Is Keir Starmer’s beergate story unravelling?

[Barry]

I stand by what i called him .

[highlight]The context was initially from around december 2019 post the general election till starmers coronation good old and others were bigging starmer up.[/highlight] As the months went by , we had the slow gradual climbdown as starmers lack of ability became apparent till eventually as i said , good old ( and others ) were reduced to bleating starmers and labour s best hope was a coaltion. Your post proved my chronolgy of events , as the best your "evidence " could produce to attempt to rubbish what i had said was a post of good olds twelve months after starmers name first went in the ring , and 8 months after his  election.

As i always used to tell pappy , read your link and the nuance of the thread  before you declare you have someone bang to rights.

Nothing more to say on the matter as you are embarressing yourself cromwell. Petulance and an extremely poor attempt at point scoring which has backfired on you.

Now , as ever you are reduced to damage limitation .

Good Old didn't join the forum until June 2020, so how does that fit in?

[Thomas]

A prime example of when your argument is thin you resort to patronising waffle bolstered by patronising insult.
And mis leading rubbish. As ever you draw us away from the actual subject. No more from me on this unless it sticks to subject.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/when-did-germany-become-a-country.html
You think Germany can only claim to be a country since 1949? With that uptake on nationhood  it's little wonder Putin thinks Ukraine is his.

Doesnt matter , i didnt ask when germany became a country. Your link doesnt tell who federalised germany which is my point . West Germany was federalised by the allies post world war two ,  and then reunification happened , but the german states all saw themselves as ethincally german. This imaginary country called britian doesnt. We all have our own idenitities , language culture  etc , and at the end of the day , what matters is how we see ourselves , as non british .Not what the moonhowlers in england see us as.

As for your coaltion with the snp to prop up some future labour government good old , i will just leave this here.



Labour 'does backroom deal with Tories' to control council despite SNP election win


https://t.co/BKTIVhmrNi






I somehow dont think a party that works hand in glove with the tories in scotland to keep the snp and indy parties out is going to ask the snp at uk elevel to prop them up in the event of a hung parliament ( if the uk survives till then).

I hope they do though. The prospect of a pro european labour government  taking power and taking england back into the EU , propped up by the scottish nationalists to add insult to injury will have every englishman running to the polling booths to vote against them.

[Thomas]

You called him a liar after quoting this from his post.

I stand by what i called him .

The context was initially from around december 2019 post the general election till starmers coronation good old and others were bigging starmer up. As the months went by , we had the slow gradual climbdown as starmers lack of ability became apparent till eventually as i said , good old ( and others ) were reduced to bleating starmers and labour s best hope was a coaltion. Your post proved my chronolgy of events , as the best your "evidence " could produce to attempt to rubbish what i had said was a post of good olds twelve months after starmers name first went in the ring , and 8 months after his  election.

As i always used to tell pappy , read your link and the nuance of the thread  before you declare you have someone bang to rights.

Nothing more to say on the matter as you are embarressing yourself cromwell. Petulance and an extremely poor attempt at point scoring which has backfired on you.

Now , as ever you are reduced to damage limitation .

[Good old]

no its current make up. I also only mentioned labour as you of course are a labour luvvie. The tories have said similar in government. Cameron for example talked about the family of nations in the plural.
doesnt matter. I simply said your "country" isnt a country , its a multi national state , and you waffle on about everyones elses.

As for germany dont make me laugh. It was the americans french and british that set up the federated germany after the second world war , much to the british disgust , who disagreed on federalism with the yanks and french , refused to federate theri own multi national state for 3 centuries , and now its coming apart labours big plan is to re hash gordon browns laughable shite about federalism?
every country in the western world uses the legal truism about being innocent til proven guilty. Are you suggesting the first world has a singular legal system because of it or does it just stop at blightys borders?

How can you call blighty "a Country" when you can't even get the basic understanding correct in terms of legal systems , devolved governemnts and all the rest?
where?

Your pitch on this forum is that if keir isnt legally guilty  , he isnt morally guilty. Im saying the small techinicalities of wether or not durham police fine him wont wipe the political and moral damage .
unlucky you. Why tell me? I hate the tories as well.? Repeat after mee good old , thomas is scottish and supports indy parties.

I think the trouble is you old men on here have spent a lifetime in the two party bubble you dont know anything different.not asking you to be . i took great pains to say to nick im not a grammar nazi , but it would be helpfull if your posts didnt look like a fuckin bomb site so we can clearly read them.

It doesnt take a masters degree in your language , only stop littering posts with comas like confetti and put the odd space in between paragraphs. just an observation.

A prime example of when your argument is thin you resort to patronising waffle bolstered by patronising insult.
And mis leading rubbish. As ever you draw us away from the actual subject. No more from me on this unless it sticks to subject.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/when-did-germany-become-a-country.html
You think Germany can only claim to be a country since 1949? With that uptake on nationhood  it's little wonder Putin thinks Ukraine is his.

[cromwell]

Noted. im sure you will apply this new "law" even handedly next time someone else mentions the banned word.

It was an observation,you made the issue out of it so I clarified as you requested.

You called him a liar after quoting this from his post.

and let me remind you Thomas, it was poor likeable me who 12to 18 months back told you by this point in time we would be  on the way to a possible coalition

It's you I worry about and your grasp of maths,based on the above which you quoted and your post on it his original is within the twelve to eighteen months timeframe and therefore he lied about nothing.

Any doubts you have regarding moderation you are free to take up with Nick the forum owner.

At the moment you are flinging insults about like confetti at a wedding.

[Thomas]

Kier Starmer's Beergate could be unravelling.

On the other hand, his handling of it could turn out to be a blinder of a gamble.

If he comes out of the investigation cleared of any wrongdoing, he'll be even more way ahead of Boris Johnson in the morality and veracity stakes, and with an even better chance of leading the largest party after an election...

you think?

I know keir starmer is unlikely to be fined. You know , and so does most of the public , and most dont care either.

The damage to his so called honesty( no laughing please) and integrity , not to mention the window into labour party infighting  , added to the existing brexit baggage in england , and his unionist bagagge in scotland  , makes it increasingly unlikely keir starmer will ever hold the position of prime minister in your country in my humble opinion.

what an absolute plank of wood that man and his party are.

[Thomas]

OK first off if it was official it would've said Mod Notice

Noted. im sure you will apply this new "law" even handedly next time someone else mentions the banned word.

I don't have to justify what I posted and am not desparate or otherwise to make any point other than this

so thats a no then is it?


You posted a link to a post dated decemebr 20th 2020 , which was supposed to be evidence that what i said about good olds chronological climbdown of keir starmers abilites couldnt have happened in a 12 month( lets be generous and say 8 months) timescale , and now the big revelation turns out to be a damp squib with a mod notice thrown in for good measure?

Genuinely , i do worry about you cromwell.

[Thomas]

Just a few basic points. What the last government described  as the U.K, is an accurate description of its historic make up.

no its current make up. I also only mentioned labour as you of course are a labour luvvie. The tories have said similar in government. Cameron for example talked about the family of nations in the plural.

Something similar would describe the majority of modern states. Is the Russian, federation a country? Is the modern  Germany , nothing more than a collection of ancient states.?

doesnt matter. I simply said your "country" isnt a country , its a multi national state , and you waffle on about everyones elses.

As for germany dont make me laugh. It was the americans french and british that set up the federated germany after the second world war , much to the british disgust , who disagreed on federalism with the yanks and french , refused to federate theri own multi national state for 3 centuries , and now its coming apart labours big plan is to re hash gordon browns laughable shite about federalism?

I did use  the singular for this part of law , as the point of law we refer to is singular to the whole country.

every country in the western world uses the legal truism about being innocent til proven guilty. Are you suggesting the first world has a singular legal system because of it or does it just stop at blightys borders?

How can you call blighty "a Country" when you cant even get the basic understanding correct in terms of legal systems , devolved governemnts and all the rest?

Do I know the difference between legal guilt and moral guilt?  Yes I have ,demonstrated it several times.

where?

Your pitch on this forum is that if keir isnt legally guilty  , he isnt morally guilty. Im saying the small techinicalities of wether or not durham police fine him wont wipe the political and moral damage .

And apparently Sue Gray knew the difference when she passed the buck to the police

unlucky you. Why tell me? I hate the tories as well.? Repeat after mee good old , thomas is scottish and supports indy parties.

I think the trouble is you old men on here have spent a lifetime in the two party bubble you dont know anything different.

Not a master of the English, language.

not asking you to be . i took great pains to say to nick im not a grammar nazi , but it would be helpfull if your posts didnt look like a fuckin bomb site so we can clearly read them.

It doesnt take a masters degree in your language , only stop littering posts with comas like confetti and put the odd space in between paragraphs. just an observation.

[patman post]

Kier Starmer's Beergate could be unravelling.

On the other hand, his handling of it could turn out to be a blinder of a gamble.

If he comes out of the investigation cleared of any wrongdoing, he'll be even more way ahead of Boris Johnson in the morality and veracity stakes, and with an even better chance of leading the largest party after an election...

PS — it's a relief that Corbyn's gone...

[cromwell]

ok. Is this an official slap on the wrist that calling someone a liar is seen as an ad  hominem or a personal view as a poster that can be dismissed? Please clarify thanks.Where am i wrong.?

you couldnt help yourself is what you mean trying but failing to desperately make a petulant point that doesnt exist.

Keir starmer was favourite for the labour leadership ( along with long bailey) in december 2019. He was offically crowned by april 2020 , and the above post you desperately reference is from  December 21st 2020.

Thats a year after he was first classed as labour leadership favourite , and a full 8 months after he officially won.

Heres what i said once again.

( leaving out the terribly offensive sentence for your sensibilities...)So what point have you proved and where is what i said wrong within that 8 month timeframe ?

Not close  , and certainly no cigar cromwell.

OK first off if it was official it would've said Mod Notice


I don't have to justify what I posted and am not desparate or otherwise to make any point other than this

Mod Notice
Please do not call other posters liars that applies to you and any others.
Thank You

[Good old]

The uk government  , under the last labour government  , stood at the united nations , and described the united kingdom as a multi national state , made up of two countries , a principality and a province.

We have done this definition of country nation state on this forum so many times is beggars belief anyone still clings to the old cac about the uk really being greater england in a different name.

...but then you havent got a hold of devolution yet , nearly a quarter of a century on , so what chance have you got with anything else.,
systems as in plural?

i thought you said "law" as in singular? i will take that as an acceptance of my correction of your mistake.
as a scot , and a native scots speaker , it pains me to have the audacity to correct an englishman on his command of his native language , but you dont read or write english too good do you?

Do you understand the difference between legal guilt and moral perception of wrongdoing and hypocrisy?

Weasal words arent stopping the damage to keir.
i have called labour and keir starmer out many a time in recent years. Another election another mediocre failure , but good old crys keir isnt legally guilty over beergate.

I tell you with keir starmer in charge of labour ,even liz truss looks like a political goddess.

Just a few basic points. What the last government described  as the U.K, is an accurate description of its historic make up.
Something similar would describe the majority of modern states. Is the Russian, federation a country? Is the modern  Germany , nothing more than a collection of ancient states.?
I did use  the singular for this part of law , as the point of law we refer to is singular to the whole country. It was you that introduced the idea that law in general was not singular in every respect. This basic principle of law applies in devolved Scotland. What the hell are you on .?
Do I know the difference between legal guilt and moral guilt?  Yes I have ,demonstrated it several times.
And apparently Sue Gray knew the difference when she passed the buck to the police.
Of course throwing shit has its effects, but rarely does it outdo actually being in the shit, and that's for Johnson to solve. Do you really think being critical of my , grammar, punctuation , etc, improves your arguments? The thing is I am just another simple soul  from South London, with the benefit of watching the world at work for many years.
Not a master of the English, language. It would seem you see yourself in a much superior role in this world.

[Thomas]

The U.K. is a country. 

The uk government  , under the last labour government  , stood at the united nations , and described the united kingdom as a multi national state , made up of two countries , a principality and a province.

We have done this definition of country nation state on this forum so many times is beggars belief anyone still clings to the old cac about the uk really being greater england in a different name.

...but then you havent got a hold of devolution yet , nearly a quarter of a century on , so what chance have you got with anything else.,

And it's legal systems all stand on the idea of

systems as in plural?

i thought you said "law" as in singular? i will take that as an acceptance of my correction of your mistake.

innocent until proven guilty. No conviction ,no guilt. More bollox from you .

as a scot , and a native scots speaker , it pains me to have the audacity to correct an englishman on his command of his native language , but you dont read or write english too good do you?

Do you understand the difference between legal guilt and moral perception of wrongdoing and hypocrisy?

Weasal words arent stopping the damage to keir.

St Thomas, barer of truth ,Ah. You spout Thomas, that's all.

i have called labour and keir starmer out many a time in recent years. Another election another mediocre failure , but good old crys keir isnt legally guilty over beergate.

I tell you with keir starmer in charge of labour ,even liz truss looks like a political goddess.

[Good old]

Eh? Please quote where i have said that? Cromwell tells me off for mentioning the word liar , and then you go on in the next post and make things up and put words in my mouth.?

Perhaps i should use a less sensitive word for it?

What are you actually talking about now? The uk isnt a country , it has three differing legal systems which are vastly different from each other. A treaty supports this multi national states existence ?
The low watt lighbulbs in labour can't think outside the box can  they?

You have spent the last 7 years telling your own fellow countrymen that brexit would please mr putin , and they laughed at you , and now you tune your guns on me and use the same hyperbole as though im remotely interested in either you  , your country or what some foreign world leader wants.

You just can't come up with a new trick can you? Do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.?
i spout the truth , something the labour party is unfamiliar with. As starmer and rayner are showing...........

The U.K. is a country. And it's legal systems all stand on the idea of , innocent until proven guilty. No conviction ,no guilt. More bollox from you .
St Thomas, barer of truth ,Ah. You spout Thomas, that's all.  

[Thomas]

So what does this amount to ? 

Its a comparison which shows how lack of criminal convictions doesnt stop political damage.?

In your world , starmer( blair) havent done anything wrong.( legally while ignoring the moral argument) to millions of others they are hated for wrongdoing and hypocrisy .

As i patiently explained , keir isnt trying to get elected off the back of no criminal convictions.

He is trying to get on the publics good side , and get them to vote for him and has failed to do so.

One of the worst uk tory governments in history and starmer is that much of a dud  he is letting beergate overshadow johnson losing many council seats.

What a muppet. Waht a complet muppet as i have said to you since he was put forward as labours potential new hero in decemer 2019 after helping orchestrate labours disasterous brexit tactics .

[Good old]

Blair didnt have to be. He wasnt convicted ,but he should have been , and realists all know he never will face the music.

The point is  , just like his poor protege starmer , he doesnt have to be convicted for his name  , reputation and legacy to be mud in the world of politics.

That what we are saying about keir. The damage is done , without any conviction.

So what does this amount to ?