If you read the Guardian piece above you’ll see that according to Starmer it’s up to Sue Gray to deal with the question of when she was approached which begs the simple question - why would he not want to answer that?
a simple “thank you for the helpful reminder” would suffice in such circumstances. No substantive evidence of lying at all.
I’d say because it’s a matter between her and her employer and not his place to answer on her behalf. Any reporting obligation belongs with her. More broadly, on media handling, it looks a lot worse to answer one question and then clam up on the following questions which would start probing on what was discussed.
3 Likes
Given that Starmer will be her employer soon and according to him there’s nothing to hide why could he not simply answer the question?
From the person who thinks boldface is “creepy”, that’s a lovely accolade for which I thank you.
A lawyer answering a question he need not answer? That’s in the same category as knowing the point at which to stop your cross-examination before you ask the fatal “one question too many”!
I think that’s part of Starmer’s problem, he’s not a lawyer anymore so can’t always be on the defensive afraid of a slip-up.
not true AFAIK. The subtlety of this has obviously escaped you. It is a Government post, she will not be employed by KS per se. The post is funded by the Cabinet Office IIRC as are the posts of the shadow Front Bench.
wrong again I’m afraid. He is and remains a qualified Barrister, and a KC (King’s Counsel).
1 Like
Nice try Graham, he’ll be the PM so won’t be able to toddle off to the Old Bailey whenever he feels like it.
There is also no ‘subtlety’ here, he wants her to help him with next year’s election and the running of Downing Street and she’ll report directly to him and him alone.
Personally, I don’t care a jot who Starmer employs/appoints, the issue for me is more how the appointment was made not who it is so the sooner this is made clear the sooner the Tories can stop using it for political gain.
but he’ll still be a lawyer and a KC to boot despite your ramblings to the contrary 
Oh, I forgot. You don’t do subtlety, do you. After all, it does require a modicum of mental agility
I’m not going to explain it to you further - you have obviously missed the subtle point as you often do in a haste top score cheap points.
It’s a matter for KS to know and for you and the Tories to ponder - possibly for an eternity.
I don’t know why you get so worked up and feel it necessary to resort to rudeness just because someone dares to question what you have said.
There are several lawyers in the H of C but many don’t practise anymore, KS is one of them as he gave up his certificate to practise in 2019 so his full time job is an MP and PM in waiting. The point I was making was that Starmer often forgets he’s a politician now so when he answers questions he comes across as a lawyer/barrister which can lead to confusion and speculation.
Sue Gray has resigned from the Cabinet Office (and therefore the civil service) so when she starts working for KS she will be employed directly by the Labour Party in the same way as her predecessor Sam White was.
I would mute you,as indeed I (an others) have done before, but then it is sooo entertaining watching you squirm and wriggle your way out of situations you have created for yourself 
Deflection tactics now, are you a Tory?
You’re wrong why not admit it, KS has made a complete mess of this.
1 Like
Rather than the PM adopting, variously, the persona of a clown, philanderer, liar, poor man’s classics scholar or fridge thermometer? 
Honestly, I would far rather a PM who is cautious in answering questions, and who has thought out his position beforehand.
1 Like
Totally agree but you also want a PM to actually answer the question which was another trait of Johnson that was so frustrating and frankly ludicrous. Whilst Starmer can currently get away with being coy/vague he won’t have that luxury once he’s in No.10.
not a lot of point tbh since you may see a reply but often fail to read it properly.
I did concede a point made about his demeanour in post #79 
but you obviously missed/disregarded it.
You also said this is a ‘non issue’ and ‘dead and buried’, still think that?
yes, the swivelled eyed loons have moved on to “Stop The Boats”
2 Likes
Maybe containing those who helped the British in Afghanistan but were left behind.
There are not enough facilities to enable refugees to obtain official permission to come to England, but that doesn’t seem to figure in this government’s thi8nking.
1 Like
Oh, I so agree with that. Instead of spaffing huge sums of public money up the wall to satisfy the moronic right wing racists, if such money was diverted to establishing safe routes and getting successful applicants working in the UK economy - which they would probably prefer anyway - they could find their own way in life in a normalised way rather than being corralled in expensive “hotels” at the expense of the public purse which is more than likely just funding their Tory mates with property interests.
2 Likes
Nor for the rest of the country.