Jump to content

The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)


blandy

Recommended Posts

I feel that more leaked photos and/or e-mails would override an edited and/or delayed report, in terms of how bad the optics are.

I’m sure I remember seeing a hypothetical suggestion (or rather, wishful thinking) that the Gray report could be published with minimal criticism of Johnson etc and then when the coast was seemingly clear, a load more evidence be leaked, undermining everything.

 

That probably is wishful thinking, but I wouldn’t be completely shocked to see that play out, while in the meantime we hear more on Farthings’ dogs and civil service Islamaphobia (anyone remember that story?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Xann said:

You can see how nutball religion retains its popularity.

Reality doesn't matter, or exist at all, if the only paper you're reading is the free Daily Mail from Waitrose.

A nation of absolute mugs.

I just don't understand why we aren't marching on the streets over this. We are being continually lied to, gaslighted as @StefanAVFC says, yet we are busy arguing over the garden fence with people who think it's just a slice of cake. We get everything we deserve as a nation. 

Edited by choffer
Typo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Obviously "cover-up and corruption by a bunch of pricks" still seems to be the most likely explanation, but an alternative theory:

 

 

I doubt the Met will dig that deep.

Met: Can we have the CCTV of the Downing Street Garden?

Downing Street: Sorry, it was being repaired that day and no footage exists.

Met: Ok. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Genie said:

I doubt the Met will dig that deep.

Met: Can we have the CCTV of the Downing Street Garden?

Downing Street: We deliberately wiped that as it was horrendously incriminating

Met: Ok. 

FTFY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Genie said:

Yep, that’s what I was alluding to. When they are clearly withholding incriminating evidence I doubt the Met will press the topic. 

My point was that if they gave the actual reason then the police still wouldn't give a toss. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ml1dch said:

My point was that if they gave the actual reason then the police still wouldn't give a toss. 

Ah, ok, I see.

Its in both parties interest not to uncover too much incriminating evidence.

If they find there’s a carousel, Ferris wheel  and bucking bronco ride then it (re)raises the question how did the Met not notice / act at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Is it time to remodel the Met Police?

I haven’t seen a story in recent times that has ended with them appearing to have served or protected the people.

City of London also.

Friends of amoral finance.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Is it time to remodel the Met Police?

I haven’t seen a story in recent times that has ended with them appearing to have served or protected the people.

 

From all the stories I see, there are a number of people who've been protected by them. None of whom deserve their protection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, choffer said:

From all the stories I see, there are a number of people who've been protected by them. None of whom deserve their protection. 

And conversely, if you are a minority, lacking political or financial clout, they’ll beast you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

And conversely, if you are a minority, lacking political or financial clout, they’ll beast you.

Or even just, you know, a woman, protesting at men killing women!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mark Albrighton said:

I feel that more leaked photos and/or e-mails would override an edited and/or delayed report, in terms of how bad the optics are.

I’m sure I remember seeing a hypothetical suggestion (or rather, wishful thinking) that the Gray report could be published with minimal criticism of Johnson etc and then when the coast was seemingly clear, a load more evidence be leaked, undermining everything.

 

That probably is wishful thinking, but I wouldn’t be completely shocked to see that play out, while in the meantime we hear more on Farthings’ dogs and civil service Islamaphobia (anyone remember that story?).

I think that's exactly how it will play out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hippo said:

Isn't the police investigation going to be based on Sue Gray's report ?

The report is supposed to be neutral and pure facts - so how would it's publication prejudice the police investigation ???

The theory being floated is that when crimes are investigated it is possible that evidence of higher crimes may emerge.

The offences currently being investigated are summary offences and wouldn't go to court but it is possible that other offences may be uncovered that could go to court.

The sort of example given was the MP that got three points for speeding but got his wife to take the blame. It would have been a fixed penalty but he ended up going to jail.

That isn't saying that there will be higher offences uncovered but that the Police have to take into account that they may be uncovered and act accordingly at the outset of the investigation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â