Lord Waheed Alli, has he bought the government?

Allira

GrannyGravy13

LizzieDrip

What a vile, repulsive platform Twitter is.

Not all X is toxic

The Royals have accounts, the Government plus MPs, all major retailers, most local councils, all TV companies and many 1,000’s of normal folk.

Please do not tarnish all because of a few.

The same could be said for any social media platform.

I hear the same about Facebook, but, apart from annoying videos and reels about cats and some rudeness on a local FB group page (usually stamped on very quickly), I never see any of the stuff that others on GN claim they see.

I hope whoever is doing this on X is dealt with.

It is a huge number of people on X who post disgusting and untrue things about Keir Starmer every day and to a lesser extent Rachel Reeves and Angela Rayner, Elon Musk has joined the fray and is advocating that people don’t visit the UK claiming that free speech is being suppressed. I got tired of blocking them and have deleted the app now, you can report people but nothing seems to happen even to those who post the most vile things. I joined a group on Facebook which is for people born or brought up in the 1940s and 1950s, it used to be a pleasant group centred on nostalgia but since the election it is mainly people posting negative and untrue things about Keir Starmer so I stopped contributing to that. A cousin of my DH constantly makes anti KS and racist pro Reform posts so we have had to block him. Social media is playing a huge part in sabotaging this government.

I agree with you Jane43, it almost feels that untrue inflammatory gossip is being legitimised.

I don't know what are the lies that have been told about South Port.

I do know that Nick Knowles from Hope not Hate told some stonking ones, but nothing has happened to him or those repeating his lies.

So that's worth thinking about.

Also sometimes a lie today is a truth tomorrow.

Iam64

I agree with you Jane43, it almost feels that untrue inflammatory gossip is being legitimised.

How do you mean legitimized exactly?

I understand KS has a super injunction on the press to stop anybody speaking/writing about whatever problem he has.
Obviously that shuts down discussion (duh!) but opens the need to question.
Exactly the same thing happened over the reporting of Sp (minus the injunction).

It didn't end well, as a strategy then.

It's all a furore on SM.

None of the MSM newspapers are joining in spreading these speculative rumours. If you google - I just have

It's so sad - the worst of SM is just divisive and tearing people apart, like previously chatty spaces like Jane describes.

Disagreements are being made into "wars".

I feel very alarmed by the likes of Elon Musk, unelected by anyone, and the power he wields.

Namsnanny

Iam64

I agree with you Jane43, it almost feels that untrue inflammatory gossip is being legitimised.

How do you mean legitimized exactly?

I understand KS has a super injunction on the press to stop anybody speaking/writing about whatever problem he has.
Obviously that shuts down discussion (duh!) but opens the need to question.
Exactly the same thing happened over the reporting of Sp (minus the injunction).

It didn't end well, as a strategy then.

We do not know that there is a super injunction though Namsnanny. It is an instrument of the law that prevents the publishing of any details from an ongoing legal case, including the existence of the case itself.

But EM has no power to encourage certain stories or perspectives, as the traditional news outlets do.
I dont actually know, but I presume he could be taken to court if he broke KS injunction himself?

Lord Ashcroft tried to incorporate some of the back story of KS in his biography.
He was sued (because it is illegal to break an injunction), not because what he was prevented from saying was a lie, but because it broke the law to tell the public about it

It has apparently, been an open secret to most of parliament, and most of the media.

Only the voting public have been hobbled with a lack of information, upon which they could use to judge how to vote.

And in my view that is why we are kept on the dark.

Doesnt matter to me which colour the party is, as soon as there are laws to stifle the truth, the government of the day will use them to their advantage.

Super injunctions are used to protect people in the public eye regarding aspects of their private lives, not their ability to do their job, so are you implying that such a facility should not exist in law Namsnanny? Or do you think being the PM means that normal privacy rules don’t apply and unless you are as pure as the driven snow (and your wife or child is) the details of your private life should be in the public domain?

GBN certainly encourage certain stories

Casdon

Namsnanny

Iam64

I agree with you Jane43, it almost feels that untrue inflammatory gossip is being legitimised.

How do you mean legitimized exactly?

I understand KS has a super injunction on the press to stop anybody speaking/writing about whatever problem he has.
Obviously that shuts down discussion (duh!) but opens the need to question.
Exactly the same thing happened over the reporting of Sp (minus the injunction).

It didn't end well, as a strategy then.

We do not know that there is a super injunction though Namsnanny. It is an instrument of the law that prevents the publishing of any details from an ongoing legal case, including the existence of the case itself.

Casdon ... We do not know....

Dont you find that an egregious aberration in of its self Casdon?

Your correct though, we the public are the last to know.

It has apparently, been an open secret to most of parliament, and most of the media.

"apparently" based on what? SM speculation and those dipping into it.

On the subject in general, I think that figures in public life do have a right to areas of privacy, especially family privacy

Namsnanny

Casdon

Namsnanny

Iam64

I agree with you Jane43, it almost feels that untrue inflammatory gossip is being legitimised.

How do you mean legitimized exactly?

I understand KS has a super injunction on the press to stop anybody speaking/writing about whatever problem he has.
Obviously that shuts down discussion (duh!) but opens the need to question.
Exactly the same thing happened over the reporting of Sp (minus the injunction).

It didn't end well, as a strategy then.

We do not know that there is a super injunction though Namsnanny. It is an instrument of the law that prevents the publishing of any details from an ongoing legal case, including the existence of the case itself.

Casdon ... We do not know....

Dont you find that an egregious aberration in of its self Casdon?

Your correct though, we the public are the last to know.

No I don’t Namnanny, because we genuinely don’t know, and we don’t know if all the rumours have been made up either, nor do I think we should, or that rumour and speculation should take place on social media about any super injunctions, that’s why we have the law - who only grant them in very specific circumstances. Unless you disagree with the principle of super injunctions and think everything about everybody’s private lives is fair game, I don’t see the point of even discussing something like this.

The Parliamentary Watchdog is to investigate Ali for allledged wrongdoing. This story has legs.

He is being investigated over non-registration of his interests by the House of Lords Standards Watchdog apparently, I just read that.
news.sky.com/story/lord-alli-labour-donor-at-centre-of-starmer-freebies-row-under-lords-investigation-13226611

Wyllow3

It's all a furore on SM.

None of the MSM newspapers are joining in spreading these speculative rumours. If you google - I just have

It's so sad - the worst of SM is just divisive and tearing people apart, like previously chatty spaces like Jane describes.

Disagreements are being made into "wars".

I feel very alarmed by the likes of Elon Musk, unelected by anyone, and the power he wields.

Rather like Waheed Ali, no one elected him, but he seems to be having a lot of clout, including visits to Syria!!
Still he is now being investigated over "alleged non registration of interests".
No wonder Starmer has taken out a super injunction.

Be careful Freya5, you’re heading towards libel again.

Allira

People think governments run the world.

They don't. It's powerful business and wealthy individuals who have the influence and make the decisions that affect us all.

People think governments run the world.

They don't. It's powerful business and wealthy individuals who have the influence and make the decisions that affect us all.

A case in point:

I feel very alarmed by the likes of Elon Musk, unelected by anyone, and the power he wields

Wyllow3

It's all a furore on SM.

None of the MSM newspapers are joining in spreading these speculative rumours. If you google - I just have

It's so sad - the worst of SM is just divisive and tearing people apart, like previously chatty spaces like Jane describes.

Disagreements are being made into "wars".

I feel very alarmed by the likes of Elon Musk, unelected by anyone, and the power he wields.

I meant to quote Wyllow's post above, not my own, confusing when a thread runs to 9 pages!

This swirl of unsubstantiated rumours and gossip is clearly orchestrated.

It puts me strongly in mind of the tactics described in this article about the 'demonisation' of George Soros

The Plot against George Soros.

It's not a pretty story...

www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hnsgrassegger/george-soros-conspiracy-finkelstein-birnbaum-orban-netanyahu

No need for diversionary tactics.
Starmer has agreed to pay £6,000 back for his freebies:
4 Taylor-Swift tickets £2,800
2 Football association tickets 598
4 tickets for Doncaster Races £1,939
A clothing rental agreement for Lady S 839
plus 1 hour hair and make-up

Not very edifying, is it.
(There is more, I believe)

I think it is a mistake to pay back as it’s an admission that it was wrong in the first place. Better to have sat it out. Still wrong but not noticeably so.

Casdon

Be careful Freya5, you’re heading towards libel again.

Freya - if it’s true there is a super injunction, and there’s even a smidgeon of truth I the scurrilous remours on line, Mr Ali has absolutely nothing to do with it

Some info on some issues:

“A Labour spokesperson said: “Lord Alli will cooperate fully with the Lords’ Commissioner and he is confident all interests have been registered. We cannot comment further while this is ongoing."

The BBC understands the investigation relates to a clerical element of already declared interests

The complaint will be investigated by the Lords Commissioners for Standards, who are also investigating the former Tory peer Lady Mone over her alleged involvement for procuring PPE contracts during the pandemic.

Meanwhile,

“The government is to tighten transparency rules for ministerial hospitality, after a row over freebies received by Labour ministers.
Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden told the BBC ministers would now have to declare hospitality linked to their government job in their MP's register too”

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvglk4v7538o

How is Angela Rayner's appearance at a nightclub, cost £836 paid by a company called Ayita LLC, in anyway hospitality linked to her government job?
Or tickets for Taylor Swift concerts, Doncaster races and football matches, and Victoria Starmer's makeover and loan of clothes anything to do with the role of Prime Minister?

eazybee

How is Angela Rayner's appearance at a nightclub, cost £836 paid by a company called Ayita LLC, in anyway hospitality linked to her government job?
Or tickets for Taylor Swift concerts, Doncaster races and football matches, and Victoria Starmer's makeover and loan of clothes anything to do with the role of Prime Minister?

My AC go to that night club, AR’s visit was that price because she had the DJ Booth experience i.e. could be seen by all in the club?