Keir Starmer

[RobinBHM]

Corruption, by any other name, is still corruption

How is it corruption?

Robert Jenrick taking £75,0000 from a company with no employees and no assets which is registered in the Cayman Islands. That’s corruption.

Oddly I’ve not seen you get upset about that.

Taking clothes which are given free, is an act of getting free publicity for the brand, there’s no evidence of wanting anything in exchange.

Lord Ali as far as I can tell has donated to,Labour for years.l..if you can provide any evidence that he has gained anything via way of policy influence, please let me know. The guy seems to do a lot for charity as far as I can tell.

 

[RobinBHM]

Interesting EU development re 'migrants':

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...1&cvid=0279df0158ad4f1095230ea3bf7c0b89&ei=17

I’m not sure why you’ve put the word migrants in inverted commas.

It seems she is talking about migrants not asylum seekers.

I can’t find anything mentioned about breaking international laws.

 

[Yorkieguy]

The right wing media have been screaming that Labour (who have followed the expenses rules) are far worse than the Tories (who didn’t follow the rules).


Keir Starmer getting a free pair of glasses has had way more media coverage than Robert Jenrick mysteriously getting a donation of £75,000 from a company that has no employees and is £300k in debt.

The false equivalence is staggering

This isn't about 'equivalence' It's because of the antics by the like of Jenrick Boris et all that the Tories are out of office.

When they were in office, Starmer pontificated about how Labour would put an end to sleaze.

The fact that he, and his ministers are mired in it, accepting largesse worth many thousands of pounds from vested interests (betting and gaming, Sports etc) in my view is a seriously aggravating factor. Snouts in the trough comes to mind. Whether it's legal or not is by the by. If anyone can point a finger and say: "fancy that, and him the Prime Minster", or "her the Home Secretary/ Minister for Education' or whoever, if they don't want to see their reputations in tatters, they'd best not do it.

Their pre election 'unique offering' was to be no more sleaze.

Suppose that the Tories had been elected and had carried on like this - all the Labour freeloaders would be moralising from the rooftops.

Now there's all the fuss about Taylor Swift being give a 'blue light escort' at the taxpayers expense, for no good operation reason (the level of security that the Duke of Sussex has been firmly told he's not entitled to) is now in the news. If the Home Secretary, PM (and SAdiq Khan in charge of the Met) hadn't had free tickets to the Taylor Swift concert, no-one could point a finger and say 'no smoke without fire'. Each time they try to gloss over such things and try to 'normalise it' they di a bigger hole for themselves.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...1&cvid=cd10f0e86ade4bf8a591861bfa7bcc87&ei=93

Truth is, that they're turning out to be a bunch of 'champagne socialists'.

All just so seedy.

 

[Spectric]

The fact that he, and his ministers are mired in it, accepting largesse worth many thousands of pounds from vested interests

Yes, you give the PM some free tickets to your concert and in exchange you get a police escort.

 

[Blackswanwood]

"Iffy" on the way you paid taxes? You either pay what you owe or don't. There's nothing "iffy" about it.

In principle yes but in practice it’s not quite so straightforward.

 

[RobinBHM]

This isn't about 'equivalence' It's because of the antics by the like of Jenrick Boris et all that the Tories are out of office

it is al about equivalence

the right wing media is busy claiming Labour are the same as the Tories.........they arent theres no equivalence

The fact that he, and his ministers are mired in it, accepting largesse worth many thousands of pounds from vested interests (betting and gaming, Sports etc) in my view is a seriously aggravating factor

do you have specific details?

accepting glasses, football tickets, clothes, concert tickets doesnt seem like vested interests to me, who supplied these?

details are important


Conservatives took donations from Shell, BP, Russian Oligarchs, Betting shops, private healthcare etc .............if it is those, then that is wrong.

I know hedge fund managers have given money to Labour, but not sure what leverage they would want.

Now there's all the fuss about Taylor Swift being give a 'blue light escort' at the taxpayers expense, for no good operation reason

I would argue she was a target and needed protection

seems like a Daily Mail attack to me

Whether it's legal or not is by the by

I disagree, the right wing media are screaming about Labour who followed the rules whilst excuse Tories for breaking the rules

details matter

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Here comes another one. I see Sue Gray's son is another one who got free tickets.

 

[Fergie 307]

it is al about equivalence

the right wing media is busy claiming Labour are the same as the Tories.........they arent theres no equivalence



do you have specific details?

accepting glasses, football tickets, clothes, concert tickets doesnt seem like vested interests to me, who supplied these?

details are important


Conservatives took donations from Shell, BP, Russian Oligarchs, Betting shops, private healthcare etc .............if it is those, then that is wrong.

I know hedge fund managers have given money to Labour, but not sure what leverage they would want.




I would argue she was a target and needed protection

seems like a Daily Mail attack to me



I disagree, the right wing media are screaming about Labour who followed the rules whilst excuse Tories for breaking the rules

details matter

Interesting that you ask who paid for Starmer's tickets. Was this a rhetorical question?
It would be odd to have concluded that these gifts were all above board without having looked into who paid for them.
As I understand it the Taylor Swift tickets, and numerous football freebies were all paid for by football's governing organisations
Given that the government are in the process of looking into how football should be regulated, there would appear to be a very clear conflict of interest.
If Starmer wants to go to a football match, or needs a new suit then he's not exactly a pauper, he can pay for them himself.
And yes, just as Boris should have paid for his own wallpaper etc.
I entirely agree they have not come close to some of the more extreme examples of Tory sleaze and corruption, but hey give them a chance, they've only been in office for five minutes.