Should Starmer sue Sunak?

It’s what happens in Parliament , think of Ny Bevan,
Dennis Skinner and others

This interview with Sam Coates is worth watching, it explains what happened and the consequences.
news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-rishi-sunak-general-election-keir-starmer-12593360?postid=7197064#liveblog-body

I knew about the principle too Callistemon but had never heard that term, which is why I googled it.

All MPs on all sides of the house should stop behaving like children, hurling insults at each other and get on with what they’re paid for, looking after the country!

👏👏👏 Agreed Cossy.

Starmer has whipped this up to score political points.

Which is exactly what Sunak was doing by making the transgender jibe in the first place!

Must every MP check if anything in her/his speech causes upset?

Yes!

Callistemon21

^Should Starmer sue Sunak?^

Well, no, because he was in fact correct in what he said.
But it wasn't the time or place just at the moment.

I’m reading through the thread and trying to understand what has happened because I’ve not seen it, but I can’t understand why or what Starmer should sue Sunak for.
I don’t like Sunak, but I don’t like Starmer either, mainly because I went off him when he refused to say what a woman is. Prior to that I thought he was okay, but dull, but okay.

No under no circumstances. Cause upset what are you talking about. Talking about the rape statistics causes me upset, talking about poverty causes me upset. If you talk about difficult issues you are going to upset someone . (Sunak was making no contribution to debate but that's not the point).

I disagree Lizzie he listed 10 points that KS has been unable or unwilling to fully commit too, and one of those was not being prepared to define what a woman is.

That had nothing to do with this terrible tragedy and it was KS who made it so. IMO he's scored an own goal and has shown himself in a very bad light.

Smileless2012 I agree with your post

maddyone

Callistemon21

Should Starmer sue Sunak?

Well, no, because he was in fact correct in what he said.
But it wasn't the time or place just at the moment.

I’m reading through the thread and trying to understand what has happened because I’ve not seen it, but I can’t understand why or what Starmer should sue Sunak for.
I don’t like Sunak, but I don’t like Starmer either, mainly because I went off him when he refused to say what a woman is. Prior to that I thought he was okay, but dull, but okay.

I used to think Starmer might be ok (dull, as you say, but steady) but he did make an idiot of himself with his statements about what is a woman.

Sunak has just made an idiot of himself by bringing that up at an inopportune time.

Why was it inopportune ? It had been spoken of before ,

I find the issues surrounding trans a challenge at times. I’m an old 70’s feminist who believes women should maintain safe spaces, male sex offenders shouldn’t be able to self ID so they can serve their sentence in a women’s prison. This doesn’t mean I don’t care about trans people or want them to be safe from abuse and discrimination.
Brianna has been referred to as she throughout all the publicity around her murder. Her parents refer to her as their daughter. This highlights the complex issues Starmer is aware of and presumably why he suggested the majority of women don’t have a penis.

As for the way Barristers take the next case, I don’t believe Sunak isn’t well aware of that. The attacks on Starmer are consistent - flip-flop, ie review proposed policies if that’s needed, stopped Saville being prosecuted (untrue) defended bad guys, yep that was his job.

Should Starmer sue Sunak? - No, on what grounds? The media headlines when Mr Starmer pledged not to roll back women's rights were "Keir Starmer says 99.9% of women 'haven't got a penis'". So the PM's childish dig would appear to be factually correct, just part of the regular banter of the PMQ session. It was Keir Starmer who brought Brianna Ghey's family into the mix without permission we assume, quite 'hypocritically in my opinion to make political capital from the tragedy, shame on him. It is even unclear if Brianna Ghey's mother was in the chamber at the time of the jibe as he stated, It seems to depend on which media outlook you read.

I am so disappointed with Starmer

What transgender jibe? The jibe was at Keir Starmer's expense when he is reported as stating 99.9% of women 'haven't got a penis'. Anyone who is transgender knows the facts of life, they don't have to be protected like children who are told Father Christmas will bring your presents. You can't change your sex, just your lifestyle and good luck to those who are happy to do so.

Statements made in the Commons are privileged and cannot be sued regardless of their content.

People might be confusing two separate issues her in response to the OP’s question - should Starmer sue Sunak?

I understand it to refer to Sunak accusing Starmer of supporting terrorism (hence the “cab-rank” reference), and not to the transgender issue skirmish in Wednesday’s PMQs.

I don't know what cab rank is, I've never heard of it, AND I'm not even going to look it up.

Delila

People might be confusing two separate issues her in response to the OP’s question - should Starmer sue Sunak?

I understand it to refer to Sunak accusing Starmer of supporting terrorism (hence the “cab-rank” reference), and not to the transgender issue skirmish in Wednesday’s PMQs.

Exactly Delila - barristers take the next case on the list. They also can act as prosecution or as defence

Iam64

Delila

People might be confusing two separate issues her in response to the OP’s question - should Starmer sue Sunak?

I understand it to refer to Sunak accusing Starmer of supporting terrorism (hence the “cab-rank” reference), and not to the transgender issue skirmish in Wednesday’s PMQs.

Exactly Delila - barristers take the next case on the list. They also can act as prosecution or as defence

I think most of us know that.

But I've never heard it called that colloquialism.

Callistemon I agree, most of us are well aware but those ‘some posters’ have been surprised. There have been suggestions barristers/lawyers can refuse to take cases - indeed that’s what Mr Sunak implied when he accused Starmer of representing terrorists

I have missed you Missadventure.

Thank you
I'm itching to look up cab rank now, though.

Step away from Google.