Starmer did job properly, becomes, when seen through the lens of The Telegraph: ‘I blame Starmer as much as arsonist for devastating impact on my family’ Sir Keir Starmer helped to free some of Britain’s most dangerous prisoners in a move described by one of their victims as ‘ruining’ her life https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ed-free-some-of-uks-most-dangerous-prisoners/
This is the big attack line the Tories are resting their whole election campaign on next year. They’re going to rely on the huge ignorance of the a British public to try and make out a barrister who will have taken jobs under the ‘cab rank’ rule, which is a professional obligation, supported the causes of those he represented. I’ve read that Labour are fully expecting this, so I hope they have a good response planned and fight fire with fire.
Seems a daft approach. Many Tory MPs previously practiced law and will have the same "exposure" (which, as you've already highlighted, is simply professional obligation). It's astounding how ignorant people are about the basics of how our society operates. UK schools really need to study basic elements of civics/separation of powers/legal system etc. People growing up not understanding these things benefits absolutely no one.
And yet those same people will also tell you very loudly just how much sovereignty matters to them. It does actually benefit plenty of people… it benefits Michelle Mone that there are people who don’t understand how anything works so that their lame excuses start to muddy the waters.
So cynical, if this was a footie tackle it would be waist high. The usually transphobic Mail splashes this dreadful murder, but, true crime fans, you must listen to its podcast.
Counter-attack in the media about Starmer's time at the CPS: Keir Starmer was not told about dropping of Jimmy Savile case, say sources Labour leader was unaware a prosecutor had closed case in 2009 despite being head of CPS, it has emerged
No, those top cheeses never do anything wrong. When there's a **** up, they knew nothing about it. They weren't there. Completely innocent. I bet it was that lowly bloke who was to blame. The young one who'd just joined a few months ago. That'll be it. Everyone always thought he was a bit odd. Now look what he did! The *******!
Starmer worked FOR FREE to save baby murderers: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/25290381/sir-keir-starmer-free-lawyer-save-baby-murderers/
Wow. An incredible twist on the truth here. Anyone who is against the death penalty can be considered pro burying children alive.
A hotter take might have been to reveal that man considered by some to have no principles is revealed to have once had some. What ever happened to Keir Starmer?
The Government should launch an inquiry into lawyering in general. Many of their clients are complete wrong uns and they think that’s ok. Some are even Pro-Bono and he’s an irritating gobshyte.
I just examined my personal morals and ethics and discovered that you are right, much to my surprise. We need more children buried alive! Just say yes to underage subterranean incarceration!
I always thought it was Pro-Bonio which didn't make much sense, so thanks for clearing that one up for me.
YouGov poll commissioned by Fatty Frost published in Telegraph: As Alex Andreou put it on X: "Would you vote for Sunak, Starmer or a magical Wizard"?
This has prompted "50 and Sunak" to be number one trend on twitter. When you investigate it, it is "I'm over 50 and Sunak can **** right off".
They broke the social contract and the over-50s are just starting to cotton on that this is going to have a significant impact on them and their children. Problem: Young people can't get on the housing ladder. Solution: Not to worry, they'll inherit their parents' house. Problem: Except the parents will potentially have to spend tens, if not hundreds, of thousands on care costs. Problem: There's not enough housing Solution: Fill in every available bit of land, including green belt, with pokey, low-grade (but very expensive) housing Not popular with people who've spent 25 years paying their mortgage only to find the places they've built a life are going to be changed beyond recognition In their rush to plunder the public purse, the Tories have abandoned their core voters. Some Tory voters have been slow to cotton on but the recognition in recent months has been rapid. You hear it everywhere out here in blue-rosette-on-a-flowerpot-of-dung land.
The BBC is off and running with its campaign of false equivalence, planting the seed that they are 'as bad as each other'. BBC Breakfast this morning had an image of Starmer and Sunak together. "Look, see, they're all the same." The first thing mentioned was Starmer's 'U-turn' on the green pledge. Second thing mentioned was Sunak making a trans joke while the mother of a murdered transgender child was sitting in the public gallery at PMQs. "Look, see, these two things are as bad as each other." The capacity to frame things in a certain way never ceases to amaze. The right-wingers don't want net zero – or indeed any green policies. The Tories always say "yes, but how are Labour going to pay for it.' Starmer makes a decision and he's labelled indecisive. "Look, see, they're as bad as each other... Better the devil you know, eh?"
Using a grieving mother to score points at PMQs was a new low for Starmer and British politics in general.
There's no need to say one is better than the other. That's not what either story is about. The editorial framing of two totally unconnected stories together in the same breath is in itself a form of political bias. The fact you can't see the joins just shows how effective it is as a technique.
Good one! That's right. You've identified the real baddie using the magnifying glass you got on the front of your CBBC children's comic!
I can see the join, thanks. But think of the alternative. Seems to me that these are both essentially negative news items. If Labour dropping its green policy goes first, that will be seen as the BBC signalling that what Labour says is more important and problematic than what Sunak said. And vice versa. Either way the BBC gets criticised for editorial bias. It actually strikes me as quite smart work to link the two in this way, in an effort to forestall that criticism. And the fact that you read it as 'they are as bad as each other' shows that it has worked. The Labour announcement was the lead item on BBC radio, incidentally.
If I were looking at this through a purely political lense, Labour missed a trick by not announcing this policy change a couple days ago when it would have been buried by the news about the King's cancer. The added bonus would have been that Sunak's disastrous day yesterday would have been more prominent in the news reporting today.
If that was his plan then it was a very cunning one. Did he invite Esther Ghey into the commons? Did he raise transgender issue to lure Sunak into commenting on it? Or did he, as a courtesy, acknowledge that Brianna's mother was in public gallery and welcome her. And did Sunak, having nothing to do with the question being asked, have a quite unnecessary pop at the transgender community, infront of a grieving mother of a murdered transgender child? From the PMQs I watched it appeared to be the latter but perhaps you know differently?
Normally I'd agree but she's been mixing it with politicians and addressing political issues all week, and was attending Parliament that day, so I think it was legitimate. Ultimately Sunak wants to keep picking on this teeny tiny minority of trans people, who the vast majority of Brits are happy to do their own thing, just to stoke a culture war. It's right to point out to him real people are at the centre of this.
Meanwhile BBC News front page this lunchtime is Sunak's lame attempt to flip this back on Starmer alongside a live text headed by Labour reversing a proposed (not even actual) policy: Not even a fig leaf of 'all as bad as one another' there!
The "policy change" has been an open goal for the Tories though. Leading Labour figures have been contradicting each other over this for days, if not weeks. And, from what I gather, the £28bn seemed to have been an arbitrary figure anyway, with hardly any of it allocated to specific projects. I think Labour's timidity may cost them vote if this anything to go by. They should have, imho, said that this amount was never fixed in stone. That any spending would be within the government's fiscal rules. But their policy would continue to be to create a world leading renewable energy industry, create jobs and provide energy security for the UK. The Labour party have made a complete and unnecessary mess of this imho.
What was worse Rishi’s buttock clenchingly clumsy attempt at a joke (which seemed to me to be at Sir Keir’s expense rather than trans people, anyway) or Sir Keir’s response – dripping with the fake sincerity that he likes to deploy at every opportunity – which, to my mind, was a pretty distasteful exploitation of Mrs Ghey. They really are all as dreadful as each other!
