David Cameron called 'racist' after accusing Sadiq Khan over links to IS supporter

You seem to misunderstand what the Prime Minister is. It's not a non-partisan constitutional institution like the Monarchy.
Absolutely of course the Prime Minister is going to help his own candidate and attack others. Of course he is. I'm baffled as to why you would think otherwise, or that it shouldn't be the case. Were you also surprised that the government is allowed to take an official stance in the EU referendum?!

David Cameron wouldn't be 'hauled up' before judges anyhow. I don't know what the basis is of Cameron's claim that Ghani supports ISIS, but he certainly has numerous dubious links with extremist preachers, radical clerics and convicted terrorists.

Cameron used his Parliamentary privelege to smear Khan and accuse him of being an extremist.
Let's take the example. He said Khan shared a platform with Ghani who supports IS.
To that there are numerous responses:
1.) Sharing a platform with someone does not mean you agree with them.
2.) There is zero evidence that Ghani is an IS supporter, Downing street were asked over ten times to provide evidence and failed to do so.
3.) Ghani actually campaigned and canvassed for the conservatives in 2015!!! Zac Goldsmith had a smiling selfie taken with him and the Conservative candidate for Tooting asked him to help his campaign.

So if Ghani does support IS, it means an ISIS supporter was invited to canvas for the tories.

Ghani opposed Khan because of his support for gay marriage.
Khan's a human rights lawyer, it's his job to defend his clients. It would be like berating a criminal lawyer for having 'dubious links' with criminals. Everyone deserves legal representation.

Not to mention Khan has called islamic extremism a 'cancer', he's supported gay marriage which ostracised him from many in his community and he even whipped through the 42 day detention without trial bill in the commons - hardly an islamic extremist symapthiser.

Khan is a centrist who's tackled extremism within his community forcefully.
He's exactly the type of person we need, a secular muslim who will fight islamic extremism.
People like Khan encourage other secular Muslims to fight extremism and not be drawn in by it, he's a role model to them. This conservative campaign to paint him as an extremist or extremist sympathiser is disgraceful and has been berated by numerous tories such as Peter Oborne.

To label him an extremist and come up with these non-sensical extremist links which relate to his job as a human rights lawyer is disgraceful.

So, on the whole Khan issue, of course Khan is cosy with terrorists and Islamic extremists. He's a clever guy, he could have made a fortune in banking, or been comfortable as a doctor, but he chose to dedicate his life to defending terrorists and Islamic extremists. Therefore, he likes and approves of them, even if he thinks they go a bit far sometimes (Arthur Scargill thought the USSR went a bit far sometimes, but still liked and approved of it).

However Cameron's attack is still wrong. Khan's connections to, and love of, Islamic extremists are no different to those of Cherie Blair. The accusation is that Khan uses the British legal system as a weapon to defend terrorists and Muslim extremists, but that isn't what Blair does, she uses the terrorists and Muslim extremists as a weapon against her opponents in the British state. Is Khan a British left-elite who sees Muslim extremists as useful idiots, or is he a Muslim extremist who sees British left-elites as useful idiots? It doesn't matter, they will both lead us to the same place. Either neither of these things make one unsuitable to hold public office in this country, or both do.

Cameron's attack doesn't make this point, in fact it obscures it, by focussing the debate on the truth of Khan's motivations, which are both unknowable and irrelevant.

What a load of utter drivel. Everything's always a conspiracy for you isn't it?

All people have a right to a lawyer. Its one of the things that separates us from barbarous nations, it's an inalienable human right.

As a lawyer you have a duty to your client.

Is a doctor who treats a murderer a murder sympathiser?

Again, like berating a criminal lawyer for defending criminals. It's their job to.

The job of the Prime Minister is to lead the country, not his party.

Hence, the different titles that he or she will hold (i.e: Leader of the Conservative Party, First Lord of Treasury, Member of Parliament etc etc)

Not at all. The whole point of the democratic process is to select a representative (i.e: a person, not a party).

The country would function just as well, if not better if we left the civil servants to simply run the country.

Perhaps the most idiotic statement that I have had the misfortune of reading today.

The fact remains that the PM is an arrogant fool and a coward who hides parliamentary privilege to sling mud at citizens of his own country, in a desperate attempt to usher his cronies into coveted positions.

I only believe in open conspiracies.


Yes and this man chooses to engage clients overwhelmingly of a certain type. That suggests he feels a stronger duty toward that type than others.


A doctor who only treats mobsters, often in warehouses by the docks and hidden lockups, is probably a mob doctor.


It's no one's job to become a criminal lawyer first of all. When you are making the choice between crime and the magic circle, you are probably not thinking of all the dosh you're going to make at the Old Bailey. Second, he has not represented a broad cross-section of criminals, which suggests that his interest in them is not merely a detached and noble belief in every man getting his day in court.

For a start human rights law isn't just defending 'extremists', it's a wide ranging profession which involves representing all types of people from victims of domestic abuse, victims of bullying, victims of police brutality, children who've been mistreated, local authorities etc. You know nothing about law.

You're trying to say anyone who becomes a criminal or human rights lawyer is a terrorist or extremist sympathiser. What a ridiculous person you are.
Some people prefer criminal law, not as well paid but far more interesting and far less siting in an office all day.

What separates us from barbarous nations is that all people are entitled to legal representation, you may need it one day, so to castigate all criminal and human rights lawyers as terrorist sympathisers is utterly ridiculous and pathetic.

Khan was a lawyer, a respected human rights lawyer. To judge a lawyer for representing their clients is beyond stupid but that doesn't surprise me coming from you.

I think it's just spluttering at this point, so I'll let others decide.

(I will say that the fact that Khan publicly endorsed gay marriage suggests that he is really a Cherie Blair type - an integrated left-elite - rather than a Muslim extremist. That is one of the few true wedge issues between them, something where the gag reflex is triggered on both sides.)

He didn't use Parliamentary privilege to 'smear' Khan. Slating MPs during Commons proceedings isn't illegal. He simply took advantage of PMQs to push this ridiculous narrative.
And yeah, you're right, the Tories shouldn't be smearing Khan. I think we all know Khan isn't a terrorist sympathiser no matter who he's associated with (and I still maintain Ghani is an extremist), and it's childish for Cameron to be going down this path.

What the hell is BMP?

It's a far right British nationalist party omg I meant BNP sozzz

They are racist gits man

u mad bruh?

I'm rather calm.

Fight me if you are against Sadiq Khan- I'm not that extreme but ok.

I hate all muslims

I hate all Donald Tramp clones, what's your point?

My point is we should close the borders and stop people coming in

It's weird because we are all technically immigrants in a sense- we can't help the fact that the entire migrant crisis ARE ALL REFUGEES as their country is in danger.

If you were in their place, wouldn't you want a superpower(our UK government) to help you- the things about putting yourself into 'someone else's shoes', I think you should try that babe.

never we are full as it is