Amazingly I was on the side of Rachel Reeves after the recent revelations about her house letting. It seemed to me that the fault lay entirely with the letting agents who should have informed her that a 'licence' was necessary. Now, we know that the truth is far more complicated, and damning.
I'm not at all a believer that all politicians should resign over tiny peccadillos. We'd probably have none left!
However, we cannot have one rule for one side of the house, and a more blinkered one for the other.
We can all remember Boris being hounded out of office for the silliest of reasons, yet Starmer who visited Durham (under the same lockdown rules) for a Curry and Beer party, faced no retribution whatsoever.
We also need to remember that Reeves herself had previously been involved in instigating a similar 'Landlord Licence' scheme in her own constituency of Leeds West, which makes matters even worse.
So far 7 Labour Ministers have gone since they gained power a year ago; 6 women and 1 man. Rayner had to go, Tulip had to go, Ali had to go, Foxcroft had to go, Dodds had to go, Gwynne had to go, and Haigh had to go. I'm now wondering if the fragrant Reeves will also have to go, and make it 8!
There is no question that she has been a destructive Chancellor, but who would replace her? They have no-one with any business experience whatsoever. It's all well and good following Socialist doctrine, but not when it comes to ruining the country's economy.
It's not the oversight that condemns Ms Reeves. Rather like with Andrew Windsor, it's the lying about it that is the real problem. We don't need dishonest people in government.
Do I think she should go? Probably NOT. As much as we'd all like to see the back of her, I think her appalling legacy will condemn her enough.
I beg to differ in the case of Andrew Windsor that "lying about it is the real problem ". Raping a child was the "real problem" with him. He deserves everything he gets, and more. Good for King Charles for the way he's handling the situation.
ReplyDeleteennifer, was it "rape"? When I was that girl's age my father in particular had schooled me chapter and verse what some men will do to get into your knickers. I have been in hairy situations; talked my way out of every single one. Not a hair out of place. HA! Lucky me. What I am trying to say a seventeen year old is not a baby. Take precautions. Have your wits about you. Like not going to parties with "old" men, into their bedrooms. Be that as it may.
DeleteCharles is in an impossible position considering that Andrew is his brother and, so I understand, Andrew being their mother's favourite son. The story has been milked to the nines. It's got to come to THE END.
Cro, I agree with you that lying is the worst. Yes, sure, there is the odd white lie. No harm done. Real lies erode trust - trust hardly ever to be retrieved.
U
The age of consent in the UK is 16, and Andrew was single at the time, so no crime was committed. The fact that she was paid for her services by Maxwell, is more damning. Whether or not he has done other things that were 'illegal' remains to be seen. I just wish he would go away!
DeleteIs a teenage girl (16 years old from what I understand) a legal adult, able to legally consent to sex with an adult man in Germany? Because if so, that's news to me.
DeleteAnd she was among lots of other underage girls on "Epstein island" who were being sold to rich men for sex. How exactly was she in a position to "keep her wits about her" and "not go to parties with men" when she was being held on that island with no adults to look out for her? Are you really excusing these men and what they did? And as for Andrew...a rich prince is to be excused for doing whatever it took to "get into her knickers"? A girl barely older than his own daughters? That's disgusting and he should be in prison.
The age of consent is 16 in the UK? That's not the case here, Cro. And do you really think Andrew having sex with a 16 year old at these big parties with young girls at Epstein island was morally right, never mind legally? Really?
DeleteI was simply pointing out the legal side. What he has been up to is totally immoral, and he has brought his whole family into disrepute, which is unforgivable.
DeleteI feel so sorry for his daughters. It's not fair to them to have to endure this awful publicity.
DeleteRachel from Complaints, like so many before her, did not follow the simple rule - it is usually not the crime/whatever that will be your downfall, it will be your response to being found out. She lied about what had happened, tried to divert blame onto the letting agency - these actions should lead to her removal, she could have rode out the issue if she had been up front from the start.
ReplyDeleteAs to who could replace her, any self employed tradesman would be a far better choice than any of Starmer's front bench. At least they understand basic economics - if you haven't earned it you cannot spend it.
The current Labour numpties have demonstrated the age-old truth about socialism, it always runs out of other people's money, and this time in record time.
It's no longer 'Tax and spend', it's now 'Spend and tax'.
DeleteIn response to Ursula’s comment, if a girl is underage, then yes, it is indeed rape. We have laws that state when people are considered adults because research has proven that brains aren’t fully developed. These laws are intended to protect the underdeveloped brains from making stupid mistakes. The underage girls who had sex with Prince Andrew may have been excited at the prospect of spending time with a prince. She may have even consented to having sex with him. But was she really making an informed decision at that age? I would argue she is not.
ReplyDeleteWe don't still know exactly what he's been up to, but the famous photo with the smiling Giuffre was all above board according to UK law. If he has been with underage girls then he must face the consequences. I suspect there's a lot more to come, and the sooner the better.
DeleteYes and he paid £12 million because he did nothing wrong. She was under age and had been groomed.
ReplyDeleteAs to why Johnson was “hounded out of office”…do you remember why?
In my opinion we are now a target for the dregs of the world - We seem to have no backbone at all - flis x
ReplyDelete