O/T:- ⚠️Impressed with the leadership [The UK Party Politics Thread]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OchPie

Yeah, and I said THE core principle is the exact opposite of what you claimed A core principle to be.



If you trained as a lawyer, surely you must recognise that "who knew what and when" links directly to the investigative techniques used and the timing of evidence collection, which itself can be *****ly important in a criminal case? Of course in some cases it may not be, and if that is so the judge can lift reporting restrictions. That's how it is supposed to work, which for someone trained as a lawyer, you should know.

Took less than ten seconds of googling to find: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz0mrz5ln3eo

Most grooming gangs in the UK are made up of white men. What "cultural differences" do you blame that on? Or do you just think the victims of white grooming gangs should shut up and be ignored because that's not a "cultural difference" to talk about?

---

You're being disingenuous regarding " grooming" . Say ,for arguments sake, 15% of grooming gangs were of one ethnicity , and in Nottingham, and the other 85% were more ethnically diverse but spread UK wide, then you might find Nottingham considered itself to be more threatened than the UK as a whole .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Notsohumblepie

You're being disingenuous regarding " grooming" . Say ,for arguments sake, 15% of grooming gangs were of one ethnicity , and in Nottingham, and the other 85% were more ethnically diverse but spread UK wide, then you might find Nottingham considered itself to be more threatened than the UK as a whole .

---

Nope. It is true that some ethnicities might be over-represented in certain crimes compared to the population, and it is valid then to ask why - and it is ***** that no community is shielded from legal consequences (as seems to have happened in Rochdale) - but to ignore that numerically a lot more grooming gang members are white men while blaming grooming on "cultural differences" is what is disingenuous.

The right person, best of a bad bunch, a "Trendy" appointment, is she the person to make them electable? So many questions!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmiffyPie

The right person, best of a bad bunch, a "Trendy" appointment, is she the person to make them electable? So many questions!

---

Starmer will really have to stuff things up to avoid being re-elected, though he seems to be trying his best already.

I cannot recall feeling so alienated from politicians either side of the pond as I do now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmiffyPie

The right person, best of a bad bunch, a "Trendy" appointment, is she the person to make them electable? So many questions!

---

[Threads merged]
SwalePie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmiffyPie

The right person, best of a bad bunch, a "Trendy" appointment, is she the person to make them electable? So many questions!

---

I'm pretty certain the Conservative Party membership have picked Kemi not for any 'trendy' reason but because she's the candidate who appears to have best and most consistently articulated idea of what Conservatives should actually stand for, and what they should oppose. Ideally she would have 5-10 years' experience before getting to this level, but as you say there's a dearth of quality politicians in general across all parties these days, so if you've got one who shows the potential to be great then you've got to run with them and let them learn on the job.

Jenrick's my MP and we have corresponded in the past. My main reflection from that is that I think Badenoch believes what she now says.

Reading about her she seems a feisty woman, holds crudges, says what's on her mind, dislikes elements of the civil service along with other current PC topics and models herself on Maggie. Appeals to grassroots probably but bet she runs foul of the "22" within a year or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OchPie

Jenrick's my MP and we have corresponded in the past. My main reflection from that is that I think Badenoch believes what she now says.

---

Jenrick's an opportunist who will say whatever he thinks he needs to say to appeal to those he thinks hold the key to his next career move, which sadly is true of most politicians currently. If you're a genuine conviction politician these days you're a rare breed and you stand out like a beacon, whichever part of the political spectrum you're coming from. The true test of Kemi's convictions is only just beginning and time will tell, but I'm more optimistic about her than many of her predecessors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackal2

Jenrick's an opportunist who will say whatever he thinks he needs to say to appeal to those he thinks hold the key to his next career move, which sadly is true of most politicians currently. If you're a genuine conviction politician these days you're a rare breed and you stand out like a beacon, whichever part of the political spectrum you're coming from. The true test of Kemi's convictions is only just beginning and time will tell, but I'm more optimistic about her than many of her predecessors.

---

I think they have made the right choice out of the two. Just could not support Jenrick.

Concerning though that one of the first things she says is that it is time to tell the truth - what have they been doing then?

PMQ’s will be interesting, she seems to be quite a fiesty character.