WE NEED PETITION TO GET RID OF TRAITOR AND DICTATOR STARMER...

[epsom]

IS THERE A PETITION YET TO GET STARMER TO RESIGN?
HE IS NOT FIT TO BE A PRIME MINISTER FOR MANY REASONS---ALMOST ALL OF THE MANIFESTO THAT PEOPLE VOTED FOR HAS BEEN A COMPLETE LIE. 
THAT IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. 
THEY HAVE MISLEAD THE PUBLIC.
Misleading the public can be a crime, particularly if it involves false or misleading information intended to deceive or defraud. The specific crime can vary depending on the context and the intent of the person making the misleading statement. Some examples include fraud by false representation, the false or misleading information offence, and misconduct in public office. 
Misconduct in Public Office:
This involves a breach of duty or abuse of power by a public official, which could include making false statements or misleading the public. 
The WHIP system has to be abolished, as it stops MP's from voicing what they REALLY think. They are blackmailed into toeing the party line---or get suspended or thrown out. That is BLACKMAIL.

THERE IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF VIDEO/ DOCUMENTARY PROOF THAT HE HAS SAID ONE THING BEFORE ELECTED, AND HAS DONE THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE WHEN IN POWER.
HE SAID HE WOULD NOT RAISE TAXES.
HE TOLD TRUMP AND VANCE THAT THE UK HAS FREEDOM OF SPEECH---BUT IMPRISONS THOSE FOR HURTY WORDS!
HE SAID THAT THE WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCE WOULD REMAIN.
HE SAID IN 2024 THAT WE WOULD NOT GO BACK INTO THE EU.
HE IS NOW TAKING US BACK IN THROUGH THE BACK DOOR WITHOUT ANY CONSENT FROM THE PEOPLE.
HE IS ANTI-BRITISH.
HE HAS STATED THAT DAVOS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PARLIAMENT.
HE GAVE AWAY THE CHAGOS ISLANDS..... AND WE PAY FOR IT.
HE SAYS HE WILL "SMASH THE GANGS"----HE HAS NOT AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION GOES UP AND UP.
HE HAS ACTUALLY SAID THAT HE IS "NOT A POLITICIAN", BUT A LAWYER. ( he got THAT right!)
HE SAYS THINGS WHICH PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR---THEN BACKTRACKS 180 DEGREES.

There are many more instance of Starmer lies and U-turns----THERE HAS TO BE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO THIS DICTATOR AND TRAITOR.

( this comment won't be seen on YT, where I posted this comment a number of times---mine hardly ever are).

[Bombadil]

Even if every voting age person in the country signed it wouldn’t change a thing. What needs to be done is for every constituent to act against their local mp. This will force a by election.

[epsom]

53 minutes ago, Bombadil said:

Even if every voting age person in the country signed it wouldn’t change a thing. What needs to be done is for every constituent to act against their local mp. This will force a by election.

 

Yeah, you are quite right, Bombadil----nothing will change.

Although I predict that Starmer will be gone sooner rather than later.....and I suspect it would have to do with his rent boy and other nefarious parts of his private life.

[Bombadil]

15 hours ago, epsom said:

 

Yeah, you are quite right, Bombadil----nothing will change.

Although I predict that Starmer will be gone sooner rather than later.....and I suspect it would have to do with his rent boy and other nefarious parts of his private life.

I think legally a petition to remove pm can’t happen.

 

 

 

[Bombadil]

[1velocity7]

starmer is the globalists ideal candidate just like rishi

rishi had no mandate other than voted in by a few tories and they kept him in full term

[epsom]

3 hours ago, Bombadil said:

 

That is absolutely ridiculous.

The Gov are supposed to work for the people----the people voted them in (albeit 20% of the population).

If they (he) has been placed into power on the basis of a completely fraudulent manifesto--and continued lies, one after the other, doing exactly the opposite to what he SAID and what the people wanted, then that is TREASON ( especially with the Brexit betrayal) and malfeasance in public office.

The people voted him IN---so we should be able to vote them (or HIM) OUT.

[Talorgan]

 .I think the dominant minority don't ,&never have liked/ believed in democracy just seeing it as  necessary for a time

to be replaced by their favourite Governance /Plato's Philosopher Rulers etc

[Grumpy Owl]

Petitions are a waste of time, and won't achieve anything.

 

The opportunity to 'have your say' came last year, at the General Election.

 

I could understand voters having a grievance against Starmer if they voted Labour at the time, and are now disgruntled with the way that things have gone.

 

But a majority of people didn't bother to vote.

 

The simple fact is that democracy doesn't function when it is a minority of people who call the shots.

 

It does dismay me that people are more likely to participate in some petition, rather than voting in an election, when it really matters and all that.

[epsom]

On 5/23/2025 at 8:47 PM, Grumpy Owl said:

Petitions are a waste of time, and won't achieve anything.

 

The opportunity to 'have your say' came last year, at the General Election.

 

I could understand voters having a grievance against Starmer if they voted Labour at the time, and are now disgruntled with the way that things have gone.

 

But a majority of people didn't bother to vote.

 

The simple fact is that democracy doesn't function when it is a minority of people who call the shots.

 

It does dismay me that people are more likely to participate in some petition, rather than voting in an election, when it really matters and all that.

 

The fact is that the people who DID vote Labour voted on the policies in the manifesto---------AND THE MANIFESTO HAS TURNED OUT OUT TO BE A TISSUE OF LIES AND U TURNS.

In other words--the people were CONNED.

 

Does the new government have to put manifesto pledges into action?

The short answer in constitutional terms is no – government is not legally bound to implement any manifesto commitment. The courts have been clear on this and there are sensible reasons to justify this position.

The observations of Lord Denning from 1981 still ring true today:

"A manifesto issued by a political party - in order to get votes - is not to be taken as gospel… It may contain - and often does contain - promises or proposals that are quite unworkable."

 

There is no law that has been passed to make a manifesto legally enforceable---THIS HAS TO CHANGE, or what is the POINT of a manifesto?.

IN OTHER WORDS, THEY CAN LIE WITH IMPUNITY--AND NOTHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT.

 

 

[Grumpy Owl]

13 hours ago, epsom said:

There is no law that has been passed to make a manifesto legally enforceable---THIS HAS TO CHANGE, or what is the POINT of a manifesto?.

IN OTHER WORDS, THEY CAN LIE WITH IMPUNITY--AND NOTHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT.

 

I might be mistaken about this and thus I'm happy to be corrected, but from memory I seem to recall UKIP pointing this out years ago, and one of their own manifesto pledges was to make parties legally bound by their manifesto promises. By law.

 

It was probably around the same time that UKIP claimed to be the first political party to produce a "fully-costed" manifesto plan - almost revolutionary that a party could outline promises and pledges, and then back them up with financial figures on how this could be achieved.

 

Sadly, UKIP didn't get into power, and since then the other 'establishment' parties jumped on the 'fully-costed plan' bandwagon, but continued to lie and break promises once they got into power, choosing instead to continue to 'blame the other side' for their own failings.

[Scarlett07]

On 5/26/2025 at 10:31 PM, Grumpy Owl said:

I might be mistaken about this and thus I'm happy to be corrected, but from memory I seem to recall UKIP pointing this out years ago, and one of their own manifesto pledges was to make parties legally bound by their manifesto promises. By law.

 

It was probably around the same time that UKIP claimed to be the first political party to produce a "fully-costed" manifesto plan - almost revolutionary that a party could outline promises and pledges, and then back them up with financial figures on how this could be achieved.

 

Sadly, UKIP didn't get into power, and since then the other 'establishment' parties jumped on the 'fully-costed plan' bandwagon, but continued to lie and break promises once they got into power, choosing instead to continue to 'blame the other side' for their own failings.

You’re not mistaken, I remember UKIP making that argument too. The idea of legally binding manifesto promises was definitely one of their more interesting proposals. It’s frustrating how quickly accountability disappears once parties get into power. “Fully-costed” manifestos sound great in theory, but without legal or structural enforcement, it often just becomes political theater. Would be great to see real consequences for broken promises across the board.

[factJack]

The "guy everyone despises" architype is the deep state's new template of leadership.

A prime example in france macroon has been in power for years,  there are riots every summer when everyone gets their hi vis vest out of the cupboard, goes up town to smash a few things up but they still keep voting him back in. Again same in london with "sadist" kahn.

The mainstream media go out of their way to make people despise starmer, however he has a knighthood (well that means he's their choice!) and it was obvious for years him being PM was a tap in.  The press (who are just the gov's messengers) leak stuff out about him to fuel peoples outrage knowing full well ttheres no election for many years (not that it matters they're all rigged). Its part of their demoralisation strategy.

The best way i can describe him is mr bronson from grange hill.... a total "see you next tuesday"

Anyway to sum up this keith bloke is just playing the character Starmer.I always thought the name starmer sounded a bit like/gave me  russian dictator's vibes. his job is to piss off the entire nation by running the place into the ground and to clear a path for the next lot. The islamic party.

 

[JONJAY79]

Pointless because Keir Starmer has no power he's just a figure head for the globalists. Even King Charles is a puppet for the globalists WEF.

[Orange Alert]

On 5/23/2025 at 8:47 PM, Grumpy Owl said:

Petitions are a waste of time, and won't achieve anything.

 

The opportunity to 'have your say' came last year, at the General Election.

 

I could understand voters having a grievance against Starmer if they voted Labour at the time, and are now disgruntled with the way that things have gone.

 

But a majority of people didn't bother to vote.

 

The simple fact is that democracy doesn't function when it is a minority of people who call the shots.

 

It does dismay me that people are more likely to participate in some petition, rather than voting in an election, when it really matters and all that.

 

 You have no real say at the ballot box, it is all a pretend democracy, a repeating election charade. The system remains the same and its direction. Everyone votes for a dictator.

[Orange Alert]

On 6/9/2025 at 12:58 PM, JONJAY79 said:

Pointless because Keir Starmer has no power he's just a figure head for the globalists. Even King Charles is a puppet for the globalists WEF.

 

Sure would be pointless to get rid of Starmer just to get another frontman.