Rachel Thieves?

[Borin' Baggie]

I'm guessing you found the source of that quote, realised CC was right and now with egg on your face you're trying to deflect.

You're guessing wrong and as usual have misunderstood what I was saying, as CC did prompting my response to him.

You are saying that Reeves' endorsement of licensing in Leeds is being underreported, you are more than capable of looking up where I've got that quote from and I'll think you'll find CC was correct when you do.

[Jacko]

Incorrect.

I was saying she must have amnesia because her excuse is that she is unaware of selective licencing despite having campaigned about it in her constituency. 

You do realise she hasn't actually got amnesia don't you?

The response from CC was him misreading my post and suggesting the line on amnesia was about this current story being under reported, hence his quip about the BBC News website (it is indeed their current no. 2 story) and 4chan (yawn), the clue was in the tense of his post...

But do go on telling me what I was saying...

[Borin' Baggie]

You do realise that when you find the source of what I've quoted you will realise that it isn't being "underreported" and that CC was correct, right? Because if it's being "underreported" then it wouldn't be in there.

And ark at the irony of accusing me of telling you what you were saying when you have done that to two people in this thread!

[Jacko]

Not again surely? You get a notion about a single point and it becomes an idée fixe for the rest of the discussion.

Okay, humour me, what isn't being underreported?

[Borin' Baggie]

The mention of her backing the licencing in her constituency, as per what I've quoted which you would find out if you bothered to look up the source for where I've quoted from. The source has been mentioned more than once in this thread.

And I don't think you understand how comments work, you responded to me talking about a singular point. You don't get to dictate what point I'm talking about, that's not how it works.

[Spandaubaggie]

The Chancellor was unaware of the need to acquire a "selective licence".

Quick apology and then no further action.

I do wonder though why her unfortunate case of amnesia hasn't been more widely reported..?

Starmer once said in the Commons, "mired in sleaze, cronyism and scandal". Well, quite.

It’s literally the main article on the BBC website. Tell the 4Chan lads to keep up ffs.

Without wishing to sound all Baggy1, there really is nothing to see here. It’s an admin error and not in the same league as Raynor (a fairly grey area itself) imo. It really is a matter of Southwark council, not the PM.

Reading isn't for everyone...

Clearly 

"The chancellor - and MP for Leeds West and Pudsey - has been supportive of councils using selective licences. Less than two weeks ago, she welcomed Leeds City Council's decision to expand their use of the scheme.

"In a post on social media she said: "While many private landlords operate in the right way, we know that lots of private tenants in Armley face problems with poorly maintained housing.

""This scheme means private landlords in the area will be required by law to obtain a licence for any residential property they are seeking to let and must meet certain standards to ensure the property is safe and in a decent state of repair.""

I'll let you find the source of where that passage I've quoted is from yourself.

Afternoon BB. So you agree she is aware of selective licencing as my OP said, and therefore her being unaware is not an acceptable excuse? Good to know.

---

This is a typical post by someone with an axe to grind with the party rather than looking at the case in context.

I'm no fan of Labour, think they've done a poor job so far, but Jacko clearly loves whipping up Daily Mail style shite.

2nd leading story on BBC News when I posted last evening. They got an axe to grind too?

No. they are reporting it as news, but it is little to no surprise you've posted it on here.

[Jacko]

The mention of her backing the licencing in her constituency, as per what I've quoted which you would find out if you bothered to look up the source for where I've quoted from. The source has been mentioned more than once in this thread.

And I don't think you understand how comments work, you responded to me talking about a singular point. You don't get to dictate what point I'm talking about, that's not how it works.

Which isn't what I was saying. Nor what Corbewrong was saying.

Again, not the point I'm making, you will now fixate on this incorrect point until either I stop responding to you, or like in the case of the Maccabi thing last week you get bored of taking shoe.

[tHEgLASSdOORS]

Cracko on the sauce a day early. Without doubt the most consistently shoed poster I’ve ever seen on here. Props for thinking otherwise and keeping going though.

[Jacko]

Cracko on the sauce a day early. Without doubt the most consistently shoed poster I’ve ever seen on here. Props for thinking otherwise and keeping going though.

I note you tried to make light of alcoholism with Chunky as well, you're a very odd character. Still upset about being outed I guess.

[Borin' Baggie]

You literally agreed with the content of what I've quoted in post number 8 as though it vindicated your initial post, said initial post has a link in which talks about the exact thing referenced in the quote about Reeves backing the licensing in Leeds. You're doing it again, you've been caught out with your inane bullshit attempt at shit stirring and are floundering in an attempt to distract from what you were caught out on. Have you found where I got that quote from? It very much vindicates what CC wrote.

As for the Maccabi Tel Aviv thread, I'll let other people read that and come away with their own opinions as to who was "taking shoe".