Mind you they ignored the 'kiddie fiddling', so I guess we shouldn't be surprised
Did they?
Mind you they ignored the 'kiddie fiddling', so I guess we shouldn't be surprised
Does the Cyril Smith example ring any bells?Did they?
Does the Cyril Smith example ring any bells?
Who said anything about what party the perps belong(ed) to?Was he a conservative MP then?
Does Greville Jenner ring any bells?
Labour MP 1970 to 1997 more than a dozen allegations against him
So a senior minister breaks the law and she 'hasn't commented'?
Sounds like 'couldn't be bothered' to me...
Mind you they ignored the 'kiddie fiddling', so I guess we shouldn't be surprised!
What a fine example of the type of 'democracy' we are 'getting back'!
I took ellal's response to be about UK's MPs in general, and about Brexit returning sovriegnty:Ha ha, so reply to a post sbout a Tory MP. You give weight to your argument by saying 'they ignored the kiddie fiddling.
But in fact you are referring to somebody from a different party.
And you justify that by saying 'its factually correct'
Gosh, that really proves your credibility
I took ellal's response to be about UK's MPs in general, and about Brexit returning sovriegnty:
"In 2015, it emerged that Smith had been arrested in the early 1980s in relation to these offences, but a high level cover-up reportedly led to him being released within hours, the evidence destroyed and the investigating officers prevented from discussing the matter under the Official Secrets Act"Ha ha, so reply to a post sbout a Tory MP. You give weight to your argument by saying 'they ignored the kiddie fiddling.
But in fact you are referring to somebody from a different party.
Nothing needs disproving as your statement is factually incorrect regarding Hunt, and that will explain why May is not bothered.I see noisy notch has plastered a great deal of pointless verbiage around today.
Does any of it disprove the two facts that
"Jeremy Hunt admits crime"
and
"Theresa not bothered?
No.
"In 2015, it emerged that Smith had been arrested in the early 1980s in relation to these offences, but a high level cover-up reportedly led to him being released within hours, the evidence destroyed and the investigating officers prevented from discussing the matter under the Official Secrets Act"
If YOU want to make this a 'tory matter', then of course you can you tell us who was in power in the early '80's?
It matters not which MP was 'protected'!
So what happened to your claim that 'factual correctness' was important?
Because you've failed your own test yet again