Judge Sir Brian Langstaff Made Sunak Uncomfortable.
Sunak Does Not Like Being Scrutinised.
Sunak does not like being pointed out in public. At the public inquiry, Sunak looked like he wished he was somewhere else. The inquiry was concerned with people who had been victims of contaminated blood. Sunak was there to answer for the government and what it did about it.
As Sunak sat as if strapped to his chair, spectators from the public gallery, heckled him. This would do nothing for Sunak's confidence in an already tense atmosphere. Sunak is known allegedly, for being big on detail. However, when it comes to examining his own record on matters, Sunak conveniently has little no to no little knowledge. Whether this is deliberate or if he genuinely does not know only he will know that. However, one would have thought, Sunak, would have prepared his statements and have information to hand.
People want answers and help from the government of the day. And yet, nothing seems forthcoming from this lacklustre shower of an administration. Sunak was there for 2 hours, squirming and giving evasive answers. Sunak has never really had a good image when appearing in public. He seems nervous or often appears like an AI robot with no feeling or human soul. Maybe, that's harsh, however, this is how Sunak comes over. One would have thought his advisors would have advised him better. However, it seems, they either don't realize he has become 'Rishi the Robot' or maybe they don't care, who knows?
The ex-Judge chairing the 'Infect Blood Inquiry' has been praised for his handling of the inquiry. Sir Brian Langstaff, lectured those present, including the hapless Sunak, on what he thought. And for Sunak what Sir Biran said did not make for good hearing. Sir Brian said: "Because it troubles my conscience, I would think it would trouble the conscience of a caring government". Sunak looked troubled and looked like he had been put through the grinder.
The victims of the infected blood inquiry should be given compensation. Not that money will solve their problems or take away their troubling memories. However, if the NHS or the government were to or have compensated the victims, that would still be a good thing. Obviously, you cannot undo what has been done, you cannot sadly, alter history. In other words, what has been done cannot be undone. However, an acknowledgement of guilt by those concerned would go some way, to show that those responsible cared. Compensation would also be an acknowledgement of guilt and a gesture of goodwill from those responsible for this catastrophe.
So Sunak once more, has proved to be totally useless, in public forums. Once more he has shown he is out of contact with the reality of the real world. The world that most ordinary folks are familiar with. Yes, it is a cliche to keep harping on about Sunak's billions. The fortune of Mrs Sunak and her links to 'Daddie's' INFOSYS IT company. But sorry to say that makes the Sunaks look even more out of touch. Looking totally unfamiliar with the world of those at the bottom of the financial pyramid. Even if in his heart of hearts Sunak does care, he will never know, what it is like to live as an ordinary person. To find the money to pay your bills, do the weekly/monthly shopping, pay the rent or pay the mortgage, attend a food bank, etc. One could question the same of Sir Keir. However, people like Sir Keir or Angela Rayner, have come from working-class backgrounds. Despite living comfortable lives now, one would expect, them to understand more about the plight of ordinary folk.
out of
About the Creator
Nicholas Bishop
I am a freelance writer currently writing for Blasting News and HubPages. I mainly write about politics. But have and will cover all subjects when the need arises.
Keep reading
More stories from Nicholas Bishop and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Emily Thornberry: Sunak Demeans Office of Prime Minister.
Emily Thornberry a Minister on Keir Starmer's front bench is not happy with Rishi Sunak. Sunak has accused the Labour Party of being little better than the criminal gangs who exploit migrants. Emily Thornberry said she normally respects the Office of the Prime Minister. However, Ms. Thornberry accused the Prime Minister of "demeaning" the role of Prime Minister. Usually, she went on, she doesn't normally speak out, but because of what Sunak said, she had little choice.
By Nicholas Bishop2 years ago in The Swamp
Le Pen Hopeful Appeal Will Allow Her to Run for French President
Marine Le Pen, one of France’s most polarizing political figures, is once again at the center of national attention as she places her hopes on an appeal that could determine her political future. The long-time leader of France’s far-right movement believes that a successful legal challenge may clear the path for her to run in the next French presidential election, a race she has contested multiple times but never won. The appeal comes at a critical moment not only for Le Pen personally, but also for the broader direction of French politics, which has been increasingly shaped by debates over immigration, national identity, economic insecurity, and relations with the European Union. The Legal Hurdle Facing Le Pen Le Pen’s presidential ambitions were thrown into uncertainty after a court ruling linked to allegations involving the misuse of European Parliament funds. Prosecutors have argued that party funds were improperly used to pay staff who were allegedly working for her political movement in France rather than for the European Parliament. If upheld, the ruling could result in penalties that would bar her from holding public office for a period of time—effectively ending her chances of contesting the presidency. Le Pen has strongly denied wrongdoing, describing the case as politically motivated and designed to sideline her ahead of a high-stakes election. Her appeal, now moving through the judicial system, is seen by supporters as a final opportunity to keep her presidential bid alive. A Familiar Face in French Politics Marine Le Pen is no stranger to the presidential race. She reached the second round in both the 2017 and 2022 elections, losing each time to Emmanuel Macron. Despite those defeats, her share of the vote has steadily increased, signaling growing support for her nationalist platform. Over the years, Le Pen has worked to soften the image of her party—rebranded from the National Front to the National Rally—seeking to distance it from its extremist roots while broadening its appeal to working-class voters, young people, and those disillusioned with mainstream parties. Her political messaging now focuses heavily on cost-of-living pressures, opposition to immigration, criticism of globalization, and skepticism toward the European Union. Why the Appeal Matters Beyond Le Pen The outcome of Le Pen’s appeal carries implications far beyond one individual. If she is allowed to run, the next presidential election could once again become a referendum on France’s political divide between liberal centrism and nationalist populism. Polls consistently show Le Pen as one of the most popular opposition figures in the country. Her exclusion from the race could reshape the political landscape, leaving a vacuum on the far right and potentially benefiting other populist or conservative contenders. Critics argue that barring her would undermine democratic choice, while supporters of the ruling insist that no politician should be above the law. The case has reignited debates about judicial independence, political accountability, and the fine line between justice and political interference. Supporters Cry Foul, Opponents Demand Accountability Le Pen’s supporters have rallied behind her, framing the legal battle as an attempt by the political establishment to silence opposition voices. They argue that similar cases involving mainstream politicians have not resulted in such severe consequences. On the other hand, her opponents say the case underscores the importance of transparency and ethical standards in public office. They insist that the rule of law must apply equally to all, regardless of popularity or political power. The sharply divided reactions reflect France’s broader political polarization, which has intensified amid economic challenges, social unrest, and shifting global alliances. The Stakes for France’s Future If Le Pen’s appeal succeeds and she enters the presidential race, France could face one of its most consequential elections in decades. Issues such as immigration policy, relations with NATO, support for Ukraine, and France’s role in the European Union would likely dominate the campaign. Le Pen has previously called for stricter border controls, reduced EU influence over national policy, and a more inward-looking economic strategy. While she has softened some positions in recent years, critics remain concerned about how her leadership could reshape France’s democratic institutions and international standing. What Happens Next? The timing of the court’s decision will be crucial. A favorable ruling would allow Le Pen to begin campaigning in earnest, while an unfavorable outcome could force her party to quickly identify an alternative candidate. Regardless of the outcome, the case has already energized her base and ensured that she remains a central figure in public debate. Whether she appears on the ballot or not, Marine Le Pen’s influence over French politics is unlikely to fade anytime soon. Conclusion Marine Le Pen’s hope that an appeal will allow her to run for French president represents a defining moment for both her career and the French political system. At stake are not only her personal ambitions but also broader questions about democracy, justice, and the future direction of France. As the legal process unfolds, the nation—and much of Europe—will be watching closely. The decision could shape the next chapter of French politics and determine whether one of its most controversial figures gets another shot at the country’s highest office.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 3 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.