0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Now they are disputing who initiated this meeting. Gray is furious Johnson is claiming it was her. Who to believe?It seems to be every little thing is a bit dodgy.
Quote from: wilts rover on May 20, 2022, 09:35:59 pmMurdoch's top political journalist confirms this is correct:Everyone in Britain still acts as if this was a normal government. Instead it is a project of deliberate destruction, of laws, of institutions, of anything that stands in the way of a PM who just doesn’t want to be held to accounthttps://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1527729072398278657But Keir Starmer had a beer with his dinner.Mmm, not quite the whole scenario there wilts.Was it an illegal gathering, he denied at first that his deputy leader was present then suddenly realised there was evidence to prove she was there so he “remembered” that she was.She is hardly difficult to miss is she.
Murdoch's top political journalist confirms this is correct:Everyone in Britain still acts as if this was a normal government. Instead it is a project of deliberate destruction, of laws, of institutions, of anything that stands in the way of a PM who just doesn’t want to be held to accounthttps://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1527729072398278657But Keir Starmer had a beer with his dinner.
Wilts, from The Northern Echo. Labour made a “genuine mistake” in denying Angela Rayner was at a campaign event in Durham where Sir Keir Starmer was photographed drinking beer.That was admission of the party leader when questioned about the issue on Sky News on Sunday today.
Quote from: drfchound on May 22, 2022, 07:48:12 amWilts, from The Northern Echo. Labour made a “genuine mistake” in denying Angela Rayner was at a campaign event in Durham where Sir Keir Starmer was photographed drinking beer.That was admission of the party leader when questioned about the issue on Sky News on Sunday today.But that's not what you said hound:Quote from: drfchound on May 20, 2022, 10:26:37 pmQuote from: wilts rover on May 20, 2022, 09:35:59 pmMurdoch's top political journalist confirms this is correct:Everyone in Britain still acts as if this was a normal government. Instead it is a project of deliberate destruction, of laws, of institutions, of anything that stands in the way of a PM who just doesn’t want to be held to accounthttps://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1527729072398278657But Keir Starmer had a beer with his dinner.Mmm, not quite the whole scenario there wilts.Was it an illegal gathering, he denied at first that his deputy leader was present then suddenly realised there was evidence to prove she was there so he “remembered” that she was.She is hardly difficult to miss is she.'he denied at first'Looks like it is easy for people to make mistakes and get things wrong. Even when they know what actually happened as they saw a tv interview about it.That doesn't make them liars.Being present at an event then giving a false account of that event - that's a liar.Hound said something to me that wasn't true. I don't believe hound lied here - he just got it wrong.
Quote from: wilts rover on May 22, 2022, 09:00:16 amQuote from: drfchound on May 22, 2022, 07:48:12 amWilts, from The Northern Echo. Labour made a “genuine mistake” in denying Angela Rayner was at a campaign event in Durham where Sir Keir Starmer was photographed drinking beer.That was admission of the party leader when questioned about the issue on Sky News on Sunday today.But that's not what you said hound:Quote from: drfchound on May 20, 2022, 10:26:37 pmQuote from: wilts rover on May 20, 2022, 09:35:59 pmMurdoch's top political journalist confirms this is correct:Everyone in Britain still acts as if this was a normal government. Instead it is a project of deliberate destruction, of laws, of institutions, of anything that stands in the way of a PM who just doesn’t want to be held to accounthttps://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1527729072398278657But Keir Starmer had a beer with his dinner.Mmm, not quite the whole scenario there wilts.Was it an illegal gathering, he denied at first that his deputy leader was present then suddenly realised there was evidence to prove she was there so he “remembered” that she was.She is hardly difficult to miss is she.'he denied at first'Looks like it is easy for people to make mistakes and get things wrong. Even when they know what actually happened as they saw a tv interview about it.That doesn't make them liars.Being present at an event then giving a false account of that event - that's a liar.Hound said something to me that wasn't true. I don't believe hound lied here - he just got it wrong.Wilts, is it possible that Starmer didn’t know anything about the Raynor question given that Labour were denying for three months that she was at the beer gate gathering? Could it really be possible that he knew nothing about it.
Quote from: drfchound on May 22, 2022, 03:05:16 pmQuote from: wilts rover on May 22, 2022, 09:00:16 amQuote from: drfchound on May 22, 2022, 07:48:12 amWilts, from The Northern Echo. Labour made a “genuine mistake” in denying Angela Rayner was at a campaign event in Durham where Sir Keir Starmer was photographed drinking beer.That was admission of the party leader when questioned about the issue on Sky News on Sunday today.But that's not what you said hound:Quote from: drfchound on May 20, 2022, 10:26:37 pmQuote from: wilts rover on May 20, 2022, 09:35:59 pmMurdoch's top political journalist confirms this is correct:Everyone in Britain still acts as if this was a normal government. Instead it is a project of deliberate destruction, of laws, of institutions, of anything that stands in the way of a PM who just doesn’t want to be held to accounthttps://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1527729072398278657But Keir Starmer had a beer with his dinner.Mmm, not quite the whole scenario there wilts.Was it an illegal gathering, he denied at first that his deputy leader was present then suddenly realised there was evidence to prove she was there so he “remembered” that she was.She is hardly difficult to miss is she.'he denied at first'Looks like it is easy for people to make mistakes and get things wrong. Even when they know what actually happened as they saw a tv interview about it.That doesn't make them liars.Being present at an event then giving a false account of that event - that's a liar.Hound said something to me that wasn't true. I don't believe hound lied here - he just got it wrong.Wilts, is it possible that Starmer didn’t know anything about the Raynor question given that Labour were denying for three months that she was at the beer gate gathering? Could it really be possible that he knew nothing about it.I have no idea hound. Because he was never asked about it (until very recently).Did the person who said she wasn't there know? The event was in April 2021 - they were quizzed in January 2022. They might not even have been working for the Labour Party then? Were they on the trip? Were they briefed before talking to the press? Until you know the answers to these questions then you can't say they lied - or they got the answer wrong?It was poor of the journalists to let them get away with it that's for sure. Because she was quite clearly in Durham with Starmer, so where else would she have been eating?
Quote from: big fat yorkshire pudding on May 20, 2022, 10:14:12 pmQuote from: wilts rover on May 20, 2022, 09:03:00 pmSue Gray and Boris Johnson had private meeting to discuss handling of partygate report, Sky News understands:https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1527726289527898113'impartial investigation'I thought the report was mostly finished ages ago? Reviewing the outcome seems entirely appropriate to me, as long as the full report is published.What is there to review if the full report is to be published? Clearly the only reason for them to have a meeting is to decide what part of it is NOT going to be published (allegedly the photos that showed Johnson, with beer/wine, at events for which he has not been fined).
Quote from: wilts rover on May 20, 2022, 09:03:00 pmSue Gray and Boris Johnson had private meeting to discuss handling of partygate report, Sky News understands:https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1527726289527898113'impartial investigation'I thought the report was mostly finished ages ago? Reviewing the outcome seems entirely appropriate to me, as long as the full report is published.
Sue Gray and Boris Johnson had private meeting to discuss handling of partygate report, Sky News understands:https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1527726289527898113'impartial investigation'
Quote from: wilts rover on May 21, 2022, 07:51:13 pmQuote from: big fat yorkshire pudding on May 20, 2022, 10:14:12 pmQuote from: wilts rover on May 20, 2022, 09:03:00 pmSue Gray and Boris Johnson had private meeting to discuss handling of partygate report, Sky News understands:https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1527726289527898113'impartial investigation'I thought the report was mostly finished ages ago? Reviewing the outcome seems entirely appropriate to me, as long as the full report is published.What is there to review if the full report is to be published? Clearly the only reason for them to have a meeting is to decide what part of it is NOT going to be published (allegedly the photos that showed Johnson, with beer/wine, at events for which he has not been fined).Not at all. It may reference him, his staff etc etc. All of these people are still subject to the same employment rules and regulations as the rest of us, hence sue gray writing to those involved in advance of publication. Its the right thing to do.
Quote from: big fat yorkshire pudding on May 22, 2022, 11:06:14 pmQuote from: wilts rover on May 21, 2022, 07:51:13 pmQuote from: big fat yorkshire pudding on May 20, 2022, 10:14:12 pmQuote from: wilts rover on May 20, 2022, 09:03:00 pmSue Gray and Boris Johnson had private meeting to discuss handling of partygate report, Sky News understands:https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1527726289527898113'impartial investigation'I thought the report was mostly finished ages ago? Reviewing the outcome seems entirely appropriate to me, as long as the full report is published.What is there to review if the full report is to be published? Clearly the only reason for them to have a meeting is to decide what part of it is NOT going to be published (allegedly the photos that showed Johnson, with beer/wine, at events for which he has not been fined).Not at all. It may reference him, his staff etc etc. All of these people are still subject to the same employment rules and regulations as the rest of us, hence sue gray writing to those involved in advance of publication. Its the right thing to do.which 'rest of us' are you talking about pud?
Quote from: wilts rover on May 21, 2022, 07:51:13 pmQuote from: big fat yorkshire pudding on May 20, 2022, 10:14:12 pmQuote from: wilts rover on May 20, 2022, 09:03:00 pmSue Gray and Boris Johnson had private meeting to discuss handling of partygate report, Sky News understands:https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1527726289527898113'impartial investigation'I thought the report was mostly finished ages ago? Reviewing the outcome seems entirely appropriate to me, as long as the full report is published.What is there to review if the full report is to be published? Clearly the only reason for them to have a meeting is to decide what part of it is NOT going to be published (allegedly the photos that showed Johnson, with beer/wine, at events for which he has not been fined).Not at all. It may reference him, his staff etc etc. All of these people are still subject to the same employment rules and regulations as the rest of us, hence sue gray writing to those involved in advance of publication. Its the right thing to do.
Quote from: big fat yorkshire pudding on May 20, 2022, 10:14:12 pmQuote from: wilts rover on May 20, 2022, 09:03:00 pmSue Gray and Boris Johnson had private meeting to discuss handling of partygate report, Sky News understands:https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1527726289527898113'impartial investigation'I thought the report was mostly finished ages ago? Reviewing the outcome seems entirely appropriate to me, as long as the full report is published.What is there to review if the full report is to be published? Clearly the only reason for them to have a meeting is to decide what part of it is NOT going to be published (allegedly the photos that showed Johnson, with beer/wine, at events for which he has not been fined).
Quote from: wilts rover on May 20, 2022, 09:03:00 pmSue Gray and Boris Johnson had private meeting to discuss handling of partygate report, Sky News understands:https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1527726289527898113'impartial investigation'I thought the report was mostly finished ages ago? Reviewing the outcome seems entirely appropriate to me, as long as the full report is published.
Sue Gray and Boris Johnson had private meeting to discuss handling of partygate report, Sky News understands:https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1527726289527898113'impartial investigation'
I may have missed this, apologies if has been posted before.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10843173/Boris-Johnson-hating-Barrister-continued-role-Partygate-probe-despite-slew-tweets.html
BST. If Starmer's not a liar, why do you want him to get in power?
Quote from: SydneyRover on May 22, 2022, 11:12:33 pmQuote from: big fat yorkshire pudding on May 22, 2022, 11:06:14 pmQuote from: wilts rover on May 21, 2022, 07:51:13 pmQuote from: big fat yorkshire pudding on May 20, 2022, 10:14:12 pmQuote from: wilts rover on May 20, 2022, 09:03:00 pmSue Gray and Boris Johnson had private meeting to discuss handling of partygate report, Sky News understands:https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1527726289527898113'impartial investigation'I thought the report was mostly finished ages ago? Reviewing the outcome seems entirely appropriate to me, as long as the full report is published.What is there to review if the full report is to be published? Clearly the only reason for them to have a meeting is to decide what part of it is NOT going to be published (allegedly the photos that showed Johnson, with beer/wine, at events for which he has not been fined).Not at all. It may reference him, his staff etc etc. All of these people are still subject to the same employment rules and regulations as the rest of us, hence sue gray writing to those involved in advance of publication. Its the right thing to do.which 'rest of us' are you talking about pud?People in the UK.
Simon Clarke: ''He said the “extraordinary pressure” that No 10 staff were under during the pandemic helped to explain why the Partygate lockdown breaches happened''It's a good job that health care workers didn't respond to the long hours, pressure, extreme danger and loss of their friends colleagues in the same way.Michael Rosen has just replied''Dear Simon ClarkeHeard your int. on radio. Your point about the No 10 parties happening because of the extreme pressure we were under is well made. Compared to us politicos, all the nurses, doctors or families who lost relatives don't know what pressure is.Vino gloriosoBoris
Yep, I agree that a minion might have told the press about her not being there and you are right that it was unlikely that Raynor would have eaten elsewhere and I know that you don’t know the answers.But as leader, I find it hard to believe that no one told him (Starmer) over a three month period that there was something going on.He would have had the opportunity much earlier to clear it all up but probably chose not to in the hope that it would all blow over.
Billy sometimes colluding with people to keep their mouth shut, or selective memories are just as devious and truth denying as lying. Barristers and the labour Party leadership in conjunction with the Durham constabulary are very good at both it seems. Anyway it looks as if its suited your narrative and you have fallen for it hook line and sinker anyway. You and your like have pinned your hopes on a quisling willing to try and overturn the result of a referendum by the whole of the United Kingdom electorate. how can you ever trust a shithouse like that ever again?