This is a totally straw man argument. Yes, police officers get "selected" into top jobs, by the govt dept that is responible for Policing. But it is a total stretch and a completely unfounded fabrication to say that they are only selected because they are "yes men/women" or only because they are the ones that can be coerced into taking decisions that are not in the best interest of their Force. The selection clearly is for a reason and looks at a multitude of factors, principally their character, their annual performance reports and their ability as leaders. Similar "selection" criteria exist in the military (my background) and it has zero at all to do with "politics" or "yes men/women" and far more about leadership, prior performance and capacity for good decision making.
Likewise, it is a stretch of the imagination to imply that the Police, which are institutionally separated from interference by the Executive, can be influenced unduly on Operational matters just becasue the strategic context in which they must operate is handed down by Govt.
So you are still sticking to the weaseley worded undertones of what might be fabricated instead of the visible and written facts??
And you don't seem to be acknowledging the fact that there was an Islamic State terror plot just a few days earlier targeting a Taylor Swift concert in another European nation.
I wonder to myself if you guys are for real at times? Talk about giving observable reality a stiff ignoring in favour of a shaky, at best, conspiracy theory.
You've clearly convinced yourself beyond reasonable doubt, but you haven't convinced anyone else.
As to 'wondering if you guys are real?' it's funny that you say that, because since you joined this forum I've wondered if you are actually an AI 'BOT'. There's a lot of it about. Might just be that I'm a conspiracy theorist. Yes, I think so.
What you have consistently overlooked is that this whole fiasco is entirely due to Starmer's lack of judgement in accepting so much largesse from vested interests, and has tainted him and his top team. Had they not done so, the 'quid pro quo' story about 'blue lights for tickets' could never have arisen and the story wouldn't have legs. (Since 2019, Starmer has accepted £107,000 in gifts - more than any other MP, 64% of his annual salary).
I'm trying to find another term than 'seedy, grubby, shabby, bringing high office into disrepute', but try as I might, I can't.
A blue light escort is normally only given to members of the Royal Family and visiting Heads of State - not to celebrities. ( Even The Duke of Sussex, 5th in line to the throne doesn't get that).
Initially, the MET took a decision that
there was no credible threat, than Taylor Swift's mother threatened to cancel the tour if they weren't given a blue light escort, then Starmer, the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London (who among a raft of other senior MPs and Ministers who got free tickets), and even the Attorney General got involved, and lo and behold, the MET had a change of heart.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the blue light escort in itself, for the following reasons:
1) The request came from Taylor Swift's mother who, given the threat that arose in Austria causing the concert to be cancelled there, her own perception regardless of the Met's view, was that she believed there as a threat, had said she might cancel the concert.
2) Given that the recent Southport murders of children were attending a dance class with Taylor Swift's music, and the ensuing racist xenophobic riots across the country, will doubtless have heightened her concerns.
3) Swift’s Eras Tour ended up generating around £1 billion for the U.K. economy, with 1.2 million people attending her shows in the country.
4) Given that since his appointment, Starmer has been nothing but a 'miserabilist' has persisted in telling us all that the country is in an awful state, the NHS is broken, (a great way to boost the morale of those who work in the NHS), there's a £22 black hole they didn't know about, the impending budget will me we have to tighten our belts' etc, anything which can cheer up at least 1.2million people and generate £1bn, is no bad thing.
The late Margaret Thatcher was reviled and revered in equal measure, but the first thing she said o her appointment wasn't: "isn't it all so awful, the state the country is in, and I think there's worse to come", she said:
"Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope’ …. and to all the British people—howsoever they voted—may I say this. Now that the Election is over, may we get together and strive to serve and strengthen the country of which we're so proud to be a part".
As to 'freebies':
Peter Kyle, the science secretary, has revealed that he accepted two free tickets to a Taylor Swift concert in August worth more than £500, courtesy of the Football Association. It is understood the tickets were declared late in error – they should have been registered within 28 days of receiving the hospitality. Others to reveal hospitality include Ian Murray, the Scottish secretary, who accepted £320 of tickets to a Liverpool v Bournemouth football match in September thanks to Salmon Scotland, where he had a meeting with the chief executive of the industry body.
Robert Jenrick registered a further £55,000, including £25,000 from Access Industries UK, owned by a company founded and owned by the Soviet-born US-British businessman Sir Len Blavatnik.
Kemi Badenoch registered more than £125,000, including £25,000 from Wol Kolade, the deputy chair of NHS England and managing partner of Livingbridge, a private equity firm with interests in private healthcare.
I said in a recent post that the PM MPs have accepted a ton of money and in some cases are paid advisers from the betting and gaming industry. There have been many calls to raise the duty on the industry to bring it into line with other countries, which it's estimated could brining in an addition £3bn a year. It will be interesting to see if Rachel Reeves does so in her impending budget - neither she nor Starmer hive hinted at it. I wonder why?
Sorry - I'm waffling and dribbling again.
