Careless Tories!

[Andy_Faber]

The former PM is a disreputable liar...been proved time and time again in virtually every job he’s done. .

Really?

Regarding Sue Gray, our own debate about whether she has done wrong is made irrelevant if she is found, as seems likely, to have broken the Civil Service Code. That's not such a transgression as BJ was guilty of, but its still a transgression. It reflects badly on KS and his cronies that they can't just accept that, admit to it and move on. Makes Labour just seem like 'Tory Lite' IMO

[Trickytreesreds]

Really?

Regarding Sue Gray, our own debate about whether she has done wrong is made irrelevant if she is found, as seems likely, to have broken the Civil Service Code. That's not such a transgression as BJ was guilty of, but its still a transgression. It reflects badly on KS and his cronies that they can't just accept that, admit to it and move on. Makes Labour just seem like 'Tory Lite' IMO

Correct. When you sling mud, better make sure you're whiter than white.
The public will see through you.

[ramAnag]

Correct. When you sling mud, better make sure you're whiter than white.
The public will see through you.

You seem very fond of the ‘Really?’ response. I’m not sure why but, ‘The former PM is a disreputable liar...been proved time and time again in virtually every job he’s done...’. Yes...really! Care to dispute it?

As for Sue Gray...she’s been cleared hasn’t she? The Cabinet Office are the only ones making any find of fuss. Well they would wouldn’t they?

‘Sling mud’, Tricky? She conducted an enquiry, not for the first time, into a high profile political individual. Her findings were published...hardly mud slinging.

[Trickytreesreds]

You seem very fond of the ‘Really?’ response. I’m not sure why but, ‘The former PM is a disreputable liar...been proved time and time again in virtually every job he’s done...’. Yes...really! Care to dispute it?

As for Sue Gray...she’s been cleared hasn’t she? The Cabinet Office are the only ones making any find of fuss. Well they would wouldn’t they?

‘Sling mud’, Tricky? She conducted an enquiry, not for the first time, into a high profile political individual. Her findings were published...hardly mud slinging.

I'm talking about the Labour party, throwning mud about ethics and lies
They are not exempt from anything there either, as just stated.
I know your goal of BJ hanging was sated, but try to look around a bit more.
I trust none of them.
Starmer was tapping someone up, involved in something serious. If he had come out and admitted they had been talking with her, I'd have probably shrugged my shoulders.
Had she still been in the civil service now, she'd have been disciplined- thats a fact.

[Andy_Faber]

You seem very fond of the ‘Really?’ response. I’m not sure why but, ‘The former PM is a disreputable liar...been proved time and time again in virtually every job he’s done...’. Yes...really! Care to dispute it?

.

No rA but your repeated reassertion, used as a coda to most of your non-footy posts, and conveyed to at most a dozen people who have most certainly got the message, has gone beyond boring and suggests as much about your character traits as it does BJ’s. However, it doesn’t go against forum rules so you’re welcome to continue

[MadAmster]

No rA but your repeated reassertion, used as a coda to most of your non-footy posts, and conveyed to at most a dozen people who have most certainly got the message, has gone beyond boring and suggests as much about your character traits as it does BJ’s. However, it doesn’t go against forum rules so you’re welcome to continue

You make sense AF, however, when another poster is bandying about "not impartial" and other epithets that seem aimed at taking the heat off BJ when he is, indeed everything rA posted, it does, IMO, require a reply to try to set the record straight. If TTR didn't try to deflect then there would be no need to remind him that BJ has been sacked many a time and oft for lying...

[ramAnag]

No rA but your repeated reassertion, used as a coda to most of your non-footy posts, and conveyed to at most a dozen people who have most certainly got the message, has gone beyond boring and suggests as much about your character traits as it does BJ’s. However, it doesn’t go against forum rules so you’re welcome to continue

Really?
I suggest you a) listen to MA b) look at where the whole Sue Gray aspect of all this started and c) stop sounding quite so patronising.

[Geoff Parkstone]

really?
I suggest you a) listen to ma b) look at where the whole sue gray aspect of all this started and c) stop sounding quite so patronising.

really?

[Trickytreesreds]

You make sense AF, however, when another poster is bandying about "not impartial" and other epithets that seem aimed at taking the heat off BJ when he is, indeed everything rA posted, it does, IMO, require a reply to try to set the record straight. If TTR didn't try to deflect then there would be no need to remind him that BJ has been sacked many a time and oft for lying...

I'm deflecting nothing thank you very much.
Bought it on himself.

Yet I do love the hypocrisy of covert manouvres here, with someone breaking the Civil service codes and looking to jump into Labours bed.
Lets just ignore it shall we, its only another little lie, nothing to see here.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I'm deflecting nothing thank you very much.
Bought it on himself.

Yet I do love the hypocrisy of covert manouvres here, with someone breaking the Civil service codes and looking to jump into Labours bed.
Lets just ignore it shall we, its only another little lie, nothing to see here.

In comparison to BoJo's careless handling of the truth it is indeed a little lie. But Boris started small as well and so I fear the same pattern may be starting as the reds copy the blues.

If someone had outted Boris earlier, maybe things would not have escalated to the degree they did. To my mind therefore it's worth flagging this one in the hope that it's not the start of a similar pattern.

It's not "deflection", it's a rational development of the point. Threads should be allowed to evolve within the general topic, and this to me is evolution into a "careless politicians" thread which is fine. I'm not so narrow minded as to focus on just one party's questionable statements/actions/ethics etc. Life is rarely that black and white.