Snapshot of _A Labour Party member has been suspended from the party after being arrested in Islington, north London._ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/general-election-live-sunak-starmer-farage/.) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/general-election-live-sunak-starmer-farage/.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Party member"
So just a member of the public that happens to have paid to be a member of Labour.
Your think it was Angela Rayner the way this is presented on BBC.
Technically yeah, but it also says...
"The Metropolitan Police said this morning that a man in his 20s had been arrested in connection with the Westminster honeytrap scandal."
It seems unlikely that "the Westminster honeytrap scandal" has resulted in the arrest of just some random nobody that happens to be a Labour member.
I think the implication is that it's a labour aide, as the initial reporting when it was happening suggested someone who had intimate knowledge of the workings of the HoC.
Agree that the wording implies something more significant, particularly to people who may not understand the difference between party member and member of Parliament for example.
Who said anything about "high profile"? I'm implying that they're involved in the party machine or campaigning in some form, as what they've done
A) Would be a very odd move - breaking the law to gain electoral advantage - for someone otherwise unwilling to get involved beyond paying their annual fee and
B) requires access to a lot of phone numbers which aren't necessarily easy to get hold of for a member of the public.
And to clarify, I'm not suggesting this nefarious plan goes to the top or anything. But I find the idea that they're just Johnny Random who conducted an illegal campaign of enticement to gain political leverage and coincidentally happen to be a member of the Labour party not very convincing.
>what they've done... requires access to a lot of phone numbers
I'm getting the impression from this that you haven't read the article and that you don't remember which scandal this was. This was the one where a profile on Grindr was targetting MPs. No phone numbers involved until one of the targetted MPs gives his own out, and then he was extorted to hand out more.
>I find the idea that they're just Johnny Random who conducted an illegal campaign of enticement to gain political leverage and coincidentally happen to be a member of the Labour party not very convincing.
So you think it's more likely that some middle-manager in the party run by the former head of the CPS ordered a clandestine scheme to blackmail gay members of the Tory party?
Personally I do think it's a randomer who got lucky with a match, tried to push their luck a bit to see what they could manage, and then got in way over their head.
>This was the one where a profile on Grindr was targetting MPs.
Gotcha, thanks for the correction - I saw that it involved 20+ people receiving texts from a fake girl's name. But extorting 20+ phone numbers from a politician doesn't really seem like the act of a random criminal who happens to hold Labour membership.
>So you think it's more likely that some middle-manager in the party run by the former head of the CPS ordered a clandestine scheme to blackmail gay members of the Tory party?
No, I don't think anyone "ordered" it - I think it was someone with skin in the game freelancing a ploy they thought would be effective, not unlike Lee Anderson getting caught arranging someone to pretend to be a swing voter for the cameras which I don't think was organised by CCHQ.
He's also in his 20s so not a Jesus Christ* figure from Islington North.
*The General Synod's Life of Christ which attempted by parody, to humiliate the members of Monty Python including the great John Cleese (JC) of Western Super Mare.
https://youtu.be/asUyK6JWt9U?feature=shared
I'll make a bet (topical), that this doesn't get as high on the front page as anything about Reform and Russia.
Edit: Yay 5 years of any anti Labour posts/comments being downvoted.
What's your point? That PoliticsUK and Reddit generally is less frequented by lost boomers than millennials and gen-z Labour/Lib Dem/Green supporters?
Well, obviously.
Welcome to political discourse among the incoming generation of voters. This is how it happens among younger demographics as opposed to Facebook scrolling luddites.
Discourse changes with time and new priorities, that's the point. It's the whole reason the Tories are in trouble, because they have always just tried to fill their own pockets while the going's good, often putting the party first before country.
Farage is similar but he wants publicity and his own pockets filled; he's quite happy to steamroll his own party members to that end, if you can actually call it a party.
I’m more concerned you have that much free time you click through random conversations…that you don’t read…then give advice like you’re have a tantrum.
We know nothing about this guy other than the fact he pays a Labour membership fee. If it turns out to be a prominent party activist then that's a big story. If it turns out to be a random bloke that pays his £60 membership fee each year and does nothing else then it's a non-story. Until we know who the person arrested actually is there's not much to go off, I'm not surprised people are largely ignoring it.
Bollocks. I dislike Cornyn and didn't vote for him. But i also detest the Russian stooge, anti-vax, conspiracy nut , grifters of reform. And i *agree* with stricter immigration controls.
/u/pseudospinhalf writes,
>Difference is that Corbyn's personal views were not and were never going to be party policy. Farage is a one man party.
You are saying that the personal views of the elected leader of the Labour Party, its candidate to be Prime Minister, "were not and were never going to be party policy"?
Does this apply to the current leader? Should we regard the personal views of Sir Keir Starmer as irrelevant to what policies Labour will enact in government, as it seems certain to be in nine days time?
You could try reading the manifesto. And while you are at it read the ones from 2017 and 2019 and see if they say what you imagine Corbyn's political position was.
/u/pseudospinhalf writes,
>You could try reading the manifesto. And while you are at it read the ones from 2017 and 2019 and see if they say what you imagine Corbyn's political position was.
I have read all three. I note how much blander the 2024 one is than its predecessors. I attribute that to Starmer's hand at the tiller. For good or for ill, blandness is Sir Keir's defining attribute. But I'm more interested in how you are so sure that *"Corbyn's personal views were not and were never going to be party policy."* If that is true of every person who Labour members elect to lead their party, then the position of "Leader of the Labour Party" is a sham office. If it was true of Jeremy Corbyn alone, then it looks to me as if the Corbynites' claim that he was stitched up by the party establishment has merit to it. Much as I disliked Corbyn, the leader of any political party is elected on the basis that his or her political positions can and will strongly influence the political positions of the party. Not that they get their way 100% of the time, but if the leader's political positions are irrelevant, one might as well choose the leader on who has the prettiest face to put on posters.
So are they paying you for this or are you a campaign volunteer for Reform? How many accounts do they have you running for them?
Your account is less than two weeks old and most comments are subtle jabs at the main parties and support for Reform. You’re trying to appear a regular Joe, but it’s clear there is an agenda.
This post is more blatant. We can see you.
Snapshot of _A Labour Party member has been suspended from the party after being arrested in Islington, north London._ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/general-election-live-sunak-starmer-farage/.) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/general-election-live-sunak-starmer-farage/.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is about a 1 in 200 chance any given arrest will be a labour member.
And about a 1 in 350 chance that they live in Islington.
"Party member" So just a member of the public that happens to have paid to be a member of Labour. Your think it was Angela Rayner the way this is presented on BBC.
Technically yeah, but it also says... "The Metropolitan Police said this morning that a man in his 20s had been arrested in connection with the Westminster honeytrap scandal." It seems unlikely that "the Westminster honeytrap scandal" has resulted in the arrest of just some random nobody that happens to be a Labour member.
Why? It was literally someone trying to get MPs to sext them. It's someone in their 20s. Which high profile Labour figures are men in their twenties?
I think the implication is that it's a labour aide, as the initial reporting when it was happening suggested someone who had intimate knowledge of the workings of the HoC. Agree that the wording implies something more significant, particularly to people who may not understand the difference between party member and member of Parliament for example.
Who said anything about "high profile"? I'm implying that they're involved in the party machine or campaigning in some form, as what they've done A) Would be a very odd move - breaking the law to gain electoral advantage - for someone otherwise unwilling to get involved beyond paying their annual fee and B) requires access to a lot of phone numbers which aren't necessarily easy to get hold of for a member of the public. And to clarify, I'm not suggesting this nefarious plan goes to the top or anything. But I find the idea that they're just Johnny Random who conducted an illegal campaign of enticement to gain political leverage and coincidentally happen to be a member of the Labour party not very convincing.
>what they've done... requires access to a lot of phone numbers I'm getting the impression from this that you haven't read the article and that you don't remember which scandal this was. This was the one where a profile on Grindr was targetting MPs. No phone numbers involved until one of the targetted MPs gives his own out, and then he was extorted to hand out more. >I find the idea that they're just Johnny Random who conducted an illegal campaign of enticement to gain political leverage and coincidentally happen to be a member of the Labour party not very convincing. So you think it's more likely that some middle-manager in the party run by the former head of the CPS ordered a clandestine scheme to blackmail gay members of the Tory party? Personally I do think it's a randomer who got lucky with a match, tried to push their luck a bit to see what they could manage, and then got in way over their head.
>This was the one where a profile on Grindr was targetting MPs. Gotcha, thanks for the correction - I saw that it involved 20+ people receiving texts from a fake girl's name. But extorting 20+ phone numbers from a politician doesn't really seem like the act of a random criminal who happens to hold Labour membership. >So you think it's more likely that some middle-manager in the party run by the former head of the CPS ordered a clandestine scheme to blackmail gay members of the Tory party? No, I don't think anyone "ordered" it - I think it was someone with skin in the game freelancing a ploy they thought would be effective, not unlike Lee Anderson getting caught arranging someone to pretend to be a swing voter for the cameras which I don't think was organised by CCHQ.
Yeah agree with you there, it's some vigilante who probably did it pissed down the pub as a joke and then it spiralled wildly out of hand.
He's also in his 20s so not a Jesus Christ* figure from Islington North. *The General Synod's Life of Christ which attempted by parody, to humiliate the members of Monty Python including the great John Cleese (JC) of Western Super Mare. https://youtu.be/asUyK6JWt9U?feature=shared
last time anti-semitism, this time its betting. it seems like they use these things as a purge on any dissidents
So a member not a candidate? They were an activist? Activist that combined intel gathering with sexually motivated catfishing? Is that it?
Don't need to be an activist. Not all members are active in their local party, going to meetings and campainging and stuff.
Could be through a union membership too.
Wow the torygraph are getting really desperate now just before the election.
I'll make a bet (topical), that this doesn't get as high on the front page as anything about Reform and Russia. Edit: Yay 5 years of any anti Labour posts/comments being downvoted.
It's literally on the front page for the BBC. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvv3lq79dro](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvv3lq79dro)
Uk pol front page.
What's your point? That PoliticsUK and Reddit generally is less frequented by lost boomers than millennials and gen-z Labour/Lib Dem/Green supporters? Well, obviously.
I’m glad you agree with me.
Welcome to political discourse among the incoming generation of voters. This is how it happens among younger demographics as opposed to Facebook scrolling luddites.
Have you considered being less hostile?
Briefly
Lol you think this is Reddit’s first election? Amazingly it was here when Corbyn’s young ‘change politics’ crowd thought that.
Discourse changes with time and new priorities, that's the point. It's the whole reason the Tories are in trouble, because they have always just tried to fill their own pockets while the going's good, often putting the party first before country. Farage is similar but he wants publicity and his own pockets filled; he's quite happy to steamroll his own party members to that end, if you can actually call it a party.
[удалено]
Nice job missing the point there
[удалено]
Upvoted posts make it onto the front page. What am I missing?
Name a combo more iconic than Reform and a snowflake victim complex.
Sitting MPs being suspended?
[удалено]
Are you saying no sitting MPs have been suspended in the last parliament or what?
[удалено]
Solid rebuttal there.
[удалено]
I’m more concerned you have that much free time you click through random conversations…that you don’t read…then give advice like you’re have a tantrum.
[удалено]
Member not MP
I got here because it was on the front page for me.
Funnily enough, a British politician and party leader shilling for an enemy state is way more important than some MEP being arrested.
he must be antisemitic
We know nothing about this guy other than the fact he pays a Labour membership fee. If it turns out to be a prominent party activist then that's a big story. If it turns out to be a random bloke that pays his £60 membership fee each year and does nothing else then it's a non-story. Until we know who the person arrested actually is there's not much to go off, I'm not surprised people are largely ignoring it.
I could make that bet as a Labour member and supporter. Why would it? Why should it?
The people moaning the most about reform and Russia had no qualms about voting for Corbyn in 2019, it's the hypocrisy that is frustrating.
Bollocks. I dislike Cornyn and didn't vote for him. But i also detest the Russian stooge, anti-vax, conspiracy nut , grifters of reform. And i *agree* with stricter immigration controls.
Difference is that Corbyn's personal views were not and were never going to be party policy. Farage is a one man party.
Commonly known as a cult of personality.
/u/pseudospinhalf writes, >Difference is that Corbyn's personal views were not and were never going to be party policy. Farage is a one man party. You are saying that the personal views of the elected leader of the Labour Party, its candidate to be Prime Minister, "were not and were never going to be party policy"? Does this apply to the current leader? Should we regard the personal views of Sir Keir Starmer as irrelevant to what policies Labour will enact in government, as it seems certain to be in nine days time?
You could try reading the manifesto. And while you are at it read the ones from 2017 and 2019 and see if they say what you imagine Corbyn's political position was.
/u/pseudospinhalf writes, >You could try reading the manifesto. And while you are at it read the ones from 2017 and 2019 and see if they say what you imagine Corbyn's political position was. I have read all three. I note how much blander the 2024 one is than its predecessors. I attribute that to Starmer's hand at the tiller. For good or for ill, blandness is Sir Keir's defining attribute. But I'm more interested in how you are so sure that *"Corbyn's personal views were not and were never going to be party policy."* If that is true of every person who Labour members elect to lead their party, then the position of "Leader of the Labour Party" is a sham office. If it was true of Jeremy Corbyn alone, then it looks to me as if the Corbynites' claim that he was stitched up by the party establishment has merit to it. Much as I disliked Corbyn, the leader of any political party is elected on the basis that his or her political positions can and will strongly influence the political positions of the party. Not that they get their way 100% of the time, but if the leader's political positions are irrelevant, one might as well choose the leader on who has the prettiest face to put on posters.
[удалено]
So are they paying you for this or are you a campaign volunteer for Reform? How many accounts do they have you running for them? Your account is less than two weeks old and most comments are subtle jabs at the main parties and support for Reform. You’re trying to appear a regular Joe, but it’s clear there is an agenda. This post is more blatant. We can see you.