Andy Burnham blocked from re-entering parliament.

eazybee

Starmer's true colours have been revealed by the exposure of his connection with the disgraced solicitor Phil Shiner, and his collusion with him in persecuting British soldiers who fought in Iraq. He is now repealing the Act brought in by the last government so he may prosecute veterans from their time in Northern Ireland. It is very clear that his allegiance does not lie with the British people but to the ECHR , and his determination to drag Britain back under their legislation.

He is skilled in using the law to gain his own ends, witness his prevention of Burnham's attempt to rejoin parliament, his prevention of local elections because he fears Reform, his refusal to prevent the building of the enormous Chinese Embassy,and very near the beginning of Labour's election, his use of parliament to goldplate his own pension arrangements.
He won't step down no matter what, because he has no concern for the principles of government, simply the furtherance and imposition of his own ideology, not necessarily in line with that of the Labour party.

I have already posted this once in response to your post eazybee. Did you not see it the first time? I would think there is plenty of evidence to support the Downing Street statement.

The Telegraph’s story “contains flagrant inaccuracies”, the Downing Street spokesman told reporters.
“The Prime Minister did not represent the claimants in this case. The Prime Minister did not work alongside Phil Shiner on this case. The Prime Minister was not the lead barrister in the claim.
“The Prime Minister represented interveners, including the Law Society of England and Wales.
“Interveners do not advocate for either side. Their role is to assist the court on points of law.
“During his career, the Prime Minister has represented British soldiers who were killed in action and were wrongly accused.
“The Prime Minister will never forget the courage, bravery and sacrifice made by British servicemen and women for their country.”

Anyone can make a complaint to IPSO, the independent regulator for the UK digital and print news industry, if they think that an article breaches the Editors Code of Practice

www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/

www.ipso.co.uk/making-a-complaint/

Ronib If every politician sued every newspaper for biased reporting, they would spend their lives in court. Bias is not necessarily telling lies but it is about the selective presentation of information which gives a particular view designed to influence people to a particular belief. I've stopped subscribing to the Telegraph so I haven't been able to read the actual article but it clearly influenced readers to believe that Starmer had done something wrong. I used to read it as a balance to the Guardian but I now subscribe to the Times instead which also on the right is a much more reliable source of information.

Starmer is not being sued ronib, have you misunderstood the process here?

It’s fascinating to read that you don’t think Starmer would win…. My opinion too. Damages are usually paid to the wronged party!!

How much public money would you like to see spent on suing the media, ronib? And from which budget(s) would you like to see it cut?

Not a man who issues law suits willy nilly,

And the measure of Starmer?

A measure of the man - he had filed 4,000 law suits up to the point he won his first presidential term. I think he’d sue somebody who looked him the wrong way.

Well Trump seems to have the time, money and energy to sue and pursue the BBC. Isn’t it important for Starmer to rebut serious accusations but in a tested and reliable way? Just saying that the DT is right wing doesn’t cut it.

No, it's not - you'r right. But is having numerous court cases a good way to spend public money? Maybe a law saying that media sources have to fact check any articles accusing people of doing things (and publish the fact check)? I don't know. I an very much in favour of free media, but am also very concerned at the way the MSM is behaving (and even more so at some of the nonsense on platforms such as X and YouTube).

There needs to be some way Starmer can clear his name? Just saying a right wing newspaper is smearing him isn’t real evidence?

He'd never be out of court if he sued everyone who smeared him. It's become a national hobby.

If Starmer is being smeared by the Daily Telegraph article linking his pro bono legal advice to Shiner, should Starmer sue the DT for this smear?

foxie48 👍

foxie 🤙

I should have made myself more clear, I am comparing the Trump government attempted cover up of ICE operatives wrongdoing with the many examples of the British military covering up the misdeeds of some of it's soldiers etc. Having reread my post I realise how it might have been understood.

Xposted there with foxie and grannygravy- agree with foxie but not in comparing our military with murderous ICE

Casdon

That is a lift from the Telegraph, just in case anybody was wondering. It’s another right wing smear attempt.

We I’ll no doubt get the lies that he was responsible for Saville not being prosecuted, as well as lack of action on organised sexual exploitation of children.

foxie48 comparing the U.K. armed forces to ICE in the USA is a flaming insult 🤬🤬🤬

ThanksCasdon I couldn't read the whole article but having read up on the case IMO it's yet another biased stitch up of Starmer based on absolutely no wrong doing at all. There's no suggestion that Starmer acted improperly, illegally or to make personal gain. Lawyers and barristers work with what they are told and in the Phil Shiner case, Shiner encouraged victims and witnesses to tell lies. There is absolutely no evidence that Starmer was part of this fraud.
Briefly the case was about obtaining compensation for alleged victims of torture and abuse by British soldiers which was found to be untrue Anyone who thinks the actions of our military should be above the law should acquaint themselves with the current case of Jasley Beck and all the other cases of abuse by members of the military over many years . Perpetrators have been protected from prosecution by the military. Does anyone else see comparisons with the behaviour of ICE in Minnesota?

That is a lift from the Telegraph, just in case anybody was wondering. It’s another right wing smear attempt.

Starmer's true colours have been revealed by the exposure of his connection with the disgraced solicitor Phil Shiner, and his collusion with him in persecuting British soldiers who fought in Iraq. He is now repealing the Act brought in by the last government so he may prosecute veterans from their time in Northern Ireland. It is very clear that his allegiance does not lie with the British people but to the ECHR , and his determination to drag Britain back under their legislation.

He is skilled in using the law to gain his own ends, witness his prevention of Burnham's attempt to rejoin parliament, his prevention of local elections because he fears Reform, his refusal to prevent the building of the enormous Chinese Embassy,and very near the beginning of Labour's election, his use of parliament to goldplate his own pension arrangements.
He won't step down no matter what, because he has no concern for the principles of government, simply the furtherance and imposition of his own ideology, not necessarily in line with that of the Labour party.

Just had our CLP Iam it was clear where sympathies lied as regards the future.

Biding time.

(I'm still not sure about the timing, because of the Reform threat, btw, but I know where I want it to go eventually)

Andy is popular in our CLP. He was a regular support here for our now mp during the last election campaign. My impression is he’s a calmer, more grounded and experienced individual than when he previously ran as leader

I wish he’d been allowed to stand. Labour would probably have won Gorton, he’d be a good mp for that constituency. He would be an asset to the party. Who knows, he might have done what he promised and supported the leadership