Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Daggers

General News

By Daggers, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Daggers

Daggers

Posted
  • Author
Posted
13 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I have to admit not reading the story -

did Lord Ali really send them in a package of clothes and say ‘here you go- where these’?

 

im sure he didn’t 

I'm thinking it has something to do with clothing adverts popping up on Facebook

  • Haha 2
Foxdiamond

Foxdiamond

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

Call me old fashioned but I don’t think it’s nonsense

(and I’m not a labour voter)

 

lord Ali has campaigned for years to get a labour PM. Why shouldn’t he want them to look a million dollars on the world stage now that they’re there.

Look at the flak Boris used to get for not having a decent haircut !

 

the papers would have had a field day if the starmers hadn’t looked good. 
 

Lord Ali has many business interests - I’m sure he will get plenty of access to the govt with him already being in the House of Lords.

Have to agree to disagree on this one. Just seems wrong at a time when a Labour government is telling us all how rough it is going to be

Foxdiamond

Foxdiamond

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

And they're having one even if they do.

 

Like Attlee, of course he can't win with the press and I'm not sure how much effort he should expend trying.

Don't think Attlee cared much and got on with it

Tommy G

Tommy G

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Foxdiamond said:

Have to agree to disagree on this one. Just seems wrong at a time when a Labour government is telling us all how rough it is going to be

I agree - it's not about the value its the principle. Labour as a party pride themselves on transparency, integrity and you can sling in any other word he has used over the past 6 months - stories like this make the public lose faith. He needed to be squeeky clean and has managed a complete PR disaster since coming into office alongside some questionable decision making. 

  • Like 2
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

I agree - it's not about the value its the principle. Labour as a party pride themselves on transparency, integrity and you can sling in any other word he has used over the past 6 months - stories like this make the public lose faith. He needed to be squeeky clean and has managed a complete PR disaster since coming into office alongside some questionable decision making. 

Yeah, agreed.

 

And isn't it rather a judgement on the system as a whole and that public that PR and perception are valued so heavily over actual policy consequences, especially when that perception clearly varies from party to party, often media driven.

Zear0

Zear0

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

It's all coming out, regarding Huw Edwards..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgxg673y8et

 

Hope those here defending him when these revelations first came out read it all and reflect.  Perfect example of why speculation and surmise of ongoing incidents is so dangerous.

 

Nice to see the "I was a bit pissed your honour" as the mitigating factor being trotted out.

Edited by Zear0
Tommy G

Tommy G

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Hope those here defending him when these revelations first came out read it all and reflect.  Perfect example of why speculation and surmise of ongoing incidents is so dangerous.

 

Nice to see the "I was a bit pissed your honour" as the mitigating factor being trotted out.

And the mental health card - it's spitting in the face of people who have genuine mental health problems who don't turn to paying for pictures of kids. 

  • Like 3
  • Popular Post
Vacamion

Vacamion

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

 

Call me draconian, and I concede I don't know all the facts of the matter, but that seems awfully lenient, given his crime.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 6
BKLFox

BKLFox

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I have to admit not reading the story -

did Lord Ali really send them in a package of clothes and say ‘here you go- where these’?

 

im sure he didn’t 

 

fwiw, we still weave suitings in this country and it should be mandatory for the PM and senior royals to wear suits manufactured here and made from them. Their partners should also be required to buy their clothing from U.K. designers and where at all possible for these to be from U.K. sourced fabric production.  


of course that won’t come cheap and someone may have to ‘sponsor’ it but we should be pushing our manufacturing on the world stage wherever and whenever we can. 
 

 

If they can claim for pencils & the like i'm sure there will be a clothing allowance in the long list of expeditures they can claim

Foxdiamond

Foxdiamond

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

If they can claim for pencils & the like i'm sure there will be a clothing allowance in the long list of expeditures they can claim

Lord Alli even paid for Starmer's specs apparently. 

Wymsey

Wymsey

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

Call me draconian, and I concede I don't know all the facts of the matter, but that seems awfully lenient, given his crime.

 

 

 

 

He can, at least, give money back to the BBC..

Tuna

Tuna

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Vacamion said:

 

Call me draconian, and I concede I don't know all the facts of the matter, but that seems awfully lenient, given his crime.

 

 

 

 

I think the precedent was the sentence the other guy got Williams, he also got a suspended sentence.

Greg2607

Greg2607

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Tommy G said:

I agree - it's not about the value its the principle. Labour as a party pride themselves on transparency, integrity and you can sling in any other word he has used over the past 6 months - stories like this make the public lose faith. He needed to be squeeky clean and has managed a complete PR disaster since coming into office alongside some questionable decision making. 

I think they needed to use the "honeymoon period" to make some of these drastic changes.   Even the conservatives were looking at removing the WFA allowance under Teresa May. There is a decent article from Laura Kuenssberg (I never thought i'd say that!!) on the BBC in-depth section today. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c87g7vdjqzyo

 

It talks about the long term persistent problems that no political parties want to touch as it's too damaging for them with the voters... (The Triple Lock being one example) 

 

It's worth a read. 

 

our Politics and Style of Government need some systemic changes. It can't continue to be wholly short termist and operating from news cycle to news cycle. We vote for these people to make decisions that are for the better of the long term health of the country. They should start doing that and some of these early moves by Labour, whilst not good for PR, seem to be fitting that bill. 

 

There's also a 2nd article on how HS2 costs spiralled out of control. 

 

The move to merge the bodies responsible for Infrastructure in the UK over the weekend seems a sensible move. 

 

I suspect there will be more harsh feeling policies in October... but it's likely we NEED to do those things to get the country on to an even keel.  

Paninistickers

Paninistickers

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Vacamion said:

 

Call me draconian, and I concede I don't know all the facts of the matter, but that seems awfully lenient, given his crime.

 

 

 

 

He was never going down, first offence and the fact the distributor of the pics (a more serious offence and had previous) only got a.suspended

 

Tbh, I do think that it's also fair to factor in the man is ruined. Totally ruined. That's no defence of him,.but it is probably fair to consider when sentencing. 

  • Like 3
Tommy G

Tommy G

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

He was never going down, first offence and the fact the distributor of the pics (a more serious offence and had previous) only got a.suspended

 

Tbh, I do think that it's also fair to factor in the man is ruined. Totally ruined. That's no defence of him,.but it is probably fair to consider when sentencing. 

Wonder how hard the BBC will push to recover the £200K that we all contributed to via the TV licence. 

 

I don't really care he is ''ruined'' boo hoo.

Tommy G

Tommy G

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

I think they needed to use the "honeymoon period" to make some of these drastic changes.   Even the conservatives were looking at removing the WFA allowance under Teresa May. There is a decent article from Laura Kuenssberg (I never thought i'd say that!!) on the BBC in-depth section today. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c87g7vdjqzyo

 

It talks about the long term persistent problems that no political parties want to touch as it's too damaging for them with the voters... (The Triple Lock being one example) 

 

It's worth a read. 

 

our Politics and Style of Government need some systemic changes. It can't continue to be wholly short termist and operating from news cycle to news cycle. We vote for these people to make decisions that are for the better of the long term health of the country. They should start doing that and some of these early moves by Labour, whilst not good for PR, seem to be fitting that bill. 

 

There's also a 2nd article on how HS2 costs spiralled out of control. 

 

The move to merge the bodies responsible for Infrastructure in the UK over the weekend seems a sensible move. 

 

I suspect there will be more harsh feeling policies in October... but it's likely we NEED to do those things to get the country on to an even keel.  

Agree with some of those points but I can't unsee millionaire Keir Starmer accepting donations for clothes and specs, alongside his wife, where there are millions of people in this country who can't afford the basics - or eat or heat their homes? He can afford all of the above and should of said thanks, but no thanks. If the working man with a wife and 2 kids can afford a suit to go to work, he can.

  • Like 3
nnfox

nnfox

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Vacamion said:

 

Call me draconian, and I concede I don't know all the facts of the matter, but that seems awfully lenient, given his crime.

 

 

 

 

It's fairly standard.  If everyone who was convicted of indecent images of children offences were sent to prison, you'd need to double the number of prisons.  

 

Suspended sentences are typical in these cases.  Whether that's right or wrong, is probably another discussion, but it is the way it is.

inckley fox

inckley fox

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Agree with some of those points but I can't unsee millionaire Keir Starmer accepting donations for clothes and specs, alongside his wife, where there are millions of people in this country who can't afford the basics - or eat or heat their homes? He can afford all of the above and should of said thanks, but no thanks. If the working man with a wife and 2 kids can afford a suit to go to work, he can.

My first reaction was that it sounded like a fairly unspectacular cock up by someone in the office, but I can't deny that you're right. How hard can it be to say 'we need to be extra careful when it comes to personal donations'? Unless part of your motivation for being in the job is, to an unbecoming extent, precisely that sort of perk, it shouldn't be that hard to steer clear. 

  • Thanks 1
StanSP

StanSP

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Tommy G said:

And the mental health card - it's spitting in the face of people who have genuine mental health problems who don't turn to paying for pictures of kids

I'm in no way defending the crimes that Edwards has committed (and I think it's a very lenient sentence) but having read the summary on BBC news site, the mental health 'card' is for the question of whether he goes to prison or not, not that mental health caused him to look at such images?

 

The defence also said Edwards had suffered mental health problems, with a psychiatrists' report saying the risk of Edwards taking his own life was "high and significant" if imprisoned

 

It's not like he's chucked the mental health card hoping it sticks. Not to mention it's a psychiatrist's report, so presumably independent of the sentencing to determine what the actual vulnerability is. 

  • Like 1
Tommy G

Tommy G

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I'm in no way defending the crimes that Edwards has committed (and I think it's a very lenient sentence) but having read the summary on BBC news site, the mental health 'card' is for the question of whether he goes to prison or not, not that mental health caused him to look at such images?

 

The defence also said Edwards had suffered mental health problems, with a psychiatrists' report saying the risk of Edwards taking his own life was "high and significant" if imprisoned

 

It's not like he's chucked the mental health card hoping it sticks. Not to mention it's a psychiatrist's report, so presumably independent of the sentencing to determine what the actual vulnerability is. 

Surely quite a lot of people that are imprisoned suffer from mental health problems, would they get the same treatment as an ex BBC News anchor? Unlikely

Edited by Tommy G
  • Like 1
Paninistickers

Paninistickers

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Surely quite a lot of people that are imprisoned suffer from mental health problems, would they get the same treatment as an ex BBC News anchor? Unlikely

Very very rarely for a first offence. More or less everyone gets a free hit / benefit of doubt up to a certain level of crime. 

 

I don't think his profile or mental health issues helped here. Suspended sentence was more or less nailed on, unless he'd have made some kinda extraordinarily defiant pro paedo statement in his mitigation

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...