Yes I realise now it's not allowed to say anything remotely negative about him. And a soundbite, what was I thinking? Whens his next 14k word essay?
ITV confirmation Number Ten partied whilst the rest of us locked down.
- Thread starter Duffman
- Start date
Yes I realise now it's not allowed to say anything remotely negative about him. And a soundbite, what was I thinking? Whens his next 14k word essay?
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
Sure. If anyone else ever dares say they think Starmer should have said something slightly different I'll follow your example and scweam and scweam.
Your criticism was a poor point poorly made. But I'll leave my opinion (and yours) there. We all disagree over certain things.
Let's not turn this into an argument and keep the thread on point. I'm sure we both agree that the whole party debacle is disgusting.
Have a good one Stu.
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
So what did he say before that? What context is that in? What question was he asked?
He's literally referring to the PM's integrity and honesty, stating we don't need a criminal investigation for that. You've took one line out of a three line sentence and ran away with it.
When you're adding words to what he said in order to justify/explain/defend it, maybe its time to just agree that what he said could have been improved.
It doesn't matter. It's a short clip but don't pretend it's been chopped up or tampered with. He said what he said.
If he literally said there should be a criminal investigation in the 6 second before that clip, it's still not a good thing for him to contradict that in the next sentence.
Similarly for the PMQs point. It's good he was pressuring the PM to hand over evidence to the police. That doesn't make it a smart move to contradict himself later that day.
He's fallible chaps.
jam69
Well-known member
Brexit voters? Seems the only explanation
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
When you're adding words to what he said in order to justify/explain/defend it, maybe its time to just agree that what he said could have been improved.
It doesn't matter. It's a short clip but don't pretend it's been chopped up or tampered with. He said what he said.
If he literally said there should be a criminal investigation in the 6 second before that clip, it's still not a good thing for him to contradict that in the next sentence.
Similarly for the PMQs point. It's good he was pressuring the PM to hand over evidence to the police. That doesn't make it a smart move to contradict himself later that day.
He's fallible chaps.
Here's the full clip...
He's clearly saying its time for the PM to own up to something everyone knows happened and we don't need a criminal investigation for him to do that. Which we don't.
Context is an amazing thing. Makes you wonder why someone might edit things down to a 6 second clip doesn't it?
BoroMart
Well-known member
I'd say more of a fanboy than a stooge. He's entrenched beyond reason, waving his union jack with a big blue rosette. It's a shame because on other topics he can be fair and honest, but as soon as it's politics he always looks for wriggle room even when it's a case of blatent corruption.
American_Mary
Well-known member
It’s hard to believe that someone who was so ill with Covid only a few months earlier has allowed so much activity within his organisation and own home to go against the guidance he himself issued, it’s not incompetence it’s absolute madness, but I don’t expect anything different from him, I am disappointed that this wasn’t released at the time and we’ve had another 12 months of unnecessary ‘leadership’ those who have sat on this story, we’re invited but didn’t attend, were aware of these gatherings but did not speak up, have let themselves and the people of this country down massively, it looks like this wasn’t a one off but part of an ongoing culture of Government making themselves exceptional to, instead of being examples of, how to follow the guidelines.
Johnson should do the right thing and resign, but he won’t, he will become stubborn and obtuse, there will be a lot of distancing from him for those with leadership ambitions, this crew will not want to go down with their Captain on his sinking ship, will one or two resign this week, I wonder, and then round on him, we’ve all seen with Labour how vindictive and personal leadership campaigns can be, I’d like a more left wing government in place and I believe that Johnson fighting the next GE makes that more likely but for the sake of the country we need to end this sooner rather than later with a Prime Minister who may come from a different political standpoint to myself but is at least consistent, capable and competent.
Johnson should do the right thing and resign, but he won’t, he will become stubborn and obtuse, there will be a lot of distancing from him for those with leadership ambitions, this crew will not want to go down with their Captain on his sinking ship, will one or two resign this week, I wonder, and then round on him, we’ve all seen with Labour how vindictive and personal leadership campaigns can be, I’d like a more left wing government in place and I believe that Johnson fighting the next GE makes that more likely but for the sake of the country we need to end this sooner rather than later with a Prime Minister who may come from a different political standpoint to myself but is at least consistent, capable and competent.
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
It wouldn't have suited his anti-Starmer narrative to post the full clip though. And I do wonder about people who take short soundbites as verbatim without thinking there is a bigger picture / alternative view that someone is trying to skew.
It's like Brexit - they love a soundbite but are afraid to look at the bigger picture - it's a worry and I doubt the intelligence of such folk.
BoroMart
Well-known member
CONTEXT, picking part of a coherent stream of thought can be misinterpreted. Willfully sometimes.
festa5
Well-known member
Just seen him on GMTV. He's tweaked it a bit now, no doubt someone has a word about how ridiculous it was. Still not much better mind.
Still saying he was upset by it (surprised such a delicate flower is a Tory given the far worse **** they're responsible for) but that he also "wanted to give number 10 the chance to respond". I bet he bloody did, the coward.
Ah edit: just seen the BBC one, same story. Not quite as bad as just making out the only reason he was too upset although still ridiculous. I wouldn't recommend a career in acting for him though, I'm not sure he could've looked less upset about the whole thing if he tried.
Last edited:
BoroMart
Well-known member
Agreed, there is only one outome we need right now, get the tories out, and that doesn't happen with infighting.Yet again certain Corbynites / anti-Starmer posters come on here on a thread discussing blatant illegal activity in No 10 and try to turn it into Starmer's fault somehow.
Change the record
Brian Marwood
Well-known member
Not really, he used that as a deflection from the main question posed.
Brian Marwood
Well-known member
Running or ruining?
Suit yourself. I've watched the longer clip and he still doesnt say what you're claiming he does - i.e. that Boris owning up could mean police go straight to prosecution rather than investigate. He simply repeats the points in the shorter clip - own up, be honest, we don't need an investigation. Maybe he meant to say what you're claiming, in which case I agree he could have made his case better.
Any road I can see I'm just upsetting folk so I'll leave any comment about Starmer's choice of words there.
Molten cheers for coming back to insult my intelligence after I liked your post 423 about not making this an argument. That's a classy move. You have a good one too.
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
He's not even talking about the prospect of a criminal investigation, he's completely questioning the PM's integrity over not owning up to something everyone knows happened and that's what he wants the PM to do next. That is the CONTEXT.
Taking 6 words out of the entire 40 seconds and claiming that's what he means or wants is the very definition of taking things OUT OF CONTEXT.
He is not saying there should not be or we don't need a criminal investigation over the party but that we don't need one to make the PM own up to it.
Just before that in PMQ's he made the PM promise to hand over everything related to the party to the MET Police. Why would he then say we don't need their involvement? Madness.
Nit picking just to have a bash. Just read the Sky News summary headline of the tweet.
Yes I agree Chris. Its a bad choice of words isn't it?
Last edited:
Look even if we say he meant to say what you're saying he meant to say, or beyond that, imagine he did say what you're suggesting he meant to say, it's still not a good choice of words. There's no requirement to say anything about a criminal investigation. He could have just said the PM should own up and be honest. Its a bad choice of words.