Barryd999 Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-24 5:48 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-24 5:29 PM All I can add is Starmer must have the Pelmets of this world extremely worried as it seems all they can do is desperately try to invent slander and slurs from what seems like a pretty much impeccable career. It must be crucifying them that not only can he run rings around Johnson in Parliament (like shooting fish in a barrel) but he is squeaky clean and truly statesman like and proper Prime Minister material. Judging by the hornets nest of Losers I have stirred up :D ........ They don't like what I've dug up on their latest great White Dope (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Best you start shredding any evidence of Starmers links to his Snake Charmer Shiner >:-) ........ Can you shred downloaded stuff? (?) ......... :D ....... But you havent dug anything up. You are desperately trying to but all you are doing is making yourself look stupid. (sorry more stupid). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-25 8:52 AM John52 - 2020-10-25 8:45 AM John52 - 2020-10-25 8:32 AM Keir Starmer may not have been prosecuting Terrorists at the same precise moment BoJo was being sacked for lyiing Is that kind of nitpicking the best you can do? Catching you Loony Lefty Losers LYING is my favourite kind of nitpicking >:-) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Keir Starmer said he was prosecuting terrorists when BoJo was sacked for lying I took 'when' to mean before the came into politics. Obviously not the exact same moment in time. We have no reason to disbelieve Kier Starmer, but if he said something in Parliament that wasn't basically true no doubt people far smarter than you would have been all over it. But they wouldn't make themselves look foolish by irrelevant nitpicking like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 John52 - 2020-10-25 9:58 AM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 8:52 AM John52 - 2020-10-25 8:45 AM John52 - 2020-10-25 8:32 AM Keir Starmer may not have been prosecuting Terrorists at the same precise moment BoJo was being sacked for lyiing Is that kind of nitpicking the best you can do? Catching you Loony Lefty Losers LYING is my favourite kind of nitpicking >:-) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Keir Starmer said he was prosecuting terrorists when BoJo was sacked for lying I took 'when' to mean before the came into politics. Obviously not the exact same moment in time. We have no reason to disbelieve Kier Starmer, but if he said something in Parliament that wasn't basically true no doubt people far smarter than you would have been all over it. But they wouldn't make themselves look foolish by irrelevant nitpicking like you. So back up your claim that the Snake Starmer prosecuted IRA terrorists ;-) ......... Otherwise you are a LIAR >:-) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 9:48 AM pelmetman - 2020-10-24 5:48 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-24 5:29 PM All I can add is Starmer must have the Pelmets of this world extremely worried as it seems all they can do is desperately try to invent slander and slurs from what seems like a pretty much impeccable career. It must be crucifying them that not only can he run rings around Johnson in Parliament (like shooting fish in a barrel) but he is squeaky clean and truly statesman like and proper Prime Minister material. Judging by the hornets nest of Losers I have stirred up :D ........ They don't like what I've dug up on their latest great White Dope (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Best you start shredding any evidence of Starmers links to his Snake Charmer Shiner >:-) ........ Can you shred downloaded stuff? (?) ......... :D ....... But you havent dug anything up. You are desperately trying to but all you are doing is making yourself look stupid. (sorry more stupid). Have I not? ;-) ........... I was unaware of the Snake Starmers involvement with Sh1tbag Shiner >:-) ....... I can imagine why he kept quite about that (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ Rest assured come the next election we Tories will be reminding every man and his dog of that little nugget...... along with his history of defending Terrorists, and that he has NEVER actually prosecuted a terrorist himself >:-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-25 10:49 AM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 9:48 AM pelmetman - 2020-10-24 5:48 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-24 5:29 PM All I can add is Starmer must have the Pelmets of this world extremely worried as it seems all they can do is desperately try to invent slander and slurs from what seems like a pretty much impeccable career. It must be crucifying them that not only can he run rings around Johnson in Parliament (like shooting fish in a barrel) but he is squeaky clean and truly statesman like and proper Prime Minister material. Judging by the hornets nest of Losers I have stirred up :D ........ They don't like what I've dug up on their latest great White Dope (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Best you start shredding any evidence of Starmers links to his Snake Charmer Shiner >:-) ........ Can you shred downloaded stuff? (?) ......... :D ....... But you havent dug anything up. You are desperately trying to but all you are doing is making yourself look stupid. (sorry more stupid). Have I not? ;-) ........... I was unaware of the Snake Starmers involvement with Sh1tbag Shiner >:-) ....... I can imagine why he kept quite about that (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ Rest assured come the next election we Tories will be reminding every man and his dog of that little nugget...... along with his history of defending Terrorists, and that he has NEVER actually prosecuted a terrorist himself >:-) ......... Can you provide evidence please that Starmer was involved with the case that Shiner was struck off for regarding the prosecution of soldiers in Iraq because I cant find any. Please do not quote your ridiculous article that started this thread by some right wing moron or the Brexpress, Mail or Sun. Lets have some real proof. Yes I am sure that come the next election you and those like you will try the usual dirty tricks and lies to smear a man that has fought his entire life for justice and fairness. Shame on you. However as I keep saying it will all depend on which side of the fence those rags you are fond of fall on as they tell you and the rest of the Lemmings what to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 9:48 AM pelmetman - 2020-10-24 5:48 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-24 5:29 PM All I can add is Starmer must have the Pelmets of this world extremely worried as it seems all they can do is desperately try to invent slander and slurs from what seems like a pretty much impeccable career. It must be crucifying them that not only can he run rings around Johnson in Parliament (like shooting fish in a barrel) but he is squeaky clean and truly statesman like and proper Prime Minister material. Judging by the hornets nest of Losers I have stirred up :D ........ They don't like what I've dug up on their latest great White Dope (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Best you start shredding any evidence of Starmers links to his Snake Charmer Shiner >:-) ........ Can you shred downloaded stuff? (?) ......... :D ....... But you havent dug anything up. You are desperately trying to but all you are doing is making yourself look stupid. (sorry more stupid). That's become a daily occurrence for Pelmet. Logic and basic common sense don't exist in his cuckoo head at all. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 12:12 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 10:49 AM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 9:48 AM pelmetman - 2020-10-24 5:48 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-24 5:29 PM All I can add is Starmer must have the Pelmets of this world extremely worried as it seems all they can do is desperately try to invent slander and slurs from what seems like a pretty much impeccable career. It must be crucifying them that not only can he run rings around Johnson in Parliament (like shooting fish in a barrel) but he is squeaky clean and truly statesman like and proper Prime Minister material. Judging by the hornets nest of Losers I have stirred up :D ........ They don't like what I've dug up on their latest great White Dope (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Best you start shredding any evidence of Starmers links to his Snake Charmer Shiner >:-) ........ Can you shred downloaded stuff? (?) ......... :D ....... But you havent dug anything up. You are desperately trying to but all you are doing is making yourself look stupid. (sorry more stupid). Have I not? ;-) ........... I was unaware of the Snake Starmers involvement with Sh1tbag Shiner >:-) ....... I can imagine why he kept quite about that (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ Rest assured come the next election we Tories will be reminding every man and his dog of that little nugget...... along with his history of defending Terrorists, and that he has NEVER actually prosecuted a terrorist himself >:-) ......... Can you provide evidence please that Starmer was involved with the case that Shiner was struck off for regarding the prosecution of soldiers in Iraq because I cant find any. Please do not quote your ridiculous article that started this thread by some right wing moron or the Brexpress, Mail or Sun. Lets have some real proof. Yes I am sure that come the next election you and those like you will try the usual dirty tricks and lies to smear a man that has fought his entire life for justice and fairness. Shame on you. However as I keep saying it will all depend on which side of the fence those rags you are fond of fall on as they tell you and the rest of the Lemmings what to think. Yes indeed.........The Snake Starmer has personally fought for Terrorists and criminals at tax payers expense all his life >:-) ........ Unless you have any evidence of him personally prosecuting them? >:-) ........ Just askin (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-25 12:41 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 12:12 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 10:49 AM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 9:48 AM pelmetman - 2020-10-24 5:48 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-24 5:29 PM All I can add is Starmer must have the Pelmets of this world extremely worried as it seems all they can do is desperately try to invent slander and slurs from what seems like a pretty much impeccable career. It must be crucifying them that not only can he run rings around Johnson in Parliament (like shooting fish in a barrel) but he is squeaky clean and truly statesman like and proper Prime Minister material. Judging by the hornets nest of Losers I have stirred up :D ........ They don't like what I've dug up on their latest great White Dope (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Best you start shredding any evidence of Starmers links to his Snake Charmer Shiner >:-) ........ Can you shred downloaded stuff? (?) ......... :D ....... But you havent dug anything up. You are desperately trying to but all you are doing is making yourself look stupid. (sorry more stupid). Have I not? ;-) ........... I was unaware of the Snake Starmers involvement with Sh1tbag Shiner >:-) ....... I can imagine why he kept quite about that (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ Rest assured come the next election we Tories will be reminding every man and his dog of that little nugget...... along with his history of defending Terrorists, and that he has NEVER actually prosecuted a terrorist himself >:-) ......... Can you provide evidence please that Starmer was involved with the case that Shiner was struck off for regarding the prosecution of soldiers in Iraq because I cant find any. Please do not quote your ridiculous article that started this thread by some right wing moron or the Brexpress, Mail or Sun. Lets have some real proof. Yes I am sure that come the next election you and those like you will try the usual dirty tricks and lies to smear a man that has fought his entire life for justice and fairness. Shame on you. However as I keep saying it will all depend on which side of the fence those rags you are fond of fall on as they tell you and the rest of the Lemmings what to think. Yes indeed.........The Snake Starmer has personally fought for Terrorists and criminals at tax payers expense all his life >:-) ........ Unless you have any evidence of him personally prosecuting them? >:-) ........ Just askin (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Is there any point in posting links when you don't read them? I'll try anyway https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/02/keir-starmer-condemns-johnson-for-accusing-him-of-ira-tolerance https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/21/boris-johnson-lies-marcus-rashford-prime-minister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-25 12:41 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 12:12 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 10:49 AM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 9:48 AM pelmetman - 2020-10-24 5:48 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-24 5:29 PM All I can add is Starmer must have the Pelmets of this world extremely worried as it seems all they can do is desperately try to invent slander and slurs from what seems like a pretty much impeccable career. It must be crucifying them that not only can he run rings around Johnson in Parliament (like shooting fish in a barrel) but he is squeaky clean and truly statesman like and proper Prime Minister material. Judging by the hornets nest of Losers I have stirred up :D ........ They don't like what I've dug up on their latest great White Dope (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Best you start shredding any evidence of Starmers links to his Snake Charmer Shiner >:-) ........ Can you shred downloaded stuff? (?) ......... :D ....... But you havent dug anything up. You are desperately trying to but all you are doing is making yourself look stupid. (sorry more stupid). Have I not? ;-) ........... I was unaware of the Snake Starmers involvement with Sh1tbag Shiner >:-) ....... I can imagine why he kept quite about that (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ Rest assured come the next election we Tories will be reminding every man and his dog of that little nugget...... along with his history of defending Terrorists, and that he has NEVER actually prosecuted a terrorist himself >:-) ......... Can you provide evidence please that Starmer was involved with the case that Shiner was struck off for regarding the prosecution of soldiers in Iraq because I cant find any. Please do not quote your ridiculous article that started this thread by some right wing moron or the Brexpress, Mail or Sun. Lets have some real proof. Yes I am sure that come the next election you and those like you will try the usual dirty tricks and lies to smear a man that has fought his entire life for justice and fairness. Shame on you. However as I keep saying it will all depend on which side of the fence those rags you are fond of fall on as they tell you and the rest of the Lemmings what to think. Starmer has personally fought for Terrorists and criminals at tax payers expense all his life >:-) ........ Unless you have any evidence of him personally prosecuting them? >:-) ........ Just askin (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Pelmet you've had all this explained to you before very clearly in a number of posts from Brian who has way more patience with you than any other fm's. Yet you persist in regurgitating the same nonsense time and again......as Barry said, just making yourself look extremely foolish and silly. Read Brians posts again and maybe a sliver of sense might just manage to get into that mush inside your skull. Brian Kirby - 2020-10-24 5:42 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-24 4:27 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-24 3:45 PM To do that, defence barristers at times have to hold their noses. Notwithstanding, they are obliged to present the best defence for their client they can muster. It is a job that only a barrister can do. They may not like the case, but ultimately, someone has to take it. Otherwise, the legal system collapses. It appears the Snake Starmer's nose prefers the odour of terrorist defending to prosecuting *-) ................. It is the same argument, it is a legal requirement for a defendant to be granted a defence, or no case can be heard. Where their is no doubt that a defendant is guilty, all a barrister can do is advise him/her to plead guilty. Otherwise, the accused (suspected terrorist or not), is legally entitled to a defence. That is how UK law works. You should know this. It is a good system that is common in civilised countries. It is what is meant by the "rule of law". What do you want instead? Kangaroo courts, lynchings, summary executions, secret police, "disappearances"? You are referring to Starmer's period as a barrister. When he became DPP he was responsible for the prosecution of all suspected criminals or terrorists on behalf of the Crown. You are letting your party political prejudices get in the way of all reason. Brian Kirby - 2020-10-24 6:19 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-24 5:52 PM..........................Incorrect ;-) ........His was unable to prevent their prosecution due to overwhelming evidence :-| ........ Apart for making no sense, this is wrong. Defence counsel were David Gottleib and Abbas Lakha QC, and the prosecuting counsel (appointed by the DPP) was Richard Whittam QC. Its all on the net, so no need for fantasy reporting. Brian Kirby - 2020-10-24 6:36 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-24 6:23 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-24 6:19 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-24 5:52 PM..........................Incorrect ;-) ........His was unable to prevent their prosecution due to overwhelming evidence :-| ........ Apart for making no sense, this is wrong. Defence counsel were David Gottleib and Abbas Lakha QC, and the prosecuting counsel (appointed by the DPP) was Richard Whittam QC. Its all on the net, so no need for fantasy reporting. So no sign of Snakey Starmer ACTUALLY prosecuting? >:-) ......... DPPs don't act as counsel, they appoint counsel. You really don't understand your own legal system, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-25 12:41 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 12:12 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 10:49 AM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 9:48 AM pelmetman - 2020-10-24 5:48 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-24 5:29 PM All I can add is Starmer must have the Pelmets of this world extremely worried as it seems all they can do is desperately try to invent slander and slurs from what seems like a pretty much impeccable career. It must be crucifying them that not only can he run rings around Johnson in Parliament (like shooting fish in a barrel) but he is squeaky clean and truly statesman like and proper Prime Minister material. Judging by the hornets nest of Losers I have stirred up :D ........ They don't like what I've dug up on their latest great White Dope (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Best you start shredding any evidence of Starmers links to his Snake Charmer Shiner >:-) ........ Can you shred downloaded stuff? (?) ......... :D ....... But you havent dug anything up. You are desperately trying to but all you are doing is making yourself look stupid. (sorry more stupid). Have I not? ;-) ........... I was unaware of the Snake Starmers involvement with Sh1tbag Shiner >:-) ....... I can imagine why he kept quite about that (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ Rest assured come the next election we Tories will be reminding every man and his dog of that little nugget...... along with his history of defending Terrorists, and that he has NEVER actually prosecuted a terrorist himself >:-) ......... Can you provide evidence please that Starmer was involved with the case that Shiner was struck off for regarding the prosecution of soldiers in Iraq because I cant find any. Please do not quote your ridiculous article that started this thread by some right wing moron or the Brexpress, Mail or Sun. Lets have some real proof. Yes I am sure that come the next election you and those like you will try the usual dirty tricks and lies to smear a man that has fought his entire life for justice and fairness. Shame on you. However as I keep saying it will all depend on which side of the fence those rags you are fond of fall on as they tell you and the rest of the Lemmings what to think. Yes indeed.........The Snake Starmer has personally fought for Terrorists and criminals at tax payers expense all his life >:-) ........ Unless you have any evidence of him personally prosecuting them? >:-) ........ Just askin (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Yes indeed? Thats your answer? I asked you to provide evidence that Starmer was involved with the case that Phil Shiner brought against soldiers where he used fake testimonies from Iraq and your answer is "Yes indeed"? 8-) So you dont have any evidence then really and its just more libel and slander. This is probably one reason why the rags you support wont go down this slanderous line you are keen on them following and you will only see s**t like the stuff you posted in blogs written by morons. Starmer will likely have their guts for garters if they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teflon2 Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 2:29 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 12:41 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 12:12 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 10:49 AM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 9:48 AM pelmetman - 2020-10-24 5:48 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-24 5:29 PM All I can add is Starmer must have the Pelmets of this world extremely worried as it seems all they can do is desperately try to invent slander and slurs from what seems like a pretty much impeccable career. It must be crucifying them that not only can he run rings around Johnson in Parliament (like shooting fish in a barrel) but he is squeaky clean and truly statesman like and proper Prime Minister material. Judging by the hornets nest of Losers I have stirred up :D ........ They don't like what I've dug up on their latest great White Dope (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Best you start shredding any evidence of Starmers links to his Snake Charmer Shiner >:-) ........ Can you shred downloaded stuff? (?) ......... :D ....... But you havent dug anything up. You are desperately trying to but all you are doing is making yourself look stupid. (sorry more stupid). Have I not? ;-) ........... I was unaware of the Snake Starmers involvement with Sh1tbag Shiner >:-) ....... I can imagine why he kept quite about that (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ Rest assured come the next election we Tories will be reminding every man and his dog of that little nugget...... along with his history of defending Terrorists, and that he has NEVER actually prosecuted a terrorist himself >:-) ......... Can you provide evidence please that Starmer was involved with the case that Shiner was struck off for regarding the prosecution of soldiers in Iraq because I cant find any. Please do not quote your ridiculous article that started this thread by some right wing moron or the Brexpress, Mail or Sun. Lets have some real proof. Yes I am sure that come the next election you and those like you will try the usual dirty tricks and lies to smear a man that has fought his entire life for justice and fairness. Shame on you. However as I keep saying it will all depend on which side of the fence those rags you are fond of fall on as they tell you and the rest of the Lemmings what to think. Yes indeed.........The Snake Starmer has personally fought for Terrorists and criminals at tax payers expense all his life >:-) ........ Unless you have any evidence of him personally prosecuting them? >:-) ........ Just askin (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Yes indeed? Thats your answer? I asked you to provide evidence that Starmer was involved with the case that Phil Shiner brought against soldiers where he used fake testimonies from Iraq and your answer is "Yes indeed"? 8-) So you dont have any evidence then really and its just more libel and slander. This is probably one reason why the rags you support wont go down this slanderous line you are keen on them following and you will only see s**t like the stuff you posted in blogs written by morons. Starmer will likely have their guts for garters if they do.[/QUO You could try pressreader and enter starmer /shiner I don't know if they are left right or in the middle but it does show starmer in a less that righteous stance. It's an interesting read and even includes a comment by a labour MP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 teflon2 - 2020-10-25 5:29 PM You could try pressreader and enter starmer /shiner I don't know if they are left right or in the middle but it does show starmer in a less that righteous stance. It's an interesting read and even includes a comment by a labour MP Good tip ;-) ......... I found this >:-) ......... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7877495/amp/Sir-Keir-Starmer-questioned-need-police-argued-prisoners-given-vote.html I also note this thread actually pops up when you Google Kier Starmer and Phil Shiner :D ........ Just doing my bit to enlighten folk about Snakey Starmer >:-) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 teflon2 - 2020-10-25 5:29 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 2:29 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 12:41 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 12:12 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 10:49 AM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 9:48 AM pelmetman - 2020-10-24 5:48 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-24 5:29 PM All I can add is Starmer must have the Pelmets of this world extremely worried as it seems all they can do is desperately try to invent slander and slurs from what seems like a pretty much impeccable career. It must be crucifying them that not only can he run rings around Johnson in Parliament (like shooting fish in a barrel) but he is squeaky clean and truly statesman like and proper Prime Minister material. Judging by the hornets nest of Losers I have stirred up :D ........ They don't like what I've dug up on their latest great White Dope (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Best you start shredding any evidence of Starmers links to his Snake Charmer Shiner >:-) ........ Can you shred downloaded stuff? (?) ......... :D ....... But you havent dug anything up. You are desperately trying to but all you are doing is making yourself look stupid. (sorry more stupid). Have I not? ;-) ........... I was unaware of the Snake Starmers involvement with Sh1tbag Shiner >:-) ....... I can imagine why he kept quite about that (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ Rest assured come the next election we Tories will be reminding every man and his dog of that little nugget...... along with his history of defending Terrorists, and that he has NEVER actually prosecuted a terrorist himself >:-) ......... Can you provide evidence please that Starmer was involved with the case that Shiner was struck off for regarding the prosecution of soldiers in Iraq because I cant find any. Please do not quote your ridiculous article that started this thread by some right wing moron or the Brexpress, Mail or Sun. Lets have some real proof. Yes I am sure that come the next election you and those like you will try the usual dirty tricks and lies to smear a man that has fought his entire life for justice and fairness. Shame on you. However as I keep saying it will all depend on which side of the fence those rags you are fond of fall on as they tell you and the rest of the Lemmings what to think. Yes indeed.........The Snake Starmer has personally fought for Terrorists and criminals at tax payers expense all his life >:-) ........ Unless you have any evidence of him personally prosecuting them? >:-) ........ Just askin (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Yes indeed? Thats your answer? I asked you to provide evidence that Starmer was involved with the case that Phil Shiner brought against soldiers where he used fake testimonies from Iraq and your answer is "Yes indeed"? 8-) So you dont have any evidence then really and its just more libel and slander. This is probably one reason why the rags you support wont go down this slanderous line you are keen on them following and you will only see s**t like the stuff you posted in blogs written by morons. Starmer will likely have their guts for garters if they do.[/QUOte] You could try pressreader and enter starmer /shiner I don't know if they are left right or in the middle but it does show starmer in a less that righteous stance. It's an interesting read and even includes a comment by a labour MP I did that. All I Can find is dubious opinion pieces from unreliable tame Tory Journalists from the likes of the Mail on sunday trying to vaguely link Starmer with defending criminals that were or might have been terrorists. There is no link to him and Shiner and where Shiner fabricated evidence. If there was the gutter press would have been on it like a tramp on a dropped bag of chips. In that line of work you are bound to end up defending some pretty undesirable characters but if there was real dirt to dig up on Starmer considering the absolute circles he is running around Johnson they would have found it by now. Its extremely sad that this is all Johnsons supporters have. Desperately trying to scrabble around to find something from his long and distant past thats a bit juicy and might bring him down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 https://politicsrestuarantsclothesandholidays.blog/2020/09/25/no-surprise-but-they-did-vote/ >:-) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-25 6:34 PM https://politicsrestuarantsclothesandholidays.blog/2020/09/25/no-surprise-but-they-did-vote/ >:-) ............ I am not even going to open that morons blog again. Come back when you have some real evidence. Yawn. *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 6:10 PM teflon2 - 2020-10-25 5:29 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 2:29 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 12:41 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 12:12 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 10:49 AM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 9:48 AM pelmetman - 2020-10-24 5:48 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-24 5:29 PM All I can add is Starmer must have the Pelmets of this world extremely worried as it seems all they can do is desperately try to invent slander and slurs from what seems like a pretty much impeccable career. It must be crucifying them that not only can he run rings around Johnson in Parliament (like shooting fish in a barrel) but he is squeaky clean and truly statesman like and proper Prime Minister material. Judging by the hornets nest of Losers I have stirred up :D ........ They don't like what I've dug up on their latest great White Dope (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Best you start shredding any evidence of Starmers links to his Snake Charmer Shiner >:-) ........ Can you shred downloaded stuff? (?) ......... :D ....... But you havent dug anything up. You are desperately trying to but all you are doing is making yourself look stupid. (sorry more stupid). Have I not? ;-) ........... I was unaware of the Snake Starmers involvement with Sh1tbag Shiner >:-) ....... I can imagine why he kept quite about that (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ Rest assured come the next election we Tories will be reminding every man and his dog of that little nugget...... along with his history of defending Terrorists, and that he has NEVER actually prosecuted a terrorist himself >:-) ......... Can you provide evidence please that Starmer was involved with the case that Shiner was struck off for regarding the prosecution of soldiers in Iraq because I cant find any. Please do not quote your ridiculous article that started this thread by some right wing moron or the Brexpress, Mail or Sun. Lets have some real proof. Yes I am sure that come the next election you and those like you will try the usual dirty tricks and lies to smear a man that has fought his entire life for justice and fairness. Shame on you. However as I keep saying it will all depend on which side of the fence those rags you are fond of fall on as they tell you and the rest of the Lemmings what to think. Yes indeed.........The Snake Starmer has personally fought for Terrorists and criminals at tax payers expense all his life >:-) ........ Unless you have any evidence of him personally prosecuting them? >:-) ........ Just askin (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Yes indeed? Thats your answer? I asked you to provide evidence that Starmer was involved with the case that Phil Shiner brought against soldiers where he used fake testimonies from Iraq and your answer is "Yes indeed"? 8-) So you dont have any evidence then really and its just more libel and slander. This is probably one reason why the rags you support wont go down this slanderous line you are keen on them following and you will only see s**t like the stuff you posted in blogs written by morons. Starmer will likely have their guts for garters if they do.[/QUOte] You could try pressreader and enter starmer /shiner I don't know if they are left right or in the middle but it does show starmer in a less that righteous stance. It's an interesting read and even includes a comment by a labour MP I did that. All I Can find is dubious opinion pieces from unreliable tame Tory Journalists from the likes of the Mail on sunday trying to vaguely link Starmer with defending criminals that were or might have been terrorists. There is no link to him and Shiner and where Shiner fabricated evidence. If there was the gutter press would have been on it like a tramp on a dropped bag of chips. In that line of work you are bound to end up defending some pretty undesirable characters but if there was real dirt to dig up on Starmer considering the absolute circles he is running around Johnson they would have found it by now. Brian has covered this matter in a number of posts both on this thread and others explaining in detail but Pelmet doesn't want facts. I've been waiting since 2pm for him to evidence his claim that "Keir Starmer never prosecuted terrorists". He throws wild allegations out with zero evidence just making things up as he goes along. Its extremely sad that this is all Johnsons supporters have. Desperately trying to scrabble around to find something from his long and distant past thats a bit juicy and might bring him down. It's all they have left as they know Johnson is toast now. They only wanted him for Brexit....no other reason. Starmer is a very capable politician at the despatch box where Johnson just falls apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 6:40 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 6:34 PM https://politicsrestuarantsclothesandholidays.blog/2020/09/25/no-surprise-but-they-did-vote/ >:-) ............ I am not even going to open that morons blog again. Come back when you have some real evidence. Yawn. *-) Here you go >:-) .......... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/08/keir-starmer-accused-sweetheart-deal-london-bridge-terrorist/ https://allworldreport.com/world-news/has-keir-starmer-really-spent-a-lifetime-seeking-justice-underdogs/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-25 12:41 PM......................................... Yes indeed.........The Snake Starmer has personally fought for Terrorists and criminals at tax payers expense all his life >:-) ........ Unless you have any evidence of him personally prosecuting them? >:-) ........ Just askin (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Is this just OCD, or something else you suffer from? Someone accused of a crime has a right to a defence in court. If the crime is serious this will usually involve barristers. One for the defence and one for the prosecution. The defence barrister will usually be appointed by the accused's solicitor, the prosecution barrister usually by the DPP as head of the CPS (the Crown Prosecution, Service) Crown PROSECUTION Service. Geddit? The over-riding principle is that the accused is presumed innocent until a court finds them guilty. To prove the accused guilty the prosecution barrister presents evidence to a jury of "12 good men and true" as to why s/he should be convicted, and the defence barrister presents evidence as to why s/he should not be convicted. If the jury are convinced (either by majority or unanimous decision) by the prosecution, they pronounce the accused guilty, and if they are not they find the accused not guilty. For this process to work there have to be both defence and prosecution barristers. Blimey, I thought even 10 year olds had a sketchy understanding of this - it is fundamental to the British legal process. Is all this not clear and obvious to anyone other than a complete and utter fool? So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? Is it that you don't think there should be defence barristers, that you don't think there should be a defence at all, that you don't like Starmer, that you don't like like anyone who is the Labour leader, that you don't think there should be a Labour party, that you don't think there should be an opposition party, that you think Starmer should have chosen a different career, should not have become a barrister, that he shouldn't have become a defence barrister in case he had to defend people you don't like, that he should have foreseen that Shiner (who was previously elected solicitor of the year) had gone rogue before it was revealed, that he shouldn't have become DPP, that he shouldn't have stood as an MP and got elected, that he shouldn't have stood as Corbyn's replacement as Labour leader, that he shouldn't have been born, that he should have chosen his parents more carefully, or just that he should sometimes allow Boris to win? 'Strewth, I don't think I have ever read a more badly thought through, biased, blindly prejudiced, ill informed, stream of utter tripe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-10-25 7:00 PM So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? . BINGO! >:-) ........... Well done Brian you have just pointed out why Snakey Starmer lied when he said he had prosecuted terrorists (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... He's a defence Liar (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:04 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-25 7:00 PM So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? . BINGO! >:-) ........... Well done Brian you have just pointed out why Snakey Starmer lied when he said he had prosecuted terrorists (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... He's a defence Liar (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Pelmet.......you're making a complete and utter ass of yourself now. Brian said absolutely nothing of the sort and you're skewing his post in a futile desperate attempt at saving face. Stop clutching at straws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-10-25 7:00 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 12:41 PM......................................... Yes indeed.........The Snake Starmer has personally fought for Terrorists and criminals at tax payers expense all his life >:-) ........ Unless you have any evidence of him personally prosecuting them? >:-) ........ Just askin (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Is this just OCD, or something else you suffer from? Someone accused of a crime has a right to a defence in court. If the crime is serious this will usually involve barristers. One for the defence and one for the prosecution. The defence barrister will usually be appointed by the accused's solicitor, the prosecution barrister usually by the DPP as head of the CPS (the Crown Prosecution, Service) Crown PROSECUTION Service. Geddit? The over-riding principle is that the accused is presumed innocent until a court finds them guilty. To prove the accused guilty the prosecution barrister presents evidence to a jury of "12 good men and true" as to why s/he should be convicted, and the defence barrister presents evidence as to why s/he should not be convicted. If the jury are convinced (either by majority or unanimous decision) by the prosecution, they pronounce the accused guilty, and if they are not they find the accused not guilty. For this process to work there have to be both defence and prosecution barristers. Blimey, I thought even 10 year olds had a sketchy understanding of this - it is fundamental to the British legal process. Is all this not clear and obvious to anyone other than a complete and utter fool? So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? Is it that you don't think there should be defence barristers, that you don't think there should be a defence at all, that you don't like Starmer, that you don't like like anyone who is the Labour leader, that you don't think there should be a Labour party, that you don't think there should be an opposition party, that you think Starmer should have chosen a different career, should not have become a barrister, that he shouldn't have become a defence barrister in case he had to defend people you don't like, that he should have foreseen that Shiner (who was previously elected solicitor of the year) had gone rogue before it was revealed, that he shouldn't have become DPP, that he shouldn't have stood as an MP and got elected, that he shouldn't have stood as Corbyn's replacement as Labour leader, that he shouldn't have been born, that he should have chosen his parents more carefully, or just that he should sometimes allow Boris to win? 'Strewth, I don't think I have ever read a more badly thought through, biased, blindly prejudiced, ill informed, stream of utter tripe. "Strewth, I don't think I have ever read a more badly thought through, biased, blindly prejudiced, ill informed, stream of utter tripe" ... I just knew you dont read Bullet and Barry the hate twins threads ... Try looking at Barrys "no deal is dead" claim for starters ... Enjoy sweet cheeks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Bulletguy - 2020-10-25 7:18 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:04 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-25 7:00 PM So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? . BINGO! >:-) ........... Well done Brian you have just pointed out why Snakey Starmer lied when he said he had prosecuted terrorists (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... He's a defence Liar (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Pelmet.......you're making a complete and utter ass of yourself now. Brian said absolutely nothing of the sort and you're skewing his post in a futile desperate attempt at saving face. Stop clutching at straws. Stop squirming LOSERS.......and Prove me wrong >:-) ........ Show a court case where he prosecuted a terrorist (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:21 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-25 7:18 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:04 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-25 7:00 PM So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? . BINGO! >:-) ........... Well done Brian you have just pointed out why Snakey Starmer lied when he said he had prosecuted terrorists (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... He's a defence Liar (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Pelmet.......you're making a complete and utter ass of yourself now. Brian said absolutely nothing of the sort and you're skewing his post in a futile desperate attempt at saving face. Stop clutching at straws. Stop squirming LOSERS.......and Prove me wrong >:-) ........ Show a court case where he prosecuted a terrorist (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Oh FGS you idiot......how many more times do you have to be told? This is worse than potty training a little baby. FGS grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Bulletguy - 2020-10-25 7:51 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:21 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-25 7:18 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:04 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-25 7:00 PM So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? . BINGO! >:-) ........... Well done Brian you have just pointed out why Snakey Starmer lied when he said he had prosecuted terrorists (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... He's a defence Liar (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Pelmet.......you're making a complete and utter ass of yourself now. Brian said absolutely nothing of the sort and you're skewing his post in a futile desperate attempt at saving face. Stop clutching at straws. Stop squirming LOSERS.......and Prove me wrong >:-) ........ Show a court case where he prosecuted a terrorist (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Oh FGS you idiot......how many more times do you have to be told? This is worse than potty training a little baby. FGS grow up. For info ;-) ........... "What does prosecute mean in English? Meaning of prosecute in English. prosecute verb (LEGAL) to officially accuse someone of committing a crime in a law court, or (of a lawyer) to try to prove that a person accused of committing a crime is guilty of that crime: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prosecute Do you have any evidence of Snakey Starmer being in court prosecuting a terrorist? >:-) ......... Just askin (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:55 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-25 7:51 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:21 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-25 7:18 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:04 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-25 7:00 PM So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? . BINGO! >:-) ........... Well done Brian you have just pointed out why Snakey Starmer lied when he said he had prosecuted terrorists (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... He's a defence Liar (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Pelmet.......you're making a complete and utter ass of yourself now. Brian said absolutely nothing of the sort and you're skewing his post in a futile desperate attempt at saving face. Stop clutching at straws. Stop squirming LOSERS.......and Prove me wrong >:-) ........ Show a court case where he prosecuted a terrorist (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Oh FGS you idiot......how many more times do you have to be told? This is worse than potty training a little baby. FGS grow up. For info ;-) ........... "What does prosecute mean in English? Meaning of prosecute in English. prosecute verb (LEGAL) to officially accuse someone of committing a crime in a law court, or (of a lawyer) to try to prove that a person accused of committing a crime is guilty of that crime: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prosecute Do you have any evidence of Snakey Starmer being in court prosecuting a terrorist? >:-) ......... Just askin (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... Ouch ... Thats gotta hurt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.