altus

Let's be clear. The Tories started making allegations against Rayner, despite the police having previously investigated her and decided there was nothing for her to answer for, so they could repeatedly throw mud in the hope some would stick and discredit her. It's exactly what they did to Starmer over 'beergate'. The Tories don't care whether any of their allegations are true or not, they just want the opportunity to throw mud and, as with Starmer, getting the police to investigate just gives them more mud to throw. That Labour/their supporters are now using the same tactic against those associated with the Tory Party is entirely the fault of the Tory Party for opening up this can of worms in the first place. As with the Tories, the nature of the allegations don't really matter - it's just an opportunity to throw mud in an attempt to discredit the opposition. Additionally, if allegations against Tories, however tenuous, are made of a potentially criminal nature the police won't have a choice but to investigate because to do so for one political party but not another would demonstrate political bias. All those people who got away with their PPE fraud because the Tories decided it would be too embarrassing for their supporters to be investigated, might find themselves having sleepless nights.

Nice in theory. Now you've just got to stop politicians using sport for politics.

From the page alchresearch linked to:

24/7 news channels usually have a half hour cycle for reporting all the topics they are covering (which isn't everything in any case). It's usually much quicker to press the red button and look up the text for the things you're interested in.

In this case, the victim was handcuffed to a bed in the prone position (known to be risky) at a hospital, not out on the street looking for an opportunity to run away.

Bondi Junction was the shopping centre stabbings, the church stabbing was in a different district. The difference in the level reporting could be down to several people killed versus four injured. But the church stabbing is not going unreported. The Guardian's report on the church stabbing includes this about the attacker: A search for "sidney church stabbing" will produce reports from other mainstream media sites with similar details.

I do like they way they called it the National Conservatism Conference even though it is very much an International event. Presumably their supporters wouldn't like them using 'International' because it would imply they were cooperating with foreigners - even though that is exactly what they are doing.

It would have been very useful for poor families trying to do online schooling during the pandemic.

People don't get called conspiracy theorists for being skeptical of western mainstream media, they get called it for the sources they trust, without any skepticism, instead.

That would imply "that person holding an ideation" to use the police's words. Apart from the police saying it wasn't terrorism everything else is speculation at the moment.

The police have said: It's pretty clear they think it's not terrorism.

I suspect the Post Office will find it very difficult to bring prosecutions themselves now. If they tried, the first thing any defence lawyer would do is point to their misuse of their powers and request that any prosecution should be brought by the CPS rather than POL. After all, if there is a reasonable prospect of a case to answer, the CPS would be happy to prosecute.

The Tories have even criticised Starmer for saying he supports Raynor even though he hasn't personally seen the legal advice she received (his team have). That positively invites a response of "I can trust my team to tell me the truth. If Rishi Sunak can't trust his team to tell him the truth that speaks volumes about his party and his command of it".

Keep in mind that Iran is supporting proxy wars in the region by funding Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthi's and supporting the Syrian regime. Hezbollah attacks on Israel have increased since the Hamas attack and Israel's response to it. That said, I do think the attack on the Iranian consulate was Netanyahu poking Iran to discourage the US from pressuring Israel to provide food/etc. to Palestinians in Gaza.

Keep in mind the police have already investigated this and decided there was no evidence of an offence. If a political party tries to slur another party's MP by making unfounded allegations they'd better be sure that the whole of their party is squeaky clean because they'll have just invited the targetted party to declare open season on all their MPs (including prospective ones, since Raynor's actions were before she was an MP).

So you think she was too stupid/naive to realise the implications of her saying 'every prime minister needs a <slang term for penis>'.

Nothing dishonest or deflective about it. It was merely pointing out that they both made the same knob gag and if you had a negative opinion of one of them for doing it you should have a similarly negative opinion of the other. Or do you think Thatcher wouldn't have realised the implications of a female PM saying 'every prime minister needs a <slang term for penis>'?

Regardless of motive, it was still the same knob gag.

There were several MPs trying to find out what was going on, Arbuthnot being one of them.

Perhaps relevant to this discussion, she famously said "Every prime minister needs a Willie", referring to William Whitelaw. I wonder if Westie will accuse her of being "Very immature" for doing exactly the same thing you did.

The only people who suggest that is a thing are people who believe the conspiracy theories about 15 minute cities. Meanwhile, in Paris...

It wasn't him giving attention to politics that was the problem.

They wouldn't put up with his infidelities. (I suspect hackey was being flippant.)

There's a difference between situations were the general public would be worry about continuing potential for them to be affected, e.g. the attack your link mentions or the aftermath of the Salisbury poisonings, and a targetted attack on journalists who are foreign nationals who publish articles critical of another country who are attacked in a manner that doesn't put others at risk. Think, 'Does the public need reassurance that it's not going to happen to them?'

If the Police have no idea who or where they are and if they still were in this country, maybe. If they are following active leads, probably not and, as peak4 says, there is an international element to this now. I note you still haven't answered my question - why do you think the PM would want the police to limit what information they release (beyond what they would for operational reasons anyway)?