Cable Forum - Starmer’s chronicles

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Starmer’s chronicles (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33712992)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195119)

So the nationalities of criminals will now be released under Labour.

According to Reinhard Jenner reckons the “British people deserves to know the truth about migrant crime”.

Well true but couldn’t his party have released those figures oh, in 14 years? Why didn’t they publish migrant crime?

Only those facing deportation, not all criminals. Only possible where agreements(eg April 2024 with Albania) allowed deportation in the first place.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195119)

So the nationalities of criminals will now be released under Labour.

According to Reinhard Jenner reckons the “British people deserves to know the truth about migrant crime”.

Well true but couldn’t his party have released those figures oh, in 14 years? Why didn’t they publish migrant crime?

Who is he/she/they them/ that?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

And finally look who's crawled out from under a rock

Starmer says he is 'really pleased' supreme court has given 'much-needed clarity' on definition of 'woman' in equalities law
Keir Starmer has been under pressure for days to comment on the supreme court ruling, particularly from the rightwing papers. Yesterday the Daily Mail even splashed on a story saying he “must break his silence”. His opponents want to embarrass him over the issue because of his past comments supporting more rights for trans people, including one interview when he said it was “not right” to say only women have a cervix.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...t-updates-news

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36195141)

Papa, Starmer is a scheming liar as his pre-election promises has proved. Starmer also wriggled when being pressed to define a woman - you'll all remember that. It is only right that he should be brought to the microphone to comment on the important Supreme Court ruling.

The trans situation was getting totally out of hand in sports, toilets, changing rooms, etc and Starmer's lot didn't seem to care. Embarrassing Starmer is a must.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

He still can't get it quite right.
Link

Quote:

Commenting publicly for the first time on last Wednesday's decision, the prime minister said the judgment provided "clarity" that "a woman is an adult female".

The Equality Act 2010 defines "woman" is a female of ANY age.
The judgement effectively inserts "biological" before "female", so it becomes biological female of ANY age.
There is also the other side of a "man" being a biological male of any age.
It is meant to include boys and girls.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36194976)

Well I read it as he did, you worded it very badly. ;)

Perhaps you should read it again. You are simply not very good at grasping obvious points and you jump to conclusions. Anyway, you get it now, which is all that matters.

---------- Post added at 12:55 ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36194988)

No it never as Paul thought the same thing, anyone would've.

Yeah if only we hadn't surrendered our ability to send them back we wouldn't have to pay France anything

I said:

‘It’s a shame that France provides life jackets for these illegal immigrants to Britain. What the hell are we paying the French for?’

So you read the first sentence and make the worst assumption, without reading the second sentence.

I notice a few of you do this on Cable Forum, quite a lot. I don’t get this elsewhere. :scratch:

---------- Post added at 12:59 ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36194998)

Why the hell do people think we can simply “send the boats back”? The French (or any other country) have no requirement to accept them and could theoretically send them straight back to us.

As previously mentioned, the result of a certain referendum from circa 2016 (which I won’t name in case it triggers anyone) took away our legal right to return these people.

Yes, good point, which is why we need a nominated third country to take them in. That’s what Rwanda would have achieved had it not been for the do-gooders who want to drown us with hordes of humanity flooding our shores and bringing this country down.

How some of you guys can support this I really cannot fathom. Don’t look to Starmer - he has no solutions.

---------- Post added at 13:00 ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195017)

And risk our standing on the international stage by breaking several international laws by refusing them entry (clue: it’s not just about the ECHR)?

Who cares if the alternative is to bring Britain to its knees?

---------- Post added at 13:02 ---------- Previous post was at 13:00 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195023)

Yes it’s about Starmer, and why he can’t just “turn them around”.

It’s not about having “the guts”, Starmer doesn’t have “the power” - again, removed from us after the result of 2016.

And you’re happy with this? Do you have any answers to this problem, because I haven’t heard them?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195151)

Who cares if the alternative is to bring Britain to its knees?

Tell us you don’t get how international diplomacy works without telling us you don’t get how international diplomacy works.

---------- Post added at 13:03 ---------- Previous post was at 13:03 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195151)

And you’re happy with this? Do you have any answers to this problem, because I haven’t heard them?

I’m not a politician. It’s not up to me to come up with answers.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36195141)

What is incredible is how he got confused in the first place. Maybe his wife should have explained it to him.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195156)

So just carp from the sidelines.

Btw, is Starmer doing a good job for the country in your opinion?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36195159)

So just carp from the sidelines.

No different to what you, I or anyone else on this forum does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36195159)

Btw, is Starmer doing a good job for the country in your opinion?

In comparison to who/what?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195156)

There’s two glib responses from you that do not contain answers, and yet you have the gall to reject out of hand obvious solutions that are presented to you. Why are you even commenting on here if you think it’s not up to you to come up with possible answers or discuss things in a rational and constructive manner? Isn’t that what a discussion forum is all about?

You seem to be a habitual protester. If you don’t have any solutions yourself, why criticise those who do?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Discussions should always include answers? Is that what you think?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195162)

Discussions should always include answers? Is that what you think?

Presumably, you didn’t go on to read:

‘or discuss things in a rational and constructive manner?’

Another example of disrupters who choose to ignore the real point that was being made. Is it catching?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

I’ve discussed this several times in this and other threads. Not my issue if you can’t be bothered to find them.

And by the way, just because you’ve up with what you think is a “sensible” idea does not automatically make it a “sensible idea”.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195151)

And you’re happy with this? Do you have any answers to this problem, because I haven’t heard them?

For the millions we have paid and are going to pay.

We could have built a processing centre on an uninhabited UK island, no need to go to Rwanda. They get processed offshore, and never step foot on the UK mainland.