Why those parties have made me angry

[cromwell]

I suggest NOT repeating total bullshine about Starmer. (Seriously.) Bojo was totally out of order and if he does not retract I hope Starmer sues him.

Absolute cobblers and shows  how little you know.

Parliamentary privilege dictates that a member is protected against liability for statements made within the house,this has happened and been use a purpose on many occasions so I suggest you get your facts up to date.

[papasmurf]

Who do you think you are today? a Barrister maybe? by the way Starmer has more than enough Skeletons in his cupboard nobody in Parliament is exactly honest or without them.

The point is Sheepy Boris Johnson told a disgusting lie about Starmer that even Tory MPs are angry about.
That is slander and legally actionable.

[Barry]

Who do you think you are today? a Barrister maybe? by the way Starmer has more than enough Skeletons in his cupboard nobody in Parliament is exactly honest or without them.

Starmer did apologise in 2013:

[Sheepy]

What you posted is legally actionable:-


https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-01/pm-facing-backlash-over-desperate-false-jimmy-savile-attack-on-starmer


Boris Johnson facing backlash over 'desperate' false Jimmy Savile attack on Keir Starmer

Tuesday 1 February 2022, 12:58pm

Boris Johnson has been labelled "desperate" over a false attack he made on Sir Keir Starmer, accusing the former lawyer of failing to prosecute prolific sex offender Jimmy Savile when he was head of the CPS.
The embattled prime minister, in his attempts to defend himself over Sue Gray's critical partygate report, attempted to associate Sir Keir with the disgraced entertainer - comments even his own MPs want him to withdraw.
In the Commons during debate on the Sue Gray report, Mr Johnson claimed Sir Keir, the former director of public prosecutions, "used his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile".
But Sir Keir told ITV's Good Morning Britain that accusation is a "slur, it's untrue", a conclusion Full Fact came to when it investigated the claim in June 2020.


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

Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations.

Who do you think you are today? a Barrister maybe? by the way Starmer has more than enough Skeletons in his cupboard nobody in Parliament is exactly honest or without them. 

[T00ts]

I think there are more than 350 Tory MPs, most of which are more honest than Big Dog Bojo. About 50 must be capable of higher thought processes than the unrefined Bullingdon Club "member". However, he's probably bought a bit of time. If he can win the council election in May he might survive, if not he'll be toast.

I don't doubt the honesty claim. My worry was when you said about a Brexit PM. That's my problem. I read that Rishi who seems to the favourite has worked against Art 16 being invoked because he is concerned about upsetting the EU and trade. Not a Brexit PM for me. Upsetting the EU might be my first job requirement. 

[papasmurf]

I have no regard to what you suggest. What I posted is common knowledge. (seriously)

What you posted is legally actionable:-


https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-01/pm-facing-backlash-over-desperate-false-jimmy-savile-attack-on-starmer


Boris Johnson facing backlash over 'desperate' false Jimmy Savile attack on Keir Starmer

Tuesday 1 February 2022, 12:58pm

Boris Johnson has been labelled "desperate" over a false attack he made on Sir Keir Starmer, accusing the former lawyer of failing to prosecute prolific sex offender Jimmy Savile when he was head of the CPS.
The embattled prime minister, in his attempts to defend himself over Sue Gray's critical partygate report, attempted to associate Sir Keir with the disgraced entertainer - comments even his own MPs want him to withdraw.
In the Commons during debate on the Sue Gray report, Mr Johnson claimed Sir Keir, the former director of public prosecutions, "used his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile".
But Sir Keir told ITV's Good Morning Britain that accusation is a "slur, it's untrue", a conclusion Full Fact came to when it investigated the claim in June 2020.


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

Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations.

[Good old]

At the time the decision was made regarding the very famous personality Jimmy Savile, Kier Starmer was the director of the CPS.
If you want to think that the decision as to whether to prosecute a public figure like him was made by a police sergeant and a CPS office lawyer, you are deluded.
When high profile personalities are dealt with in the legal system, the decisions go to the top.
In any case, the buck stops with the boss.

As it does with Boris. So he should move over for the next Brexiteer Tory leader.

No in this case it did not , stop with Starmer, it never was required to reach his desk.
It was a Surrey police investigation, that was  subject to Cps officers for that area.  There would have been no need at that time for it to have gone anywhere near Starmer.  There is no delusion, these things are dealt with at local level all the time, Savile, being high profile would not have altered things at that time as accusations of this sort were not uncommonly dismissed. Where they would not be now. This whole saga has been debunked several times. And Starmer played a leading roll in bringing any number of sex offenders of a similar nature to book once it became clear that there was a national problem with multiple accusers coming forward. So what's the inference then, that he was sympathetic to Savile. That's what is delusional. 
A major difference is , regarding where the bucks stops, Starmer , didn't even know about this at that time, because the system didn't require he should. Your delusional if you think every case nationwide would have gone past him.
Boris, on the other hand  by his own admission knew what was under his nose because he was there

[Barry]

Who do you think? I can't see anyone.

I think there are more than 350 Tory MPs, most of which are more honest than Big Dog Bojo. About 50 must be capable of higher thought processes than the unrefined Bullingdon Club "member". However, he's probably bought a bit of time. If he can win the council election in May he might survive, if not he'll be toast.

[T00ts]

At the time the decision was made regarding the very famous personality Jimmy Savile, Kier Starmer was the director of the CPS.
If you want to think that the decision as to whether to prosecute a public figure like him was made by a police sergeant and a CPS office lawyer, you are deluded.
When high profile personalities are dealt with in the legal system, the decisions go to the top.
In any case, the buck stops with the boss.

As it does with Boris. So he should move over for the next Brexiteer Tory leader.

Who do you think? I can't see anyone.

[Barry]

I suggest NOT repeating total bullshine about Starmer. (Seriously.) 

I have no regard to what you suggest. What I posted is common knowledge. (seriously)

[papasmurf]

At the time the decision was made regarding the very famous personality Jimmy Savile, Kier Starmer was the director of the CPS.
If you want to think that the decision as to whether to prosecute a public figure like him was made by a police sergeant and a CPS office lawyer, you are deluded.
When high profile personalities are dealt with in the legal system, the decisions go to the top.
In any case, the buck stops with the boss.

As it does with Boris. So he should move over for the next Brexiteer Tory leader.

I suggest NOT repeating total bullshine about Starmer. (Seriously.) Bojo was totally out of order and if he does not retract I hope Starmer sues him.

[Good old]

No rules are rules. You cannot call someone a liar in the House. Blackford is just a bumptious little man who imagines himself a great orator and party leader. He is just a creep. I really don't know why he is there he hates it so much.

No and the man left the house as he was required to do if he would not retract. Rules are rules, that's what I and a large percentage of the country thought. Even you want to pay homage  to the idea.
But not the man , or a large percentage of his parliamentary following it seems, that you support.
Blackford, is the Westminster leader of the SNP. Every thing you describe him as is a matter of opinion, not fact.
Everything insinuated in Johnson's clumsy back street level. assertion to Starmer, is completely untrue. Fast and loose with truth and fact ,it's a real problem right now for the Tories , don't you think Toots ?

[Barry]

Blackford, left the chamber after telling the truth. Boris, throws a completely untrue slur. Regarding Jimmy Savile, and no response of any sort from the speaker. His accusation has been proved beyond any doubt to not be true.
Yet the scum bag  gets a free ride.

At the time the decision was made regarding the very famous personality Jimmy Savile, Kier Starmer was the director of the CPS.
If you want to think that the decision as to whether to prosecute a public figure like him was made by a police sergeant and a CPS office lawyer, you are deluded.
When high profile personalities are dealt with in the legal system, the decisions go to the top.
In any case, the buck stops with the boss.

As it does with Boris. So he should move over for the next Brexiteer Tory leader.

[T00ts]

Yes ,it would seem you can spread a lie. But actually confront someone with the truth and you have to withdraw.

No rules are rules. You cannot call someone a liar in the House. Blackford is just a bumptious little man who imagines himself a great orator and party leader. He is just a creep. I really don't know why he is there he hates it so much.

[papasmurf]

I don't trust the Guardian - I didn't think you trusted anything parliamentary except Hansard.

Toots the news item is all over the media/press today. It will also be in Hansard.  I also saw Bojo say it live on BBC Parliament.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-jimmy-savile-smear-sir-keir-starmer-tory-mps-1434998

Tory MPs demand Boris Johnson retract 'Jimmy Savile smear' aimed at Sir Keir Starmer

Prime Minister made discredited comments in the Commons during heated exchange over Sue Gray report

Boris Johnson has been branded "dangerous" by his own MPs who have urged the Prime Minister to retract false accusations that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile.
The Prime Minister is coming under mounting criticism over his decision to make the claim about the Labour leader, which has been repeatedly proven to be untrue.
Former Northern Ireland secretary Julian Smith was the first Conservative to publicly call out Mr Johnson's comments made in the Commons chamber on Monday.


https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-01-31/debates/6B412B49-AB7D-4FE3-9F82-B9EAE93FB6AC/SueGrayReport
The Prime Minister 

Sharethis specific contribution

There is a reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman said absolutely nothing about the report that was presented by the Government 

Toggle showing location ofColumn 26

and put in the Library of this House earlier today. That is because the report does absolutely nothing to substantiate the tissue of nonsense that he has just spoken—absolutely nothing. Instead, this Leader of the Opposition, a former Director of Public Prosecutions—although he spent most of his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile, as far as I can make out—chose to use this moment continually to prejudge a police inquiry. That is what he chose to do. He has reached his conclusions about it. I am not going to reach any conclusions, and he would be entirely wrong to do so. I direct him again to what Sue Gray says in her report about the conclusions that can be drawn from her inquiry about what the police may or may not do. I have complete confidence in the police, and I hope that they will be allowed simply to get on with their job. I do not propose to offer any more commentary about it, and I do not believe that he should either.