Keith Starmer , The Liar , Murdoch's Man And Candidate For MI5

[Iberian Red]

Another reasoned response but why Sunak over Starmer?
Sunak is going back on his word WHILE he is in power!

Edit.
That was a reply to BFYP

[Bristol Red Rover]

Another reasoned response but why Sunak over Starmer?
Sunak is going back on his word WHILE he is in power!

Edit.
That was a reply to BFYP

Starmer has gone back on his word whilst in power of the Labour party. Of course he will be deceitful when he's PM. He's a people pleaser, the worst kind of person. He's made most of his team, most of the party people pleasers. People pleasers change their direction. They cause chaos. But, the people Starmer is pleasing are the msm, business and the elites - THAT is the big problem. They will demand more, he will give them more.

[Bentley Bullet]

The thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.

Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.

I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.

Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.

And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.

Here's a thought experiment.

It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.

Do you:

a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?

b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?

Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country.

[Sprotyrover]

One of the enduring myths about Signals Intelligence in the Second World War is that Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill knew from intercepted messages that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor in December 1941 but kept the fact secret to bring the USA into the war on the Allied side.  A variant of the myth has US President Roosevelt as part of the secret, looking for a pretext to bring his country into the war.

The myth is false.  The strategic situation in the Far East was such that war with Japan had become more likely.  Rumours of a Japanese attack in South East Asia had been reported from Bletchley Park some days before the actual attacks, and, ironically, the report had been shared with US intelligence,  but the report was vague and assumed that the Japanese would invade Thailand.

[Bentley Bullet]

The thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.

Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.

I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.

Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.

And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.

Here's a thought experiment.

It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.

Do you:

a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?

b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?

Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country.

What is as certain as the sun is You'd even vote for Boris Johnson if he was Labour leader, and you would defend him to the bloody hilt.

[wilts rover]

That's correct. It is a myth probably built on the sinking of the SS Scillin.

On the night of 14th November 1942 the Scillin was being used by the Italian Navy to transport at least 814 (other reports have it at over 1000) British POW's from North Africa to Italy when it was intercepted and sunk by the Royal Navy sub HMS Sahib.

Full details of what was known and by whom have never been released by the govenment, despite numerous requests by relatives, and it was only in 1996 that the government actually admitted any responsibility for the deaths of the POW.

The reason for this, it is assumed, is that Churchill and the government knew the Scillin was carrying POW's as they had broken the Italian Ultra codes some time earlier. But refused to notify the captain of HMS Sahib in case the Italians knew a sub was in the area and suspected an attack.

Several other POW transports were sunk in the Med in the same way. Leading to the deaths of c2000 British POW's which Churchill could have prevented.

That's probably where the myth comes from.

[wilts rover]

The thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.

Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.

I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.

Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.

And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.

Here's a thought experiment.

It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.

Do you:

a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?

b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?

Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country.

What is as certain as the sun is You'd even vote for Boris Johnson if he was Labour leader, and you would defend him to the bloody hilt.

You did vote for Boris Johnson as Tory leader and have still never criticised him to this day.

Bit rich of you to crticise someone else for what you did.

[Bentley Bullet]

The thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.

Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.

I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.

Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.

And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.

Here's a thought experiment.

It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.

Do you:

a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?

b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?

Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country.

What is as certain as the sun is You'd even vote for Boris Johnson if he was Labour leader, and you would defend him to the bloody hilt.

You did vote for Boris Johnson as Tory leader and have still never criticised him to this day.

Bit rich of you to crticise someone else for what you did.

There's nothing unusual in the inaccuracy of a Wilts rover post, and this one is no different.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.

Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.

I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.

Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.

And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.

Here's a thought experiment.

It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.

Do you:

a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?

b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?

Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country.

What is as certain as the sun is You'd even vote for Boris Johnson if he was Labour leader, and you would defend him to the bloody hilt.

I would never, ever support a pathological liar. Someone who has built his entire professional and personal life upon lying for the purpose of self-aggrandisement.

There's the big difference between thee and me.

[BillyStubbsTears]

One of the enduring myths about Signals Intelligence in the Second World War is that Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill knew from intercepted messages that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor in December 1941 but kept the fact secret to bring the USA into the war on the Allied side.  A variant of the myth has US President Roosevelt as part of the secret, looking for a pretext to bring his country into the war.

The myth is false.  The strategic situation in the Far East was such that war with Japan had become more likely.  Rumours of a Japanese attack in South East Asia had been reported from Bletchley Park some days before the actual attacks, and, ironically, the report had been shared with US intelligence,  but the report was vague and assumed that the Japanese would invade Thailand.

Sproty.

Precisely why I said it was a thought experiment.

There are times in politics where deception is essential.

There are other times when a pathological liar in No 10 lies to protect himself when he has f**ked up.

Anyone not seeing the difference is really not trying very hard.

[Bentley Bullet]

The thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.

Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.

I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.

Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.

And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.

Here's a thought experiment.

It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.

Do you:

a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?

b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?

Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country.

What is as certain as the sun is You'd even vote for Boris Johnson if he was Labour leader, and you would defend him to the bloody hilt.

I would never, ever support a pathological liar. Someone who has built his entire professional and personal life upon lying for the purpose of self-aggrandisement.

There's the big difference between thee and me.

People who pathologically lie may do so to manipulate or deceive others. Does that ring any bells? If it doesn't, it ought to, because that is what you encourage your great leader to do.

I would never, and have never supported someone who does that.

That's the big difference between thee and me.