Yet more Tory sleaze….

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Beebo

Guru
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’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.
Clearly hindsight is a wonderful thing with everyone coming out of the woodwork once he’d died.
 

icowden

Squire
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.
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...
 

ebikeerwidnes

Senior Member
Watching the 'debate' this afternoon I would say that several MPs pretty much called Boris a lying bar steward in a variety of ways

I was rather brutal

some (above) said that Theresa May gave it to him with both barrels
they missed her delivering a boot to the b******* at the same time - I don't think he likes her very much


We have been talking about it at home
the Tory party must be working out whether to dump him immediately or wait until after the May council elections

they must be working out who to put in for the election and who the people will think is a good replacement for the next General Election

if they crash and burn in May then I think he is doomed
but the Party must work out whether it is OK to risk that or whether they need to dump him and declare a clean slate

as things get worse and worse I suspect the 'dump him now' brigade are gaining momentum

but who do they put forward to replace him

looking at the options - errr - NO

go off and find someone else
 

deptfordmarmoset

Über Member
When Johnson attempted to slur the shadow front bench as having a drugs problem was it, apart from a hitting a new low for British politics, an admission of drugs abuse at No.10? They have form for projecting their crimes onto the opposition.
 

Mugshot

Über Member
Blackford slung out, accusations of Saville and drugs, Patel with her head in her hands, Dorries pissed, Coffey hiding under the speaker's chair, Truss and Zahawi catch the 'rona, May starts a ruck and brings her stunt double, hells bells, can't wait for the report to come out.

627




View: https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1488174679764439041?t=74cRU8zCF6SdYnmPlQnesQ&s=19
 
Last edited:

stowie

Active Member
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...

Yeah, I can see that. Otherwise the HoC would go from a debating chamber to a series of "Yo Momma" insults.

But the system requires something from both sides, with the implicit understanding that MPs will also not simply lie but try to remain honest.

So the question remains - what happens when this understanding is broken? How can it be countered? If someone is lying in the HoC then it should be spoken in such terms. It is clear that Johnson lied even if you just take his responses over the past couple of months to the HoC. Unless we are able to assume that when he said "no parties at no.10" he was just misinformed even though he actually attended some of them..
 
Top Bottom