Jump to content

The Conservative Party - Part Two.

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, West 77 said:

I only pay my own debts, Mister Gee.

 

I suspect it could very well be a publicity stunt.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57087274

 

I haven't  stuck up for him. I've just behaved rational as like everyone else here I don't know the facts.

Why do you insist on calling me by another Forummer's username? Projection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turns out the debt is a claim by someone named Yvonne Hobbs who sounds like a Covid conspiracy loon who has also claimed debts against various other MPs as well as M&S and the Royal Mail. How it got to the CCJ stage is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

Turns out the debt is a claim by someone named Yvonne Hobbs who sounds like a Covid conspiracy loon who has also claimed debts against various other MPs as well as M&S and the Royal Mail. How it got to the CCJ stage is beyond me.

I suspected it was summat like that, but others on here will no doubt maintain she has 'a valid claim' - somehow.🤪

Would be 'interesting' to see what the claim was in relation to, as well.

Further edit: noticed the 'story' has 'disappeared' from the BBC front page, as well. 😀

Edited by RollingJ
Added text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AND they have gone VERY quiet. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sibon

It’s interesting that we’ve a bunch of people who were sceptical yesterday, based upon “lack of evidence”. Those same people seem to be happy to accept a similar lack of evidence, in the opposite direction  today, because it suits their agenda.

 

Hypocrites? I think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sibon said:

It’s interesting that we’ve a bunch of people who were sceptical yesterday, based upon “lack of evidence”. Those same people seem to be happy to accept a similar lack of evidence, in the opposite direction  today, because it suits their agenda.

 

Hypocrites? I think so.

Just out of curiosity - have you seen the latest BBC news report on the matter? Seems like another loon was 'trying it on' and the online system failed to spot it wasn't a valid claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, West 77 said:

It's a shame more information about the alleged debt has been made public so soon because I was enjoying watching the anti Boris brigade making fools of themselves  again. 

Angela Rayner really laid into him yesterday on Twitter about this.   Mind you, most of her rants are clutching at straws at the best of times.  Corbyn and Starmer might be doing a good job at keeping the Tories in power but she needs to be commended for her role too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

Angela Rayner really laid into him yesterday on Twitter about this.   Mind you, most of her rants are clutching at straws at the best of times.  Corbyn and Starmer might be doing a good job at keeping the Tories in power but she needs to be commended for her role too.

Quite! 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sibon
35 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Just out of curiosity - have you seen the latest BBC news report on the matter? Seems like another loon was 'trying it on' and the online system failed to spot it wasn't a valid claim.

The BBC report contains the same level of proof that the Private Eye report was based upon.  It’s fascinating that you place great store by one, whilst dismissing the other out of hand.

 

It is also concerning that letters must have been sent about this and he’s ignored them.

 

Not a good look for the PM.

 

 

21 minutes ago, West 77 said:

You would have thought after Boris being Prime Minister for around 22 months the opposition parties would have learnt that playing the man doesn't damage him or the Tory Party.  Sir Keir Starmer is the worse offender.

When we get to the politically tough bit of all of this,  Johnson’s odious personality and attitude will count against him.

 

So far, he’s got by pretending to be a Coco the Clown/Jeremy Corbyn hybrid. The bills are about to land and, as we’ve seen lately, he’s not very good at paying them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sibon said:

The BBC report contains the same level of proof that the Private Eye report was based upon.  It’s fascinating that you place great store by one, whilst dismissing the other out of hand.

 

It is also concerning that letters must have been sent about this and he’s ignored them.

 

Not a good look for the PM.

 

 

 

having not seen the 'Private Eye' - a satirical, therefore not necessarily objective publication - article,I can't comment on that, but the BBC report does mention that defamation cases are normally heard in the High Court, not via the 'on-line claims court' . Personally, I can't see how an on-line claim for defamation can reasonably succeed, but that is just my opinion - which I'm sure you will point out.

 

As you (and others) seem to be in two minds about the BBC, I will agree - they do seem to have some funny ideas about what constitutes factual reporting.  I too, am a little confused as to why the court documents which must have been sent to No.10 were not acted upon - that in itself merits some explanation - but you cannot get away from the fact that this was a case brought by a serial complainer, with a questionable mental state, via the wrong channels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sibon
2 hours ago, RollingJ said:

I too, am a little confused as to why the court documents which must have been sent to No.10 were not acted upon - that in itself merits some explanation - but you cannot get away from the fact that this was a case brought by a serial complainer, with a questionable mental state, via the wrong channels.

Why do you think that she has a “questionable mental state”

 

Seems a bit judgemental from someone who was harping on about  wanting concrete evidence yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sibon said:

Why do you think that she has a “questionable mental state”

 

Seems a bit judgemental from someone who was harping on about  wanting concrete evidence yesterday.

Because - She is a 'Covid Vaccine Denier' and (according to the report I read on the BBC website earlier today) she has made these 'defamation' claims against others, too. Doesn't sound like a particularly stable individual, to me.

 

OK - 'vaccine denier' might not prove her unstable, but if she has made previous spurious 'defamation' claims...

Edited by RollingJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.