· 38 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Apr 24, 2026 at 4:19 AM

Coventry MP Zarah Sultana removed from House of Commons For Abusing The Prime Minister.

Posted by RahulRenaissance

Coventry MP Zarah Sultana removed from House of Commons
www.bbc.com
Coventry MP Zarah Sultana removed from House of Commons
Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle asked MP Zarah Sultana to leave after she used unparliamentary language.
🚩 Report this post

38 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
gamas 1 day ago +32
What she did was absolutely dumb and was pure showboating as she knew how it would end, especially as another MP got kicked out earlier for the same thing. But calling it "abusing" is lol. What she did is call the PM a liar over his claims he had no awareness that Peter Mandelson (who got caught up in the Epstein scandal, though (and what oddly has been buried under the drama) was actually vetted to be a security risk due to him leaking stuff to China) had failed vetting. This is probably a reasonable description of the PM as the supposed story is absurd. However the House of Commons in the UK has strict rules on language used within the House - and one of those rules is that you must never accuse someone of outright lying (a rule that's designed primarily to ensure that discourse remains relatively civil - as meaningful debate goes completely out of the window when you just outright directly accuse your opponent of being malicious).
32
alwayssunnyinskyrim 1 day ago +3
What an insane rule. What’s discouraging them from lying, if they know no one is allowed to call them out on it?
3
DryWeb3875 1 day ago +14
You can’t lie to parliament either. See Boris Johnson.
14
gamas 1 day ago +15
It's somewhat archaic but is based on the principle that every MP has earned their place in the house by virtues of having been elected by their constituents - therefore everyone should be assumed to be a genuine state actor. It's a bit ridiculous in cases like this where you literally can't call a s**** a s****, but its largely meant to avoid the kind of partisan shitflinging you see in certain other legislatures. Everyone has to show respect to each other regardless of how much they hate them and if they don't show respect they get kicked out.
15
Witty_Formal7305 1 day ago +11
You can call someone a liar without outright calling them a liar. It's meant for force the MPs to use language that encourages productive back and forth by not being accusatory, because once you start going down that road it quickly devolves into personal attacks / personal defensiveness vs the business at hand of managing the country. So you can't outright say "he's a liar" but you can say "they have a casual relationship with the truth" Also have to remember that Parliament is OLD, so alot of these rules / traditions go back hundreds of years and the English language has evolved a fair bit over that time, so some things may not make sense to us today but did back then, but its still tradition and its upheld.
11
son_et_lumiere 1 day ago +2
>So you can't outright say "he's a liar" but you can say "**they have a casual relationship with the truth**" This is still a personal attack. It's essentially the same thing as calling them a liar with more flowery language. And still does not serve to deal with the actual business of managing the country.
2
Maeran 1 day ago +6
You just use different language. Like; "Would the honourable member for Clacton like to correct his remarks? Which I believe he will find to be in error." Its a pantomine. Zara is correct in her observation that Starmer is lying, but she broke the protocol.
6
No-Scholar4854 8 hr ago +2
It sounds a bit disconnected with the outside world, but it’s a good concept. The other half of the rule is that you are not allowed to lie in statements to other MPs (“misleading the house”, i.e. House of Commons, the parliament). It’s almost like blasphemy. Any minister, even the PM, who can be shown to have lied to MPs would be expected to resign or be sacked. So it’s not quite true that Sultana isn’t allowed to call the PM a liar, it’s just that you’re not allowed to just casually drop it into a statement like that. If she thinks he lied about something then she can start the formal complaint.
2
fitzgoldy 1 day ago +31
I wonder if she paid back the money she stole from members of 'your party'.
31
Spuzzell_ 1 day ago +60
She's so exhausting that Jeremy Corbyn finds her too much
60
Glittering_Hope1114 1 day ago -65
Meh at least someone is willing to call out Starmer.  She was kicked out For calling out Starmer for lying about protecting his appointee who was all over epstein files. If the British hated paedophiles even 10 percent of what they do trans people imagine the good can be done.
-65
New-Creme-6168 1 day ago +31
Plenty of people have been calling out Starmer. I watched a 2 hour debate in Parliament a couple of days ago where several MPs called for him to step down. Now the leaders of three parties are pressuring the Speaker to force Starmer to face a committee to explain why he misled Parliament. That same committee effectively ended Boris Johnson's tenure and could do the same for Starmer. The thing is, none of that could have been done in the world of performative high-school politics that Sultana engages in, because she got herself kicked out of the Commons for saying the one thing she knows she can't say for legal reasons, making herself utterly useless to perform her duties as an MP.
31
Glittering_Hope1114 1 day ago -27
Just another cover up. The British have a prime minister who backed someone with extremely close links with epstein. Starmer tried to keep him regardless, until it became super clear there was so much dirt they could not sweep it under the rug! God knows how many others were involved. I don't want to hear the "WON'T sOMEoNe PLEASE tHiNK of THe ChilDreN" from the British again in regard to something stupid like a trans person working in public.  When you allow this stuff from politicians. It was bad enough hypocrisy already with pedo stuff in the media you would think a country that covered Jimmy Saville up so willingly would have developed a sense of shame at this point but no. 
-27
New-Creme-6168 1 day ago +13
The entire political establishment is working to find out exactly what happened with Starmer and Mandelson. There's an active police investigation running on this. I've been watching hours of publicly broadcasted footage from Parliament this week of debates and interviews to get the documents around his appointment released for public scrutiny, and question everyone involved. An MP being barred from the chamber for calling him a liar - which achieves nothing other than opening herself up for litigation - is not a cover-up. It was protecting her from her own moronic impulses.
13
Glittering_Hope1114 1 day ago -18
The entire British political establishment is working to prevent  us knowing what happened with starmer/mandelson*  
-18
KellyKezzd 1 day ago +6
>The entire British political establishment is working to prevent  us knowing what happened with starmer/mandelson\*   Are they?
6
The_Artist_Who_Mines 1 day ago +30
Yh Starmer's had such an easy ride from the media. This issue is definitely not being overblown by the trump and Russia aligned media
30
Glittering_Hope1114 1 day ago -17
I remember when it initially came out about mandelson starmer standing up and defending him. His Rotten to the core. The fact that people are defending him, shows the morality of this country.  Trump needs to be brought down for the same reason. 
-17
Furthur_slimeking 1 day ago +7
She didn't "abuse" him. She called him a liar, which is against the rules of the house even when it's an irefutable statement of fact. Starmer is currently under massive scrutiny because he may have lied about something pretty important.
7
DryWeb3875 1 day ago -1
He didn’t lie though.
-1
Maeran 1 day ago
If what he said was true, then he is ridiculously incompetent.  Which is worse?
0
DryWeb3875 1 day ago +5
What’s incompetent about not being informed about the vetting process?
5
Furthur_slimeking 1 day ago +1
Being PM and not understanding the vetting process for positions he appoints would be pretty incompetent if that's what happened. I hope it's not what happened because I think he's doing a decent job.
1
DryWeb3875 1 day ago +2
What is there for Starmer to misunderstand? The controversy comes from the recommendation to not grant DV. Starmer was never informed of this…
2
Furthur_slimeking 1 day ago -5
That's not confirmed. I don't think he did, but he might have.
-5
tomsawyer222 1 day ago +1
She’s been raisin hell..
1
gardenfella 1 day ago +2
so she's currant-ly on a time out
2
Zealousideal_Yak_671 1 day ago +3
Definitely not stable enough for office, there should be mental physical as well as thorough ethical test done on those who would govern.
3
drunkenbrawler 1 day ago +28
Who is given the power to decide who is eligible and how do we know they won't abuse that power?
28
txmasterg 1 day ago +5
It's ~~turtles~~ elections all the way down
5
Glittering_Hope1114 1 day ago +1
She was kicked out For calling out Starmer for lying about protecting his appointee who was all over epstein files.
1
DryWeb3875 1 day ago +1
I hat lie did he tell specifically?
1
Maeran 1 day ago
That Starmer was unaware that Mandellson (known since the 90's as the Prince of Darkness because of his dodgy dealings) had failed his clearance checks.
0
DryWeb3875 1 day ago +3
Olly Robbins confirmed that he didn’t inform any ministers, as that would compromise the vetting process.
3
blue_sidd 1 day ago -12
Incredible comment from you. Are you tired, do you need to lay down?
-12
Nomoras 1 day ago -2
[She's not the only one upset about Mendelson] (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79j0d01x4zo)
-2
esperstrazza 1 day ago
Calling it abuse and punishing it is one the reasons Starmer was confident enough to blatantly lie.
0
[deleted] 1 day ago -50
[deleted]
-50
← Back to Board