Starmer’s chronicles

[nomadking]

Labour politicians mysteriously get away with so much stuff, even when it public knowledge.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Labour politicians mysteriously get away with so much stuff, even when it public knowledge.

Keep up mate! She's lost her job over what Chris calls a nothing burger.

[Russ]

How has she “got away with it”?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Russ

If this was Boris you’d be saying “all politicians are like that”.

what mobile phone thieves

Originally Posted by papa smurf

what mobile phone thieves

Fair point - Conservative Ministers just "replace"/forget to back-up/forget the password from their phones when they are needed as evidence in Enquiries…

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ld-be-searched

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/article/...bile-st6cnf9k9

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-joh...sages-12920387

[papa smurf]

they're off to a good start

clothing gate
thumping a member of the public
fake CV
fraud conviction
clearly turning the page

---------- Post added at 12:49 ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 ----------

After a few minuets of carefull consideration a new transport minister has been appointed

https://news.sky.com/story/heidi-ale...-plea-13262817

Originally Posted by papa smurf

After a few minuets of carefull consideration a new transport minister has been appointed

https://news.sky.com/story/heidi-ale...-plea-13262817

If Starmer has been doing French ballroom dancing instead of running the country the Daily Mail will go ballistic.

[Kursk]

Rosie Duffield

Sue Gray

Mike Amesbury

Louise Haigh

Rachel from Accounts.


Please make it stop.

I think the main problem is her account doesn't add up to me.

It seems that she was mugged. This doesn't appear to be in dispute.

She includes her work phone on the list of items taken.

Her work phone is then turned on and the police notice she has it.

She is questioned and 'on the advice of her lawyer' says no comment.

The case proceeds and she pleads guilty.

Now if she found the phone again and was mistaken about it being stolen then why offer No Comment? Why did the police and CPS proceed with the case? If you're robbed and you mistakenly list an item stolen that wasn't then the police aren't going to go after you for that. They must have had some evidence this was deliberate.

The article from Sky said she lost her job at Aviva over this and that she wanted a new work phone. That seems the most plausible explanation here. She saw a chance to get a new phone and so added that to the list of stolen items and then was done for when it was uncovered.

All I would say is that it was a spent conviction so to resign now over it seems weird unless more is to come out. I guess she didn't want the story to drag on and Labour don't want to go down the Tory route of spending weeks defending someone only to have to fire them later.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think the main problem is her account doesn't add up to me.

It seems that she was mugged. This doesn't appear to be in dispute.

She includes her work phone on the list of items taken.

Her work phone is then turned on and the police notice she has it.

She is questioned and 'on the advice of her lawyer' says no comment.

The case proceeds and she pleads guilty.

Now if she found the phone again and was mistaken about it being stolen then why offer No Comment? Why did the police and CPS proceed with the case? If you're robbed and you mistakenly list an item stolen that wasn't then the police aren't going to go after you for that. They must have had some evidence this was deliberate.

The article from Sky said she lost her job at Aviva over this and that she wanted a new work phone. That seems the most plausible explanation here. She saw a chance to get a new phone and so added that to the list of stolen items and then was done for when it was uncovered.

All I would say is that it was a spent conviction so to resign now over it seems weird unless more is to come out. I guess she didn't want the story to drag on and Labour don't want to go down the Tory route of spending weeks defending someone only to have to fire them later.

As I see it the problem is sir keir knew all about it . So his judgement is being called into question yet again

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think the main problem is her account doesn't add up to me.

It seems that she was mugged. This doesn't appear to be in dispute.

She includes her work phone on the list of items taken.

Her work phone is then turned on and the police notice she has it.

She is questioned and 'on the advice of her lawyer' says no comment.

The case proceeds and she pleads guilty.

Now if she found the phone again and was mistaken about it being stolen then why offer No Comment? Why did the police and CPS proceed with the case? If you're robbed and you mistakenly list an item stolen that wasn't then the police aren't going to go after you for that. They must have had some evidence this was deliberate.

The article from Sky said she lost her job at Aviva over this and that she wanted a new work phone. That seems the most plausible explanation here. She saw a chance to get a new phone and so added that to the list of stolen items and then was done for when it was uncovered.

All I would say is that it was a spent conviction so to resign now over it seems weird unless more is to come out. I guess she didn't want the story to drag on and Labour don't want to go down the Tory route of spending weeks defending someone only to have to fire them later.

From my perspective, Sir Keir said that lawbreakers shouldn't be lawmakers. As she broke the law, and this is now widely known, her position is untenable so she resigned. If Sir Keir took one thing from BoJo's mistakes, it would be never to string these things out.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

From my perspective, Sir Keir said that lawbreakers shouldn't be lawmakers. As she broke the law, and this is now widely known, her position is untenable so she resigned.

That is a very cogent, coherent and intelligent take.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If Sir Keir took one thing from BoJo's mistakes, it would be never to string these things out.

He didnt make any decisions on this, she resigned. Of course, she may have been "advised" to do so.

Originally Posted by Damien

I think the main problem is her account doesn't add up to me.

It seems that she was mugged. This doesn't appear to be in dispute.

She includes her work phone on the list of items taken.

Her work phone is then turned on and the police notice she has it.

She is questioned and 'on the advice of her lawyer' says no comment.

The case proceeds and she pleads guilty.

Now if she found the phone again and was mistaken about it being stolen then why offer No Comment? Why did the police and CPS proceed with the case? If you're robbed and you mistakenly list an item stolen that wasn't then the police aren't going to go after you for that. They must have had some evidence this was deliberate.

The article from Sky said she lost her job at Aviva over this and that she wanted a new work phone. That seems the most plausible explanation here. She saw a chance to get a new phone and so added that to the list of stolen items and then was done for when it was uncovered.

All I would say is that it was a spent conviction so to resign now over it seems weird unless more is to come out. I guess she didn't want the story to drag on and Labour don't want to go down the Tory route of spending weeks defending someone only to have to fire them later.

Do you have a link to that, please?

Can’t find that in this Sky News article…

https://news.sky.com/story/louise-ha...-game-13263058

[Russ]

Interesting how Deform fans are far more lenient with their own James McMurdock.