Should Starmer sue Sunak?

GrannyGravy13

To be perfectly honest those of us who have put their heads above the parapet and admitted to voting Conservative (particularly for this current cohort) are used to being othered by some posters.

It’s become like water off a ducks back.

But it shouldn’t happen.
I don’t either mind or care what other posters vote and neither should anyone else.It’s not anyones business in any case who’s in the red hat tribe and who’s in the blue hat tribe.There’s enough othering in the world without that.

MaizieD

GrannyGravy13

Iam64 I may be wrong (Germanshepherdsmum where are you) but I believe that if a Barrister refuses to take in a case they go to the back of the rank

Soif it is possible to refuse, I doubt it would be good for their career or bank balance.

Bank balances don't come into it when they are defending a client on legal aid, GG13. It's very poorly paid for a good deal of hard work.

I know that, but if they refuse jobs on a regular basis it could impinge on their career prospects and therefore any future earnings.

GrannyGravy13

Iam64 I may be wrong (Germanshepherdsmum where are you) but I believe that if a Barrister refuses to take in a case they go to the back of the rank

Soif it is possible to refuse, I doubt it would be good for their career or bank balance.

Bank balances don't come into it when they are defending a client on legal aid, GG13. It's very poorly paid for a good deal of hard work.

Iam64

Callistemon - I may have two threads confused ?
I’m on the sofa taking antibiotics and feeling thick headed.

Quite understandably.

This one is about Sunak trying to smear Starmer for doing his job as a barrister. A smear made during an interview so not subject to parliamentary privilege.

Everyone, including very unsavoury people, is entitled to representation in a court of law. Barristers aren't there to make moral judgements, they are there to ensure that the law is properly applied.

I hope you feel better soon Iam .

Callistemon - I may have two threads confused ?
I’m on the sofa taking antibiotics and feeling thick headed.

Very true. And goaded, finger hovering over the report button.

To be perfectly honest those of us who have put their heads above the parapet and admitted to voting Conservative (particularly for this current cohort) are used to being othered by some posters.

It’s become like water off a ducks back.

Yes Callistemon, that was particularly nasty.

Iam64 I may be wrong (Germanshepherdsmum where are you) but I believe that if a Barrister refuses to take in a case they go to the back of the rank

Soif it is possible to refuse, I doubt it would be good for their career or bank balance.

Galaxy

Step away from Google.

Too late!
I caved in.

Iam64

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

It was the insinuation in the OP that those who hadn't heard the term were thick and stupid, albeit in a rather roundabout swipe at Sunak supporters.

Step away from Google.

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

I have missed you Missadventure.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

I am so disappointed with Starmer

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 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.