ariotofmyown Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 34 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Think there are some crossed wires somewhere. Only just read the news and about these tweets. I've certainly never referenced them and it appears that the perpetrators have correctly been reprimanded for it. But do you still think Starmer did a terrible job on child grooming gangs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Ram Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 16 minutes ago, Eatonram said: Ramit, you said this (bold above) a couple of hours ago and then spent all subsequent hours proving that deficiency lies with yourself. A little self awareness might be useful. Foreign Policy is a minefield for almost every Government. UK History is littered with what hindsight showed to be unwise, in some cases disastrous foreign interventions (Suez?). It goes with the territory of being PM that these decisions have to be made at the time. Iraq or Afghanistan would almost certainly never have happened if it wasn't for 9/11. As I think as has already been mentioned, in the post 9/11 geopolitical environment, the UK, whichever PM, whichever Party, was always going to have succumbed to pressure from the USA to stand by them in responding to what was perceived as a threat. You choose to lay the blame at the feet of Tony Blair, well that is your choice, but at least get your facts right about how events unfolded, and in the case of Afghanistan, that was a UN decision. Who cares it was ages ago let’s get back to this virus and how many tests were carried out yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said: I dont know why you would have to look through newspaper articles for evidence. Just look at the stats on the number of girls that were systematically groomed, drugged and raped even after there was masses of evidence of it happening but it was decided not to pursue the cases. I think you need to offer more than that to get people to come round to your way of thinking. Do we pin all historical crimes on whomever was chief prosecutor at the time? I do not know much about the role of chief prosecutor, do they review all cases and make the final decision on what goes to trial? Was this massive of evidence presented to Starmer who then decided, with no good reason, to disregard what was put in front of him? Did he brush it under the carpet for political reasons because he didn't want to offend anyone? Or was he so useless that he could not realise the pattern of what was going on with the masses of evidence he saw? Is your opinion of his performance based purely on those stats with no extra insight into what his role was? Did you hold this opinion before those Tory MPs tweeted fake videos with false accusations? Weird coincidence you brought it up at the same time eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramit Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 13 minutes ago, Eatonram said: Ramit, you said this (bold above) a couple of hours ago and then spent all subsequent hours proving that deficiency lies with yourself. A little self awareness might be useful. Foreign Policy is a minefield for almost every Government. UK History is littered with what hindsight showed to be unwise, in some cases disastrous foreign interventions (Suez?). It goes with the territory of being PM that these decisions have to be made at the time. Iraq or Afghanistan would almost certainly never have happened if it wasn't for 9/11. As I think as has already been mentioned, in the post 9/11 geopolitical environment, the UK, whichever PM, whichever Party, was always going to have succumbed to pressure from the USA to stand by them in responding to what was perceived as a threat. You choose to lay the blame at the feet of Tony Blair, well that is your choice, but at least get your facts right about how events unfolded, and in the case of Afghanistan, that was a UN decision. Eatonram, i play nice with those who play nice. i understand how national decisions come about better than you assume that i do. The PM is responsible for his government, this happened on Blair's watch and he strongly argued for it. Sure, the blame lies with many, but when it comes to Britain, chiefly with him, that's the burden of the top dog position. 9/11 was a horrible crime, but it was mainly an excuse, a lie to enable the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. If you think that Blair was not aware of those facts from day one, you are deluding yourself, but just in my opinion of course. That's what we do here, exchange opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 7 minutes ago, Eatonram said: Ramit, you said this (bold above) a couple of hours ago and then spent all subsequent hours proving that deficiency lies with yourself. A little self awareness might be useful. Foreign Policy is a minefield for almost every Government. UK History is littered with what hindsight showed to be unwise, in some cases disastrous foreign interventions (Suez?). It goes with the territory of being PM that these decisions have to be made at the time. Iraq or Afghanistan would almost certainly never have happened if it wasn't for 9/11. As I think as has already been mentioned, in the post 9/11 geopolitical environment, the UK, whichever PM, whichever Party, was always going to have succumbed to pressure from the USA to stand by them in responding to what was perceived as a threat. You choose to lay the blame at the feet of Tony Blair, well that is your choice, but at least get your facts right about how events unfolded, and in the case of Afghanistan, that was a UN decision. The pressure was immense no doubt about it, given the close nature of the relationship between the two countries and the UK's subordinate position within that relationship. But I don't think it's fair to it was inevitable that any UK PM would have succumbed to the pressure. The UK could if it wished chosen to not follow Bush II into Iraq without too many consequences. Many other countries chose not to as it was abundantly clear, even before the invasion, that there were no plausible links between Iraq and 9/11 and the US's motivations for invading were something else entirely. The prior invasion of Afghanistan on the other hand, disastrous and futile as it turned out to be, was it seems largely motivated by what happened on September 11. Nor do I think it's correct to conclude that Blair necessarily succumbed to Bush's will. I think he was genuinely sold on the idea of 'regime change and nation building' as he saw it. He still defends the invasion to this day, as far as I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1of4 Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 48 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Think there are some crossed wires somewhere. Only just read the news and about these tweets. I've certainly never referenced them and it appears that the perpetrators have correctly been reprimanded for it. On 13/05/2020 at 20:26, G STAR RAM said: https://medium.com/@lucynevitt/starmers-shambolic-cps-affabd38bb6d Glad you managed to find and post this link all by yourself. Wouldn't want anyone else taking praise for spreading this smear would we. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, 1of4 said: Glad you managed to find and post this link all by yourself. Wouldn't want anyone else taking praise for spreading this smear would we. Jesus wept, is that the best he can do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 32 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said: I think you need to offer more than that to get people to come round to your way of thinking. Elections would say otherwise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramit Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 Well, this is fascinating, even if 50 years old He was gotten rid of though and no Republican today would dare to even think what Tricky Dick said there, in case of mind-tapping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 8 minutes ago, Uptherams said: Elections would say otherwise Sorry, I missed the vote on whether Starmer did a terrible job on child grooming gangs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 2 hours ago, Bob The Badger said: Not true at all it was 12 or 13 years later . You do know we're talking about a UN resolution right? This has zero to do with the emerging Soviet Union. I mean seriously wtf? it's like arguing over bed time. The same UN that had its wool so flagrantly pulled over its eyes by Dubya's liar-in-chief, Colin Powell. "This is a railway line. It could be used to transport WMD. This is a shed. It could be used for the storage or manufacture of WMD." "Well, we're convinced." said the coalition of the willing morons. I have nothing but contempt for political leaders, so I'm certainly not going to hold up the UN as a paragon of anything, because little countries are too easily influenced by big countries - not by any convincing message, but by the threat (either directly or implied) of sanctions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 40 minutes ago, 1of4 said: Glad you managed to find and post this link all by yourself. Wouldn't want anyone else taking praise for spreading this smear would we. Oh, he's not been defending the indefensible again, has he? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 37 minutes ago, 1of4 said: Glad you managed to find and post this link all by yourself. Wouldn't want anyone else taking praise for spreading this smear would we. The right frothing at the mouth trying to score cheap political points. Quick to jump in, quick to judge, slow to apologise. The left are 'loony' and 'hypocritical', though. Don't you forget it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted May 14, 2020 Author Share Posted May 14, 2020 1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said: But do you still think Starmer did a terrible job on child grooming gangs? Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob The Badger Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 35 minutes ago, Highgate said: The pressure was immense no doubt about it, given the close nature of the relationship between the two countries and the UK's subordinate position within that relationship. But I don't think it's fair to it was inevitable that any UK PM would have succumbed to the pressure. The UK could if it wished chosen to not follow Bush II into Iraq without too many consequences. Many other countries chose not to as it was abundantly clear, even before the invasion, that there were no plausible links between Iraq and 9/11 and the US's motivations for invading were something else entirely. The prior invasion of Afghanistan on the other hand, disastrous and futile as it turned out to be, was it seems largely motivated by what happened on September 11. Nor do I think it's correct to conclude that Blair necessarily succumbed to Bush's will. I think he was genuinely sold on the idea of 'regime change and nation building' as he saw it. He still defends the invasion to this day, as far as I know. I think most of us agree that Blair duckedup. But I struggle to believe that any UK Prime Minister (at least in my life time) wouldn't have backed the US. I'm sure there are individual politicians (Benn springs immediataley to mind, as does Foot. and who knows, maybe even Kinnock), but no actual Prime Ministers. Not that that says it was ok, just that IMHO it was pretty inevitable. And no way would have that happened without 9/11. 9/11 was the (albeit fragile) building blocks that the entire invasion was built upon. Without 9/11 it wouldn't have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted May 14, 2020 Author Share Posted May 14, 2020 52 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said: I think you need to offer more than that to get people to come round to your way of thinking. Couldnt care less if people come round to my way of thinking. Do we pin all historical crimes on whomever was chief prosecutor at the time? Depends if the crimes were reported but ignored because of political correctness, sorry I mean lack of evidence. I do not know much about the role of chief prosecutor, do they review all cases and make the final decision on what goes to trial? Was this massive of evidence presented to Starmer who then decided, with no good reason, to disregard what was put in front of him? No idea. I guess it would be like criticising the current Prime Minister without knowing what advice and evidence he is receiving from Sage. Did he brush it under the carpet for political reasons because he didn't want to offend anyone? Or was he so useless that he could not realise the pattern of what was going on with the masses of evidence he saw? Most likely, as it appears most people are afraid of offending the perpetrators. Is your opinion of his performance based purely on those stats with no extra insight into what his role was? Yep. Did you hold this opinion before those Tory MPs tweeted fake videos with false accusations? Weird coincidence you brought it up at the same time eh? Even though I made my post a day before these Tweets were done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted May 14, 2020 Author Share Posted May 14, 2020 51 minutes ago, 1of4 said: Glad you managed to find and post this link all by yourself. Wouldn't want anyone else taking praise for spreading this smear would we. What on earth are you going on about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 20 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said: Sorry, I missed the vote on whether Starmer did a terrible job on child grooming gangs. It'll occur in 5 years time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1of4 Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 19 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Yes Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted May 14, 2020 Author Share Posted May 14, 2020 1 minute ago, 1of4 said: Why? Because even after it had been brought to his attention what was going on, no charges were brought and gangs across the country continued to groom, drug and rape innocent young girls. Not too hard to understand surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.