Active discussions

Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Steamers and the superinjunction

350 replies

hamstersarse · 03/10/2024 02:17

Starmer surely can’t survive this one?

Guido Fox guy says it’s about the ‘shape of his family’ and reveals: “We have a name. As do the Mail and the Telegraph. We have a birth certificate."

Seems the allegations are something to do with an extra marital lady plus baby.

My opinion on this is that anyone who is such a control freak as to jail people for what they say is clearly a very dark person. And the hypocrisy he’s shown about almost everything he’s ever said, also shows a very dark underbelly,

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
noblegiraffe · 04/10/2024 19:40

So even when they said "we have a birth certificate" what they have, at most is a birth certificate with no father's name on it?

Bloody hell, talk about over-egging it.

PandoraSox · 04/10/2024 19:45

noblegiraffe · 04/10/2024 19:40

So even when they said "we have a birth certificate" what they have, at most is a birth certificate with no father's name on it?

Bloody hell, talk about over-egging it.

Totally.

hihelenhi · 04/10/2024 19:46

PandoraSox · 04/10/2024 19:37

So the passage in question from the Rayner book reads:

“What is perhaps more intriguing is that, throughout this time, there was alarm bordering on paranoia in select Labour circles that the extramarital affair of a senior party figure other than Rayner was in danger of being exposed. Most damagingly, the male politician at the centre of the claims is said to have enjoyed a long-standing relationship with a woman that had lasted until after his own wife was pregnant with their first child. The politician’s lover, who is herself a public figure, then went on to have a child of her own. She left the name of her child’s father off her child’s birth certificate. This led to concerns that the Labour politician was in fact the child’s father, but there was no evidence to support that.”

So even if the politician in question is who @hamstersarse has suggested, he wasn't even a politician at the time. It won't be the end of him, even if true.

Yes, that would be from well before he was a politician even, even if true. His kids are teenagers. And so Im not sure how that would link with the Alli penthouse stays and gift issues which are more recent in any case.

BIossomtoes · 04/10/2024 19:47

It could of course be another “senior politician”, I was under the impression there was more than one.

hihelenhi · 04/10/2024 19:49

BIossomtoes · 04/10/2024 19:47

It could of course be another “senior politician”, I was under the impression there was more than one.

It could. But I think the assumption is that this would likely only be a problem if it was someone who the public would care about it with. Even senior ministers - not really. Who would care these days? Why "panic?" Ministers have affairs all the time. That's why the assumption is it's him.

CassieMaddox · 04/10/2024 19:57

Oh stop flogging a dead horse. What a load of nothing

DuncinToffee · 04/10/2024 20:07

Wootton has deleted his tweets as well

https://x.com/AdamBienkov/status/1842246501126287464

so yes, a load of nothing @hamstersarse

Clavinova · 04/10/2024 20:56

Alas, he hasn't deleted the interview with Guido's boss Paul Staines - which is the subject of the op's post. The Sun newspaper isn't mentioned by the op.

DuncinToffee · 04/10/2024 21:02

Thankfully we have you to update us Clav as the OP has gone very quiet.

Clavinova · 04/10/2024 21:23

Efacsen · 04/10/2024 07:39

IDK @Clavinova there are going to be a lot of these 'unsubstantiated rumours' put about - it could mean wasting hours of your life watching them - is it worth it I wonder?

Show quote history

Equally you could ask the previous poster why she watches Coronation Street.

I watched Question Time last night and Fiona Bruce said Keir Starmer had accepted ten tickets [plus hospitality] to see Taylor Swift. I thought she must be mistaken but no, more tickets have been registered covering three different dates. How did Starmer think this was ok?

The Guardian implied that Starmer was going to pay for all of the Taylor Swift tickets he accepted but he isn't - he's not paying for the four tickets (worth £4,000) received in June. The ridiculous situation now is that other politicians are being asked if they will be refunding the cost of their Taylor Swift tickets 'like Starmer' but he's not even repaying the cost of the most expensive TS tickets he received!

noblegiraffe · 04/10/2024 21:31

If it turns out he also got Oasis tickets, he's done for.

Clavinova · 04/10/2024 21:33

noblegiraffe · 04/10/2024 21:31

If it turns out he also got Oasis tickets, he's done for.

He was probably taking pre-orders for those from family and friends!

hihelenhi · 04/10/2024 21:57

CassieMaddox · 04/10/2024 19:57

Oh stop flogging a dead horse. What a load of nothing

Look, people asked, I told them. Better to know what's being said, than just go "oh they're bad people, nothing to see here". Nobody's "flogging" anything. Except Dan Wootton. Not for long, it seems.

CassieMaddox · 04/10/2024 21:59

hihelenhi · 04/10/2024 21:57

Look, people asked, I told them. Better to know what's being said, than just go "oh they're bad people, nothing to see here". Nobody's "flogging" anything. Except Dan Wootton. Not for long, it seems.

Show quote history

OK. Well Dan Wooton seems to have backtracked rapidly. I surmise its a baseless rumour and people spreading it should be ashamed for promoting conspiracies #steamers

hihelenhi · 04/10/2024 22:01

CassieMaddox · 04/10/2024 21:59

OK. Well Dan Wooton seems to have backtracked rapidly. I surmise its a baseless rumour and people spreading it should be ashamed for promoting conspiracies #steamers

Show quote history

Jolly good.

hihelenhi · 04/10/2024 22:04

CassieMaddox · 04/10/2024 22:03

Do you have a view on Badenoch's Ed Sheeran tickets?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/kemi-badenoch-opposed-football-regulator-33797096.amp

What about Cleverly and his accidentally underdeclared Wimbledon tickets?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/awkward-photos-show-james-cleverlys-33819473.amp

How about Jenrick's £75,000 of donations?

www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/businessman-reveals-he-is-behind-75-000-donation-to-robert-jenrick-but-tax-haven-questions-remain-13225253

I feel this may be a case of what's good for the goose is good for the gander! Will be interested in Farage/Tice declarations when they come out

I don't think ANYONE should be accepting freebies, Cassie. That's the whole fucking point.

PandoraSox · 04/10/2024 22:26

hihelenhi · 04/10/2024 22:04

I don't think ANYONE should be accepting freebies, Cassie. That's the whole fucking point.

Show quote history

Agreed.

But Starmer is being held to higher standards than other politicians, even though he has technically done nothing wrong. Why is that?

hihelenhi · 04/10/2024 22:41

PandoraSox · 04/10/2024 22:26

Agreed.

But Starmer is being held to higher standards than other politicians, even though he has technically done nothing wrong. Why is that?

Show quote history

Is he though? Really? The point is that Labour was meant to be a change. Not a slightly watered down version of the same. The problem if you specifically make it your mission, your MO, to "clean up", to be the adult in the room,. is that you need to make sure you are squeaky clean yourself. It's kind of like John Major and the 'back to basics' all over again, when half his ministers were having affairs and transpired he was shagging Edwina. It's hypocritical and people don't like that - regardless of the comparative level of misdemeanours.

Tories may not care about that. Boris certainly didn't; he did it with impunity. But I do. We need to do better. Labour were supposed to show better values. THAT is why people are pissed off. And not just Tories. The whataboutery doesn't cut it. Where are the different values exactly?

I would have thought it was blindingly obvious that accepting freebies was going to play extremely badly with the public after Tory sleaze. It's basic political nous. And again, MOST of the people I'm hearing this from are not Tories. They just hate Starmer fullstop. The people I am hearing this more from are lefties. We need to do better than this.

cardibach · 04/10/2024 23:05

hihelenhi · 04/10/2024 22:41

Is he though? Really? The point is that Labour was meant to be a change. Not a slightly watered down version of the same. The problem if you specifically make it your mission, your MO, to "clean up", to be the adult in the room,. is that you need to make sure you are squeaky clean yourself. It's kind of like John Major and the 'back to basics' all over again, when half his ministers were having affairs and transpired he was shagging Edwina. It's hypocritical and people don't like that - regardless of the comparative level of misdemeanours.

Tories may not care about that. Boris certainly didn't; he did it with impunity. But I do. We need to do better. Labour were supposed to show better values. THAT is why people are pissed off. And not just Tories. The whataboutery doesn't cut it. Where are the different values exactly?

I would have thought it was blindingly obvious that accepting freebies was going to play extremely badly with the public after Tory sleaze. It's basic political nous. And again, MOST of the people I'm hearing this from are not Tories. They just hate Starmer fullstop. The people I am hearing this more from are lefties. We need to do better than this.

Edited
Show quote history

But he IS clean. It’s nit sleaze to behave within the rules. We may not like it, we may want the rules changed, but at no point did he say cleaning up meant getting rid of gifts at all. Just the cronyism that Tories allowed to happen as a result.
I would like the rules changed. But it’s a fact that he hasn’t broken them as they stand.

hihelenhi · 04/10/2024 23:11

cardibach · 04/10/2024 23:05

But he IS clean. It’s nit sleaze to behave within the rules. We may not like it, we may want the rules changed, but at no point did he say cleaning up meant getting rid of gifts at all. Just the cronyism that Tories allowed to happen as a result.
I would like the rules changed. But it’s a fact that he hasn’t broken them as they stand.

Show quote history

Okay, fine. Your shout. He didn't specifically say "we are not going to accept freebies" even though he was talking about cleaning up . I'm still genuinely astonished they didn't do better. I don't think ANY of them should be accepting gifts at all. I think it's fairly obvious to most people that that was going to play badly - and it has. But sure, it's fine because "he's totally clean". He isn't really though. Totally clean would be, "we don't do this." Like most businesses in the country. Because it's obviously compromising.

As I say. We can do better than this.

cardibach · 04/10/2024 23:17

I don’t think they should be accepting gifts either. It’s tricky though, because that’s how politics is funded in this country - by donation.
What I’m saying is having a gift and declaring it according to the rules isn’t dirty.

TooBigForMyBoots · 05/10/2024 00:31

hihelenhi · 04/10/2024 19:27

Well, here is the link from Guido and whence the story came (because someone has to sully themselves to find it for you! Guess that'll be me then washes grubby hands) So yes, a story certainly does exist and has been doing the rounds. This appears to be it. It's based on something in a book about Angela Rayner (and no the woman in question doesn't appear to be her).

https://order-order.com/2024/06/05/unreported-affair-hacks-are-gossiping-about-privately/

Do I think it's a desperate attempt to whip up something out of nothing to avenge Boris? Almost certainly, yes. Even if it were true, is Boris worse? Yes. There's no evidence beyond this, as far as I can see, and since the person is not named, there are a lot of assumptions there. But this is what Wooton et al are referring to.

However. Starmer DID run on a "we're different from the sleazy Tories" which is why people, including Labour voters, are pissed off about the gifts even if they are much less than Boris's many misdemeanours. This is supposed to be a party with completely different values to their predecessors and who are better than that, not just "we do similar only slightly less." It is disappointing, to say the least. And terrible optics.

And the issue about donations/gifts/bribes/lobbyists and murky influence behind the scenes is a much bigger concern than any one party, or tribe, that should be the point, not "oh, it's my side so that's okay but the other side are obviously bad". UK Politics needs cleaning up fullstop, has done for a few years now. We have weak, inexperienced politicians across the board. So yes, I would be concerned about the influence of Alli, just as I was concerned about the Tory sleaze and backhanders.

Edited
Show quote history

Ta for taking one for the team and finding a link @hihelenhi.Thanks I couldn't find anything.

So is it a circle jerk of journos trying to sell Ashcroft's book? Or a desperate Dan Wootton attempt to remind us all why we got rid of him?Confused

TooBigForMyBoots · 05/10/2024 00:40

Clavinova · 04/10/2024 20:56

Alas, he hasn't deleted the interview with Guido's boss Paul Staines - which is the subject of the op's post. The Sun newspaper isn't mentioned by the op.

Do you have a link to that @Clavinova?

RafaistheKingofClay · 05/10/2024 12:37

TooBigForMyBoots · 05/10/2024 00:40

Do you have a link to that @Clavinova?

Edited
Show quote history

😂