Elon Musk

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I've always liked Andy Burnham. Always strikes me as someone who genuinely wants to make a positive impact and is prepared to work across party lines and praise his opponents. I can respect that. 

Agree, even if I dont always agree can always respect what his intentions are, unlike a lot of them it seems to be for his people not himself.

[Sarnia Cherie]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

Agree, even if I dont always agree can always respect what his intentions are, unlike a lot of them it seems to be for his people not himself.

Pity he's never been the Leader of the Labour Party. He's make a good PM.

[The Kraken]

7 minutes ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

Pity he's never been the Leader of the Labour Party. He's make a good PM.

I’d imagine he’s being primed as a leading candidate to take over. Starmer isn’t exactly young.

[hypochondriac]

17 minutes ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

Pity he's never been the Leader of the Labour Party. He's make a good PM.

I agree. He'd have a job curtailing the extremists in his party but I could see a future where I'd consider voting for him if he managed it. 

[LeBizzier69]

3 hours ago, egg said:

Blimey, Trump & Musk are struggling for top 5 shit now. 

I'm sorry, but Les and Dustin + Hale & Pace were compulsive 80s saturday night/sunday night viewing. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, The Kraken said:

I’d imagine he’s being primed as a leading candidate to take over. Starmer isn’t exactly young.

Starmer's a youngster, he's only 62. Burnham is only 7 years younger. 

I fear he's a bit like Starmer, Rishi and many others, ie you believe he's PM material until he actually becomes PM. 

[hypochondriac]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

Starmer's a youngster, he's only 62. Burnham is only 7 years younger. 

I fear he's a bit like Starmer, Rishi and many others, ie you believe he's PM material until he actually becomes PM. 

Maybe but if that's the standard then that would be true for any potential Prime Minister who looks promising. 

Edited 15 hours ago by hypochondriac

[Weston Super Saint]

4 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Again, I don’t want to get into the whole league placing thing but I am not a young man and cannot recall any one person who, as an unelected individual, caused so much consternation amongst so many foreign governments in such a short space of time as Elon Musk. Trump was the POTUS and will be again soon. Of course he has a bigger voice. That is what makes this so problematic. No one voted for Elon Musk.

Have you any evidence of actual 'consternation' amongst European leaders or are you just frightening yourself in your social media echo chamber?

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Have you any evidence of actual 'consternation' amongst European leaders or are you just frightening yourself in your social media echo chamber?

Macron cried about it a bit and some unimportant people in the EU called for banning X.

[sadoldgit]

Did any one of the usual suspects kick off over the Lambeth child abuse a few years back?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/paedophiles-filmed-attacks-at-town-hall-a4485411.html

[sadoldgit]

4 hours ago, whelk said:

Thick cunt

Easier to throw abuse about rather than deal with the issue. It’s about your level sadly.

[Weston Super Saint]

32 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Easier to throw abuse about rather than deal with the issue. It’s about your level sadly.

It's not 'abuse' when it's true

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Did any one of the usual suspects kick off over the Lambeth child abuse a few years back?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/paedophiles-filmed-attacks-at-town-hall-a4485411.html

Just so we are clear can you explain why you are against a national enquiry?

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Easier to throw abuse about rather than deal with the issue. It’s about your level sadly.

Just so we are clear can you explain why you are against a national enquiry?

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

Just so we are clear can you explain why you are against a national enquiry?

Because the Tories want one, that is how shallow he is

[Turkish]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Because the Tories want one, that is how shallow he is

I suspect this is the reason. I've no idea why anyone would be against it. Shame he's too much of a coward to address me directly. 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Easier to throw abuse about rather than deal with the issue. It’s about your level sadly.

You have been outstanding on this thread in highlighting your inability to grasp anything let alone have any sort of debate. Thick as shit

[Gloucester Saint]

9 hours ago, egg said:

Good shout. I forgot Hale & Pace as well. 

 

[AlexLaw76]

Calling someone a rape apologist online is just very bad…. Well, it is now I guess 

Edited 11 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[AlexLaw76]

Interfering in a foreign election when it was cool!

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Interfering in a foreign election when it was cool!

Chickens coming home to roost somewhat there. 

[trousers]

10 hours ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

The Tories should have implemented the findings of the grooming gangs inquiry but didn't act on any of the 20 recommendations put forward, despite being in power for long enough.

This has been said a lot today but is it actually true? Personally, I've no idea what the Tories did or didn't do as I've not been following the story closely enough, but I've also read that the Tories were acting on a number of the recommendations. The tweet below, for example*

 

*Yes, I'm fully aware this Emily person I've quoted is an ex-Tory advisor so, of course, her thoughts can be filed under "well, she would say that, wouldn't she" (as with all confirmation-bias 'evidence' on either side of a debate), but is she blatantly lying or is there any substance behind this alternative viewpoint?

Edited 7 hours ago by trousers

[aintforever]

9 minutes ago, trousers said:

This has been said a lot today but is it actually true? Personally, I've no idea what the Tories did or didn't do as I've not been following the story closely enough, but I've also read that the Tories were acting on a number of the recommendations. The tweet below, for example*

 

*Yes, I'm fully aware this Emily person I've quoted is an ex-Tory advisor so, of course, her thoughts can be filed under "well, she would say that, wouldn't she" (as with all confirmation-bias 'evidence' on either side of a debate), but is she blatantly lying or is there any substance behind this alternative viewpoint?

I think they never implemented any of the 20 recommendations and also turned down a public inquiry.

[sadoldgit]

17 minutes ago, trousers said:

This has been said a lot today but is it actually true? Personally, I've no idea what the Tories did or didn't do as I've not been following the story closely enough, but I've also read that the Tories were acting on a number of the recommendations. The tweet below, for example*

 

*Yes, I'm fully aware this Emily person I've quoted is an ex-Tory advisor so, of course, her thoughts can be filed under "well, she would say that, wouldn't she" (as with all confirmation-bias 'evidence' on either side of a debate), but is she blatantly lying or is there any substance behind this alternative viewpoint?

More people ended up in jail down to the changes that Keir Starmer brought in as DPP (which had nothing to do with the Tory Party). The CPS have charging guidelines. They previously were instructed to ignore or give less creedence to evidence given by people affected by drugs or alcohol. He overturned that amongst other major changes to charging guidelines. One of the victims cited an occasion when she visited a police station to make an accusation about sexual abuse only to be told to go away and come back when she wasn’t drunk.

During my time at the CPS and when Starmer was the DPP special teams were set up (RASSA units - Rape and Serious Sexual Assault) to deal with these cases more effectively. Another major change was to accept, in the first instance, that the alleged victim was telling the truth. Previously the onus was on them to provide convincing evidence to the police/CPS charging lawyer at the outset. This led to more cases entering the charging review stages with only those that subsequently failed to meet the evidential charging guidelines not going to court.

[CB Fry]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

This has been said a lot today but is it actually true? Personally, I've no idea what the Tories did or didn't do as I've not been following the story closely enough, but I've also read that the Tories were acting on a number of the recommendations. The tweet below, for example*

 

*Yes, I'm fully aware this Emily person I've quoted is an ex-Tory advisor so, of course, her thoughts can be filed under "well, she would say that, wouldn't she" (as with all confirmation-bias 'evidence' on either side of a debate), but is she blatantly lying or is there any substance behind this alternative viewpoint?

Emily Sheffield is David Cameron's sister in law.

No one is saying the Conservatives did nothing but they didn't implement any of the recommendations from that Inquiry in the time they had. They set the terms and scope of all the Inquiries which now apparently weren't good enough.

What they also didn’t do is start a national Public Inquiry that that they are now pretending is absolutely vital. But it wasn't vital seven months ago or before that. Nothing significantly new has happened in that time. 

Kemi has never ever spoken to any victim, not even this week. She was the Goverment Minister for Women around the time the report was published and was in that role until the election. Incredibly well placed to make lots of noise about this topic but she never mentioned it on the record until whaddya know this week. 

 

Political opportunism and bad faith posturing worse than anything I've ever seen in British politics. 

Edited 6 hours ago by CB Fry

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

This has been said a lot today but is it actually true? Personally, I've no idea what the Tories did or didn't do as I've not been following the story closely enough, but I've also read that the Tories were acting on a number of the recommendations. The tweet below, for example*

 

*Yes, I'm fully aware this Emily person I've quoted is an ex-Tory advisor so, of course, her thoughts can be filed under "well, she would say that, wouldn't she" (as with all confirmation-bias 'evidence' on either side of a debate), but is she blatantly lying or is there any substance behind this alternative viewpoint?

The Tories could have announced an inquiry on the day the report was published. Or the day after, or at any time up until the GE was announced, but didn't. Why are they calling for one now ?