Starmer Off to Egypt.........

NotSpaghetti

I can't believe all the now dead hospital staff were Hamas, ronib - just saying.

Surely targeting Hamas was also targeting the hostages too?

Yes. I would think so MayBee

Might be nice if Sir Keir could stay in the UK long enough to get to grips with problems on the home front. He always seems to be flitting abroad!

I am now wondering if "he wants to be friends with everyone".

In the ch inese spy case, he has been accused of not wanting to upset the chine se

A fwe months ago he said, I think it was about the immigration situation, "we must not upset the french"

It appears that he doesn't ever want to upset any country other than the UK.

Starmer has upset this country in a way completely unknown to me…. Something of a record.

Most PMs upset the country (or a section of it) about something - usually in their first year or two in power, when they are being new brooms sweeping clean with their new policies after the previous incumbent has lost impetus and fallen out of favour.

Spinnaker

It appears that he doesn't ever want to upset any country other than the UK.

He is also very good at giving away our money!
He has promised £20 million to rebuild Gaza.

There’s never any money for pensioners, veterans or Waspi women but he can always find massive amounts for other countries. I dread to think how many millions he has now paid to France to stop the boats.

Elegran

Most PMs upset the country (or a section of it) about something - usually in their first year or two in power, when they are being new brooms sweeping clean with their new policies after the previous incumbent has lost impetus and fallen out of favour.

By being a traitor?

I havent looked into the spy case properly yet.
But I think it will be a word we will hear more and more of, concerning Sir Kier.

Spy case? I seem to have missed some news.

Elegran

Spy case? I seem to have missed some news.

It collapsed, Elegran

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0ex172rxwzo

Found it.

"The prime minister’s official spokesman said: “The suggestion that the Prime Minister should have stepped in at this point is frankly absurd.

“If he was to do so he would have been interfering in a case related to a previous government, a previous policy, previous legislation.

“In a criminal matter it is the CPS and the DPP that, quite rightly, have independent responsibility for prosecuting cases in this country.”

I still don't see where treason comes into the equation. That is a very serious allegation unless you have evidence to prove it? Otherwise, this isn't just mud-slinging, it is shovelling truckloads of manure. Treason used to be a hanging offence - I'm not sure what the sentence is now?

Allira I turn my back for five minutes and look what happens!

Elegran

Found it.

"The prime minister’s official spokesman said: “The suggestion that the Prime Minister should have stepped in at this point is frankly absurd.

“If he was to do so he would have been interfering in a case related to a previous government, a previous policy, previous legislation.

“In a criminal matter it is the CPS and the DPP that, quite rightly, have independent responsibility for prosecuting cases in this country.”

I still don't see where treason comes into the equation. That is a very serious allegation unless you have evidence to prove it? Otherwise, this isn't just mud-slinging, it is shovelling truckloads of manure. Treason used to be a hanging offence - I'm not sure what the sentence is now?

Plenty of people are suggesting it. Or saying it.
Far too many to mention.

For *' sake. Next thing we know, the dirty work departments will be sowing seeds on social media of the most serious PM we've have for years involved in organised crime, murder, drug smuggling, beating up old ladies and cheating at Ludo. The gullible will lap it up.

Elegran

Allira I turn my back for five minutes and look what happens!

😁

Ps it's usually me who need to keep up.

To much chatting at the back!

Where is all this talk of 'treason' coming from, fancythat?

What are the reasons given for it?

I follow two lawyers who have commented on the dropping of the case. They say that it was the DPP who made a mistake by charging the alleged spies under the wrong Act. The Act under which they were charged requires proof that they were passing information to an 'enemy' of the UK. The evidence given in the witness statements was not sufficient to show that China is an 'enemy' of the UK.

the Act that they should have been charged under is a more recent one that asks only for evidence that the 'information alleged to have been provided ... was prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK'

Had the case gone to court it would have fallen on the inability to prove that China is an 'enemy' of the UK.

The wording of the act under which someone is charged matters a great deal in court cases.

Also this talk that Starmer "should have intervened"?

WHAT?? One of the pillars of justice in the Uk is that the political wing DOES NOT intervene in the dispensation of justice by the judicial system. The lawmakers (Parliament) make the law, the police investigate lawbreaking and arrest the lawbreakers, and the judicial system (the prosecuting and defending lawyers and the judges and juries, in court) discuss the case, and apply it and sentence according to the guidelines. None of these three intervene in each others spheres except when flagrant miscarriages of justice are evident.

Once the Government of the day routinely intervenes in judicial matters, the concept of "Justice for all" fades away, as demonstrated on the other side of the Atlantic.

My this post has swiftly changed tack!

The collapse of the China Spy case came up at PMQs this week and Starmer gave notice her would release the witness statements, which he did shortly after. He only had sight of the witness statements for the first time this week himself.

I guess you could say Starmer is getting to "grips with things as home" as windmill asked for in OP! But- Starmer ia "traitor" crikey?!

This case began with the Conservative Party some years ago and it is the DPP that has now decided to drop the case. The DPP Stephen Parkinson blamed the collapse of the case on a "failure by the government to provide enough evidence showing China was a threat to National Security". But the witness statements published (initially drafted when Conservatives were in government) state the threat posed by Beijing, though seemingly not in a form of words that met Stephen's Parkinson's satisfaction to proceed with the case. He has been given until Friday next week to answer a series of questions about why the case collapsed to a Parliamentary Committee.

You really shouldn't go about calling Starmer a traitor without any evidence. Key evidence will be available from DPP next week why HE decided to drop the case, unless pressure from MPs in Labour, Conservatives and other parties persuade him to announce more detail sooner.

Three cheers lemonjam, well said.

The DPP Stephen Parkinson blamed the collapse of the case on a "failure by the government to provide enough evidence showing China was a threat to National Security". But the witness statements published (initially drafted when Conservatives were in government) state the threat posed by Beijing, though seemingly not in a form of words that met Stephen's Parkinson's satisfaction to proceed with the case.

My two lawyer bloggers think that Parkinson is possibly being economical with the truth. I explained the problem, as they see it, in my previous post.

There was actually a mistake in the date of one of the second witness statements (which apparently was noted at the time). Only the first of the three was made when the tories were in government. The other two were made early this year. They didn't give evidence that supported the wording of the Act under which the defendants were charged.

fancythat

Elegran

Most PMs upset the country (or a section of it) about something - usually in their first year or two in power, when they are being new brooms sweeping clean with their new policies after the previous incumbent has lost impetus and fallen out of favour.

By being a traitor?

I havent looked into the spy case properly yet.
But I think it will be a word we will hear more and more of, concerning Sir Kier.

Who are you calling a traitor fancythat?

As as he promised, Starmer has published the witness statements which completely blow the Tories accusations out of the water even though they u-turned completely on whst they were complaining about. The problem with Ms Badenoch is that she is both arrogant and not intelligent enough to know what she neither knows nor understands.

I think fancythat is straying dangerously close to defamation.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-security-bill-factsheets. /espionage-etc-national-security-bill-factsheet
The government has been very explicit about tightening up the law around espionage.

And I can't see that her accusing the PM of being a traitor would go down well with GNHQ. Gransnet would be held responsible for publishing libel - the cost of that could be enough to close down the site. You have to have definite proof before an accusation like that, so make sure your sources are impeccable. "They say . . . " is not enough.