Should Starmer sue Sunak?

But that issue could come up in any debate, if they had been discussing sport it could have come up, if they had been discussing hospital care it could have come up, if they were discussing universities and free speech it could have come up, etc etc. As I say Sunak cares not one jot about women or trans people but I am really uneasy about this reaction.

MaizieD

^Brianna’s mother was not in the gallery at the time.^

Oh, so that makes it OK, then?

I don't think Starmer has said anything slanderous about Sunak, has he?

Exactly this. And it wasn't a transgender slur - it was a comment on how Starmer keeps flip-flopping including his. own definition of what a woman is

Would it have been ok to have a serious discussion about the definition of a woman on that day.

Of course it would have been OK. If such a discussion had been timetabled I would imagine that whoever invited Brianna's parents to attend Parliament wouldn't have done it on the day of the debate.

Nannashirlz

I think you have writing your post incorrectly. A top lawyer was on tv and said that starmer should not have named any person in gallery as they not allowed to name ppl it’s against the rules and he could actually be banned for a few weeks. He was the one actually point scoring surely if you watched it you would know that.🤭

I don’t disagree with you regarding Starmer’s response being inappropriate Nannashirlz. However, having watched the clip of the exchange a number of times, it’s obvious that Sunak was playing to the gallery with his pre-scripted attack, and to say that he was not point scoring is, to quote the inimitable Cleverley, batshit.

I am very wary about phrases such as 'the offence was there'. That 'be kind' stuff has been used against the women in this debate for years. What if those debates had been scheduled for that day they would have been deeply upsetting no doubt, I am not interested in Sunaks comments they add nothing to the issue but I am also not interested in the way Starmer has responded. Would it have been ok to have a serious discussion about the definition of a woman on that day.

I think you have writing your post incorrectly. A top lawyer was on tv and said that starmer should not have named any person in gallery as they not allowed to name ppl it’s against the rules and he could actually be banned for a few weeks. He was the one actually point scoring surely if you watched it you would know that.🤭

What is more worrying for me is that the tories are continually attacking the justice system and lawyers upholding the Rule of Law.

Smileless2012

What does KS inability or unwillingness have to do with this tragedy? Nothing.

He's the one who brought this terrible tragedy into the exchange and IMO he was out of order for doing so.

So you think that it was fine for Sunak to make a jibe about not knowing what a woman is in the knowledge that Brianna’s mother was in parliament and potentially at PMQ. Really?

Galaxy

Er if you think people arent going to discuss the definition of a woman then you have missed the endless debates that have continued for the last few days. There was a debate in the lords about social transitioning for children and its dangers, I am guessing that was very upsetting for some people but it still needs to happen.

OH, FGS. No-one is saying that it shouldn't happen.

Just that it was particularly insensitive of Sunak to bring it up at that particular PMQs game.

It's not as though he hasn't done it before, it regularly features in his 'flip flop' list at PMQs. Which Starmer, quite rightly, usually ignores.

And if people haven't yet realised that PMQs is just a point scoring game and is in no way a serious element in the business of Parliament, it's about time that they did.

What does KS inability or unwillingness have to do with this tragedy? Nothing.

He's the one who brought this terrible tragedy into the exchange and IMO he was out of order for doing so.

Er if you think people arent going to discuss the definition of a woman then you have missed the endless debates that have continued for the last few days. There was a debate in the lords about social transitioning for children and its dangers, I am guessing that was very upsetting for some people but it still needs to happen.

Why trot it out when you have been told in advance that the mother of a murdered trans teenager is in the building and expected to attend PMQ though Germanshepherdsmum? There isn’t any excuse, surely.

It would not necessarily have come to her attention. Sunak always trots this out but it was Starmer who made it about Brianna, purely to score points.

Just a reminder that this thread isn't about the Brianna incident. It's about Sunak accusing Starmer of supporting terrorists because he has been the defence barrister in a number of cases involving terrorists.

It is not only an unjustified slur, it is also part of the tory attack on the justice system's duty to uphold the law.

Germanshepherdsmum

Brianna’s mother was not in the gallery at the time.

And yes, a lot of people know nothing about the cab rank principle. Does that make them ‘thick and stupid’?

Starmer does his fair share of repeating his favourite anti-Conservative tropes too.

It doesn't matter whether Brianna's mother was in the gallery as it would have been brought to her attention anyway. The offence was still there.

Germanshepherdsmum

Brianna’s mother was not in the gallery at the time.

And yes, a lot of people know nothing about the cab rank principle. Does that make them ‘thick and stupid’?

Starmer does his fair share of repeating his favourite anti-Conservative tropes too.

Brianna's Mother wasn't there at the time only because she was late. That doesn't stop her knowing what has been said. I was gobsmacked when I heard Sunak say what he said. It took me a while to close my mouth & I had no idea Brianna's Mom was due to attend. The statement just wasn't clever or right.
Get rid of the Rich, Out of Touch Bsrds. They don't represent me or most of the population they should never have been elected in the first place!!

Oreo

It’s the only way to interpret the incident, and any twisting is done just by you MaizieD.
Starmer was clearly rattled by the accusations on his flip flopping and indecisiveness on certain things and quickly spotted a way to try and turn it around by bringing Mrs Ghey into it.
I know there’s an election coming up and I’ll be voting for him to become the next PM, with a few reservations it has to be said, but seeing him do this made me cringe.

Oreo, I agree with you but still will be voting Labour as it's the lesser of two evils. How many pledges has Sunak not completed? One out of five and the inflation going down was nothing to do with him. Starmer and Reeves should not have made that pledge as they won't know what state the Treasury will be in if they took office. I think this uturn is being cautious as there are bigger issues facing this country. The UK is only responsible for 1% world pollution so I am wondering what difference at this stage our green initiative will make unless the major polluters like China and India can get on board.

Personally I think both Sunak and Starmer are out of touch. Sunak has got it wrong about so many things and I am not sure what Labour under Starmer stands for any more as the policies change constantly, presumably to make them more election friendly. I have never forgotten Starmer’s hesitancy to define a woman though! Worrying to say the least considering the massive influence the (minority) trans lobby seem to have achieved in a society where a great many more women struggle to hang on to their rights, hard won in the first place.

Not more duped than the Conservative government that has been in power for 14 years. Never seen the country in such a mess. It was bad before the pandemic and Brexit so no excuses.

Perhaps Starmer should send Sunak a letter telling him if he persists with these lies, he will be hearing from his lawyers. I am sure Starmer being a barrister can set out his case clearly.

We’ll just have to agree to differ then. I think he typically saw it as a chance to make mileage, you don’t. Not a problem for me.

I agree MaizieD. I always watch PMQ, I’ve never seen Starmer visibly blanch before. He was furious. Even GB News saw that.
www.gbnews.com/politics/pmqs-hoyle-starmer-sunak-brianna-ghey

Mollygo

I don’t think KS was rattled. I think it was deliberate when he drew attention to Brianna-trying to take the heat out of allegations of u turns- especially when you look at the Green pledge u turn arriving the next day.
Voting Labour at the next election is a no choice option, but I wish it wasn’t KS in charge.

I ave watched plenty of PMQs. I have heard these litanies of Starmer's 'shortcomings' repeated time after time. It's just part of the weekly game. Johnson did it, too. I have never seen Starmer look in the least bit worried by them . He's a KC, for gods sake. Years of practice in appearing unconcerned in court cases.

This time, the shock on his face was palpable. He was lost for words for a few seconds. I have never seen him look so angry.

I don’t think KS was rattled. I think it was deliberate when he drew attention to Brianna-trying to take the heat out of allegations of u turns- especially when you look at the Green pledge u turn arriving the next day.
Voting Labour at the next election is a no choice option, but I wish it wasn’t KS in charge.

Starmer has handled the sex/gender issue poorly, I am a labour and a Starmer supporter but I can cope with acknowledging that. Sunak is not interested in womens rights or the rights of trans people.
To be fair to Starmer he has moved his position on womens single sex spaces but many people are wary because of labours position in the past.