• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Silly McSilly Face said:
A lot of it was noise as although it was behaviour that was unbefitting of public servants at such a high level there was no resulting implication or action relating to serious criminal or civil misconduct.

He wasn't under criminal investigation when vetted and appointed but he was heavily linked to Epstein who WAS subject to ongoing investigations in the US relating to his global political links and the UK criminal investigation arose out of the files disclosed by US authorities.

You know the Johnson government was appauling and i am never going to vote conservative again precisely because of the conduct of that government.

However, those towards the left really need to take their heads out of the sand - for all the talk of corruption in the tory party the only evidence of serious and criminal misconduct on a corruption level currently being investigated by UK authorities relate to the Labour government of 1997-2010 (one of the central suspects of which was an advisor to Starmer and was subsequently appointed by the current Labour government to a prestigious political position - the other central suspect being Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor who had been appointed as trade envoy by Labour govt of the same era) and the SNP, resulting in formal charges being brought against Nicola Sturgeon's husband and party Chief Executive.
Click to expand...
This bloke doesnt get it, we all think Starmer is a cnut, we all think Bojo was a cnut, no one in playing one upmanship on either from what I could tell.

This is argument in an elevator stuff.

Its also typically "I dont like them....
But"
 
johnola said:
I’m personally sick to death of the resignation calls everywhere when something goes wrong.

Police chiefs get sacked when a lunatic goes on a killing spree. A fire phalanx commander to be sacked when a house burns down. A headteacher to stand down because the parents send in untoilet trained unruly kids.

A prime minister to be sacked because he appointed someone with perverted friends to go work with one of those perverts.

There is no resilience in this country and leaders can’t lead because of events not because of policy.
Click to expand...
Exactly this.
 
WillWeEverBeGoodAgain said:
View attachment 22113
Click to expand...
His team is the cabinet.

This is a question about the vetting process and stakeholder communication.
It's a civil service failure (if MPs were not informed). If so, that'll be dealt with in line with the Civil Service code

It's a Steamer failure if it's cabinet related.

If Starmer knew, then it's his failure and undermines his integrity. In which case, he should go. But it doesn't seem like that is the case.
 
monkeybarry said:
His team is the cabinet.

This is a question about the vetting process and stakeholder communication.
It's a civil service failure (if MPs were not informed). If so, that'll be dealt with in line with the Civil Service code

It's a Steamer failure if it's cabinet related.

If Starmer knew, then it's his failure and undermines his integrity. In which case, he should go. But it doesn't seem like that is the case.
Click to expand...
But apparently the Civil Service vetting team is not allowed to tell No 10 whether someone has failed* as it is confidential, they can only advise whether approval is given or not.

* Listening earlier to a former senior civil service employee who was previously involved in the vetting process, he said that it’s not actually a case of “pass” or “fail”. Once all the investigations have taken place it is then a judgement call within the FCO as to whether or not the appointment is approved. Who makes that call depends on the level of person being assessed and the position. In this case it went right to the top given the person involved and the importance of the role.
 
Lost Mango said:
The irony of you posting something accusing someone of an error related to Jimmy Savile whilst your avatar is of one of his greatest supporters and you link that to 'when will we be great again'. Immense work.

having said that Starmer has responsibility for the things he, possibly deliberately, didn't know.
Click to expand...

This post should be saved. Saville friends are OK. Epstein ones aren't. Based on the party they lead.

Proof of?

Not really caring about the noncery.

Or just really dim.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
But apparently the Civil Service vetting team is not allowed to tell No 10 whether someone has failed* as it is confidential, they can only advise whether approval is given or not.

* Listening earlier to a former senior civil service employee who was previously involved in the vetting process, he said that it’s not actually a case of “pass” or “fail”. Once all the investigations have taken place it is then a judgement call within the FCO as to whether or not the appointment is approved. Who makes that call depends on the level of person being assessed and the position. In this case it went right to the top given the person involved and the importance of the role.
Click to expand...
That is correct, yes.

It is a pass Vs fail, but the criteria are not binary - so the standards are different and appropriate to each appointment. Vetting is just a risk assessment.

And yes re; not telling no.10 re the reason. They would just communicate that the appointment wasn't successful.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

He knew. Let's not pretend he didn't know. It's unfathomable. And I also dislike seeing right wing bellends using this to push Reform but it's important to seperate it. He's literally lost the confidence of the nation.
 
Lost Mango said:
The whole fast track PPE with Lady Mayne was clean as a whistle was it?
Click to expand...
So when we talk about a government, i.e. "actions of Johnson government versus Starmer government" you need to look at what is an actual action of the government. Mone was a David Cameron peerage and so her positon in the lords wasn't anything to do with the Johnson govt.

The fast track PPE lane was a necessary emergency measure. Any other government would have implemented it. And any other government would have used any contacts and pulled any strings they could have in the circumstances and so they should have. Does it look like the Mones or their associates took advantage of that? Maybe. There is an investigation ongoing. But that is fundamentally different to what has gone on with Mandelson. Johnson was not close to Mone nor was she involved in his government. Mandelson was at the heart of Starmer's advisory circle from his campaign to become Labour leader.
 
thfcsteff said:
You should mate, and should've been since 2015. We are where we are because Farage opened the door for Bannon to shove Trump across the line...and since then, his every action has impacted the world.
Click to expand...
That's a wild stretch. The main thing that opened the door for Trump to become president twice was the ridiculously poor candidates put forward by the Democrats. Look at Obama and what a wise and articulate individual he comes across as. Then look at what Trump had to compete with.
 
Last edited:
Lost Mango said:
It isn't the same level of incompetence and definitely not the same level of corruption as under Johnson and the Tories, even though it is probably re-assuring to you to try and make that case.

For bizarre, illogical reasons, partly driven by the media, Labour (and any progressives) are held to higher standards than conservatives, who are allowed a certain freedom to lean on their money-grubbing, cronyistic behaviour, because that is what 'economic-savvy', city people are like and that is what makes them successful or some such BS, whilst idealistic people are hypocrites if they fall short of the much higher standards that are set for them.

Appointing and backing Pincher was levels above either Ali or Mandelson.
The copious gifts and hospitality is rife through all political parties (and especially in the grifting party you are likely to vote for - see Suella's recent 7K in declared gifts), Rachel Reeves's CV was a massive non-issue if it had been a Tory male who had spun something.

False equivalents of they are all as bad as each other continues to undercut and break UK politics. There are some definite wrong'uns - like Johnson, Farage, Truss, Zahawi - and then there is a lot of people who adapt to a system that is functionally crap and use it legally but immorally as it is just what happens in a place like Westminster.
Click to expand...

Lets face it you can't really argue that sleaze follows all political parties, they're all addicted to the gravy train and power in one way or another. Lets not forget Josh Simons paying to get journalists smeared, Tulip Siddiq laundering money (not proven).

Don't forget that it was Labour who made such a big deal of being the new clean faced party who were above all this and were then immediately caught out getting freebies from Alli.
 
P.D. said:
Lets face it you can't really argue that sleaze follows all political parties, they're all addicted to the gravy train and power in one way or another. Lets not forget Josh Simons paying to get journalists smeared, Tulip Siddiq laundering money (not proven).

Don't forget that it was Labour who made such a big deal of being the new clean faced party who were above all this and were then immediately caught out getting freebies from Alli.
Click to expand...
fudge i forgot about the Siddiq stuff. Again, an actual criminal investigation into actual corruption. You say it isn't proven. It has been proven (albeit in a foreign court). She has been convicted of corruption and sentenced to 4 years in prison by a Bangladeshi court.
 
LutonSpurs said:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

He knew. Let's not pretend he didn't know. It's unfathomable. And I also dislike seeing right wing bellends using this to push Reform but it's important to seperate it. He's literally lost the confidence of the nation.
Click to expand...
March was 2.5 weeks ago!
Pretty sure I've still got unread emails from March FFS!

These really are the kind of details the head of an organisation (IE the civil service) delegates and trusts is carried out properly and with good policy to underpin it.

The Cabinet office will have known about the FCDO action. They will have disagreed with it. But policy was followed.
The policy seems flawed.
The FCDO decision making seems flawed - although without seeing the evidence base for granting the developed vetting, we can't say for certain.
 
monkeybarry said:
March was 2.5 weeks ago!
Pretty sure I've still got unread emails from March FFS!

These really are the kind of details the head of an organisation (IE the civil service) delegates and trusts is carried out properly and with good policy to underpin it.

The Cabinet office will have known about the FCDO action. They will have disagreed with it. But policy was followed.
The policy seems flawed.
The FCDO decision making seems flawed - although without seeing the evidence base for granting the developed vetting, we can't say for certain.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying your scenario is viable, I'm just saying I don't beleive a word of it. There's no way he didn't know he was involved in Epsteins world.

They snuck him in. And got caught.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back