it wasn’t obvious.
It’s tricky to bring a prosecution when none of the witnesses are willing to go to court. So the decision seems totally justified on the very little evidence they had.Yes, everyone except those who actually checked: https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/
Starmer was head of the CPS when the case was last considered, but not the case reviewer and the CPS has rules that stop its head interfering directly in cases. You know, like government has rules that stops the PM handing out contracts and ministries to those he fancies with little regard to their competence or Parliament's wishes... oh wait no, it doesn't, does it? Yeah, I can see why Boris has difficulty with the concept of the head of an organisation not being able to pervert the course of justice however they like.
Anyway, he's not really thick enough to believe the far-right lie. Instead, like his previous bus-painting outburst, this little trick is trying to make search engines forget that Johnson previously called the cost of investigating Savile money "spaffed up a wall": https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ion-comments-police-knife-crime-a8820631.html
It stems from the concept that you must not impugn the reputation of another MP, but challenge them fairly in debate based on their policies and parliamentary positions. Some say, that if it were allows, parliament would descend into chaos as MPs would just slander each other all day...Seems slightly bizarre that the PM can lie his bits off in the HoC but you cannot point it out without getting ejected from the chamber.
Sunak, who was a regular non-mask wearer, was the only one I saw wearing a mask. That's a declaration of prime ministerial intent.Christ on a bike. Dorries is on telly looking all pissed up and Truss, after appearing maskless on the government front bench, has just announced she's got Covid.
... by accusing each other of aiding paedophiles, perhaps? How would that be much different from the shoot we saw today?Some say, that if it were allows, parliament would descend into chaos as MPs would just slander each other all day...
It stems from the concept that you must not impugn the reputation of another MP, but challenge them fairly in debate based on their policies and parliamentary positions. Some say, that if it were allows, parliament would descend into chaos as MPs would just slander each other all day...
Perhaps she should do the interview again when she's sober and see whether she can still support this.Dorries is no better than Comical Ali in Iraq. Denying the truth we can all see.
How can anyone support this?