So far as I am aware, no MP has openly mentioned Harriet Harman's total unsuitability to sit in judgement on Boris Johnson or anyone else.
And so far as I am aware, no MP has questioned how Keir Starmer could have made a mere £100,000 from the sale of seven acres of Surrey, land that he would have us believe that he had forgotten that he owned for seven years until he sold it.
With planning permission, and it is difficult to see why he would have bothered to sell it otherwise, then such a plot would have been worth millions of pounds. Even without planning permission, then it would have been worth a lot more than £100,000.
Quite apart from how Starmer could possibly be Prime Minister if he were capable of forgetting that he owned a valuable property, is £100,000 the sum that he has declared for tax purposes? If it is not, then is he lying to the taxman, or to the House of Commons authorities? If it is, then how could that possibly add up?
The only people who even pretend to believe that I am guilty of anything are the same individuals who let Starmer off over his blatant breach of lockdown regulations in Durham.
Every Defence brief should now be arguing that jurors could only trust any Police investigation if they believed that Starmer was innocent. At Crown Court, then no one would ever be convicted of anything.
Starmer a tax fraud, dare we hope?ReplyDelete
At the very least, he must have lied to the parliamentary authorities.Delete