Keir Starmer

[Noel]

To be honest I can't say I know too much about Irish politics so I'll take your word for that.
Purely out of interest and for my own knowledge, can you give examples of the British judiciary being duplicitous or disingenuous which warrants mistrust of the British Judiciary system by the Irish people and has the ECHR been used to overrule British law to protect Irish citizens?

If you can cite any instances I'd appreciate it. You don't need to go into detail as I can look them up when I have time.

Depends what you mean by "the Irish people"

 

[Delaney]

I think the main "leave ECHR" crowd want something entirely different, and that is to not accept ANY asylum claims from refugees (from certain ethnic backgrounds or countries?)

The above from Von der Leyen still respects the asylum claims as legal, but it is written (perhaps deliberately) in a way which implies asylum seekers will be refused asylum (which is not the aim of the narrative), and often interpreted that way by those who would see an end to "illegals" (when the actual word is asylum seeker). The key part of the script, and the part which confirms to me that I think some people might be reading it wrong is Von der Leyen's commitment to follow International Law.

i think they’re concerned that the amount of people who could qualify for asylum and those through law fair, who would achieve it (lying about age, country of origin, sexual status, etc..) means that we, a small north west european island, on the far reaches of north west europe, would have to accept millions of potential refugees.
So many in fact, the indigenous population would become a minority, much faster than is already predicted (by 2070).

As with all left wing ideals, there needs to be some sort of guard rails. One example would be to put the cap on how many refugees are allowed in as a % of native population.

Unfortunately any such sensible idea would be met with howls ‘racism’ and ‘far right extremeism’ when in reality, the extremist position is on the left.
In the end what happens is the left get their way, because they’re more activistic and motivated, until things start to go seriously wrong. That’s when the right snaps and things start getting ugly.
The left then says ‘see we told you about these far right extremists’ not having the self awareness that they caused the problem, because they don’t consider the concerns from their fellow countrymen as valid.

It’s their way, or the high way.

 

[Delaney]

Depends what you mean by "the Irish people"

I would imagine he means the native Irish?

 

[Fergie 307]

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.

I did find it funny that Hypnotic Chimera should cite the military as an example of some sort of probity.

How many scandals have we seen in recent years, many currently on going, concerning racism, sexual harassment and so forth across our armed forces, some victims being driven to suicide.
Very often actively covered up or denied by those in senior positions. And let us not forget the many servicemen exposed to harm in various atomic tests. How many times we were told that this was nonsense, by both senior figures in the military and politicians.
Ditto contaminated blood, horizon etc. Similar behaviour found within the NHS. Lucy Letby being a prime example. Senior figures at hospitals where concerns were raised were more interested in reputational damage than the welfare of arguably their most vulnerable patients.

The "observable reality" is that we are lied to repeatedly by people in senior positions in various organisations, and by senior politicians.
I think there is a lot to be said for the view taken by the likes of Mr Hislop, that if a politician looks you straight in the eye and tells you that something absolutely didn't happen, or that they had absolutely nothing to do with something, that is virtually a guarantee that it did happen, and that they were up to their neck in it.
Some might view that as too cynical. I would suggest that the "observable reality" is that it is, very sadly, a pretty sensible view to take, if only because it has so often proved to be the case.

The idea that politicians can't interfere with policing because the law says so is frankly laughable.
Firstly because making something illegal has never stopped it happening, nor will it. Our prisons are full of people who are evidence of that.
Secondly because we have seen plenty of evidence of the contempt politicians can have for the law, and rules in general. The idea that they might see the law in this area as somehow sacrosanct is not really very logical.
I stress that I am not saying, nor have I said, that this is what happened in the case of Taylor Swift, merely that to say it couldn't possibly have happened because the law forbids it is just plain daft.
None of us can possibly know what actually happened.
To take the view that it definitely cannot have been the result of political interference is every bit as illogical as it would be to conclude that it absolutely must have been.

The fact is that the latter view is seen by many as having a degree of credibility. That is down to the very poor reputation for honesty enjoyed by politicians in general, an issue entirely of their own making.