Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

Politics


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Gav said:

Just when Labour are starting to get the house in order:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53627533

McClusky should just retire and sod off.

He's got every right to question wether funds his union have contributed are being spent wisely. The legal advice the Labour Party received was that they stood a good chance of winning the case yet Starmer caved in and allowed the case to go unheard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

He's got every right to question wether funds his union have contributed are being spent wisely. The legal advice the Labour Party received was that they stood a good chance of winning the case yet Starmer caved in and allowed the case to go unheard.

Thankfully Starmer isn't as shortsighted as the McClusky.

This is a case of bullying and covering up anti-semitism, why would anyone want to fight that case? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

The legal advice the Labour Party received was that they stood a good chance of winning the case yet Starmer caved in and allowed the case to go unheard.

That's been asserted by one side but we haven't seen it have we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Gav said:

Thankfully Starmer isn't as shortsighted as the McClusky.

This is a case of bullying and covering up anti-semitism, why would anyone want to fight that case? 

Because the legal advice said it was winnable. It tells me all i need to know about the people who brought the case that they actually took the money. To me that's like you taking Rovers to court over some perceived slight and then keeping the money. Anybody with any principles amongst that lot would have donated the cash to a charity. I see all the talk of them taking Corbyn to court again has all gone quiet now they've seen the amount of contributions his fighting fund has received from ordinary Labour Party members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Because the legal advice said it was winnable. It tells me all i need to know about the people who brought the case that they actually took the money. To me that's like you taking Rovers to court over some perceived slight and then keeping the money. Anybody with any principles amongst that lot would have donated the cash to a charity. I see all the talk of them taking Corbyn to court again has all gone quiet now they've seen the amount of contributions his fighting fund has received from ordinary Labour Party members.

Winnable vrs Ethical.

These people were bullied out of their jobs in some botched attempt to cover up racism, you do yourself no favours supporting that course of action.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gav said:

Winnable vrs Ethical.

These people were bullied out of their jobs in some botched attempt to cover up racism, you do yourself no favours supporting that course of action.

 

That's just your opinion. Mine is they were " well poisoners ". If the case had have gone to court we may have found out which one of us is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Gav said:

The MP in question is accused of rape, sexual assault and coercive control.

The woman in question was so traumatised she needed hospital treatment.

Guilty or not, the MP in question should be stood down until the facts emerge.

Absolutely ruined Danger Mouse for me

penfold.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/08/2020 at 10:09, den said:

No, you’re quite clearly wrong. We live in a parliamentary democracy. Cameron was at fault when he promised that parliament would execute the result of the referendum. He doesn’t control parliament.

clearly not wrong Den, MP's are voted into Parliament by us the voters. am I right? 

We live in democracy so Cameron was very correct to promised that Parliament would execute the result of the referendum and the People choice. Are you ever going to accept the referendum choice by the majority of the people who voted in the referendum? 

 

20 hours ago, jodrell said:

Yet voting against   them is unacceptable. I notice Chaddy is keeping quiet on the subject.

I'm haven't been on Forum since very early Sunday Morning. So hardly keeping quiet just doing other things and taking break from the forum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I'm haven't been on Forum since very early Sunday Morning. So hardly keeping quiet just doing other things and taking break from the forum. 

So what is your opinion on it? I dare say if it was a Labour MP you would have commented on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

clearly not wrong Den, MP's are voted into Parliament by us the voters. am I right? 

We live in democracy so Cameron was very correct to promised that Parliament would execute the result of the referendum and the People choice. Are you ever going to accept the referendum choice by the majority of the people who voted in the referendum? 

Cameron isn’t in charge of parliament Chaddy. 
 

you know that so why can’t you just accept that sometimes you’re wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

So what is your opinion on it? I dare say if it was a Labour MP you would have commented on it.

tbh, I haven't read or watch any news on anything unless Rovers related for the past 2 days. 

Just reading the BBC article on the story. Its a serious allegation and needs fully investigate by the Police. The MP should take leave of absent from his role as MP until the matter has been dealt with by the police. 

 

28 minutes ago, den said:

Cameron isn’t in charge of parliament Chaddy. 
 

you know that so why can’t you just accept that sometimes you’re wrong.

But Parliament have to vote to allowed the referendum to happen didn't they?

The debate took place in February 2016 which they was a vote which 475 MP's voted for the referendum.  

why don't you accept that parliament voted to in act what the voters voted for in 2016?

Here the debate info. 

https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2016/february/mps-debate-motion-on-eu-referendum/

Edited by chaddyrovers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

That's just your opinion. Mine is they were " well poisoners ". If the case had have gone to court we may have found out which one of us is right.

Calling out racism doesn’t sit well with some of the 70’s hardliners, they’d rather hide in the shadows and bully from a distance. 

Thankfully Kier Starmer is already one step ahead of those knuckle draggers and we don’t need a court case to see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, philipl said:
My son was wearing a 'Vote Conservative' T-shirt and an 'I love Boris' baseball cap. He's been spat at, abused, slapped round the head and told he's a brainless twat. God knows what's going to happen to him once he gets out of the house.

???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gav said:

Thankfully Kier Starmer is already one step ahead of those knuckle draggers and we don’t need a court case to see that.

We already knew before he became Labour leader that Starmer liked to avoid court cases just ask the victims of Jimmy Saville or the family of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, den said:

Keir Starmer led the CPS when it did not charge Jimmy Savile, but he wasn’t the reviewing lawyer. 

https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/

Exactly backing my point up, he was head of an organisation that failed the victims of Savile. The buck stops at the top. A man with any morals would have had a bit of dignity and retired from public life rather than try to worm his way into Downing Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

Exactly backing my point up, he was head of an organisation that failed the victims of Savile. The buck stops at the top. A man with any morals would have had a bit of dignity and retired from public life rather than try to worm his way into Downing Street.

He didn’t make the decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

 

But Parliament have to vote to allowed the referendum to happen didn't they?

What’s that got to do with your original point that Cameron was right to promise that Parliament would pass the brexit bill?

He couldn’t get his own party to pass it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, den said:

What’s that got to do with your original point that Cameron was right to promise that Parliament would pass the brexit bill?

He couldn’t get his own party to pass it.

 

 

Parliament voted to in act the result of the EU referendum. 475 MP's voted for it. Thats my point. Parliament voted for what Cameron promise which was follow the course the country voted for. 

 

Edited by chaddyrovers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Just keep going on and on Den. 

Parliament voted to in act the result of the EU referendum. 475 MP's voted for it. End of story

 

Just pointing you in the right direction Chaddy.

Cameron had no control over parliament, so shouldn’t have promised that they would obey him.  No matter what you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Backroom
1 hour ago, Ewood Ace said:

Exactly backing my point up, he was head of an organisation that failed the victims of Savile. The buck stops at the top. A man with any morals would have had a bit of dignity and retired from public life rather than try to worm his way into Downing Street.

That's a pretty clear misunderstanding of how the CPS works. It primarily works on the basis of evidence (or lack of).

The evidence provided to the CPS re: Jimmy Saville didn't pass the threshold of evidence. This was because evidence given by victims wasn't presented to the CPS due to Police belief that the victims were not reliable witnesses (which also badly impacted the 'Grooming Gang' cases).

It was Keir Starmer who instigated the necessary changes to Police investigation procedures involving vulnerable victims (particularly where crimes have a sexual element).

He (and Nazir Afzal) are responsible for positive change to an outdated process within the CPS.

Claiming that 'he' avoided court cases is simply a lie, and (just as with the Grooming Gang cases) had Saville been alive he would have been tried for what he did.

Finally, even if you choose to ignore the above, the buck doesn't actually stop with the DPP, it stops with the Attorney General. I don't see you rushing to condemn Dominic Grieve.

Edited by Mike E
Poor grammar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.