Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Bentley Bullet on January 16, 2022, 10:04:31 am
-
How embarrassing. He's just been torn a new arsehole by Sophie Raworth on the Sunday Morning programme, and even resorted to sniggering rather than answering a question regarding whether his rule-breaking on restrictions was actually worse than that of the Downing Street incident!
God help us.
-
All the same?
-
How embarrassing. He's just been torn a new arsehole by Sophie Raworth on the Sunday Morning programme, and even resorted to sniggering rather than answering a question regarding whether his rule-breaking on restrictions was actually worse than that of the Downing Street incident!
God help us.
the thing is johnson has always been one and he keeps on growing aye?
-
All the same?
Nope.
-
#metoohound
-
#metoohound
I trust you're as outraged by this as you are with Boris Johnson?
-
#metoohound
I trust you're as outraged by this as you are with Boris Johnson?
that hound jumps in with a 'me too' following his leader pud?
-
#OperationBigDogsb*llocks
Of course he should resign. Having a drink with your dinner whilst you are planning a by-election & local election campaign, is exactly the same as organising drinks in the garden to enjoy the sunshine, wheeling a suitcase full of booze down the street & booking a dj during a period of national mourning - and rehearsing a press conference to work out how to deny it to the public.
Altthough why someone who wont have a bad word said against the bloke making life or death decisions for the country yet can't recognise a party when he is at it, has the nerve to ask the question - well.
#starmerout
-
Those in glass houses and all that.
-
Those in glass houses and all that.
crystal palace & a glass bead NR
-
#metoohound
I trust you're as outraged by this as you are with Boris Johnson?
that hound jumps in with a 'me too' following his leader pud?
Did I?
-
Those in glass houses and all that.
Inside glass houses too, during restrictions, throwing stones at those outside!
-
Those in glass houses and all that.
Inside glass houses too, during restrictions, throwing stones at those outside!
this is desperation even for you bbb
-
#OperationBigDogsb*llocks
Of course he should resign. Having a drink with your dinner whilst you are planning a by-election & local election campaign, is exactly the same as organising drinks in the garden to enjoy the sunshine, wheeling a suitcase full of booze down the street & booking a dj during a period of national mourning - and rehearsing a press conference to work out how to deny it to the public.
Altthough why someone who wont have a bad word said against the bloke making life or death decisions for the country yet can't recognise a party when he is at it, has the nerve to ask the question - well.
#starmerout
You should stand for leader of the opposition, Wilts. You'd have the job for years to come, based on your response is so much better than your leader Starmer's.
......Unless Starmer was in enough shite without stating stuff that he couldn't back up?
-
#OperationBigDogsb*llocks
Of course he should resign. Having a drink with your dinner whilst you are planning a by-election & local election campaign, is exactly the same as organising drinks in the garden to enjoy the sunshine, wheeling a suitcase full of booze down the street & booking a dj during a period of national mourning - and rehearsing a press conference to work out how to deny it to the public.
Altthough why someone who wont have a bad word said against the bloke making life or death decisions for the country yet can't recognise a party when he is at it, has the nerve to ask the question - well.
#starmerout
You should stand for leader of the opposition, Wilts. You'd have the job for years to come, based on your response is so much better than your leader Starmer's.
......Unless Starmer was in enough shite without stating stuff that he couldn't back up?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhe0ULrAHIw
-
What I will say is that the Labour Party should hold an investigation and if it's found that Starmer did indeed break the rules the party should ask for his resignation .
-
What I will say is that the Labour Party should hold an investigation and if it's found that Starmer did indeed break the rules the party should ask for his resignation .
get real tyke
-
What I will say is that the Labour Party should hold an investigation and if it's found that Starmer did indeed break the rules the party should ask for his resignation .
get real tyke
Why is the Labour leader above the law too Sydney ?
Read my post again , I said an internal inquiry that would establish the facts .
Surely if Starmer broke the rules his position is untenable and you'd demand that Labour do the right thing ? .
Nobody is above the law , isn't that right Sydney ?????
-
Typical of the BBC to try and level things up.
What Starmer did pales into insignificance when compared to the Downing St shenanigans.
He was at a small meeting planning the by-election.
He was at work, the same as millions of other people who ate at their desks., while at work.
-
What I will say is that the Labour Party should hold an investigation and if it's found that Starmer did indeed break the rules the party should ask for his resignation .
get real tyke
Why is the Labour leader above the law too Sydney ?
Read my post again , I said an internal inquiry that would establish the facts .
Surely if Starmer broke the rules his position is untenable and you'd demand that Labour do the right thing .
Nobody is above the law , isn't that right Sydney ?????
You should stop embarrassing yourself tyke, the burden of proof for this idea is worse than a midsomer murder plot
-
Bentley you’ve beat me to it
He was embarrassing. Major issue for the Labour Party who can replace him
The party is so split between Blairites and the Corbynites it will be a nightmare for them
Starmer looked incompetent this morning. She really gave it too him and he struggled with it
-
I’m with you Hound.
The next election might well boil down to which party is the least unattractive
Starmer has made himself look a hypocrite and has no where to go with this
Whatever he expects Johnson to do he should follow suit
It’s not about which party anyone supports it’s about consistency
I know some on here will disagree but there can’t be one set of standards for one and another for the other
-
What I will say is that the Labour Party should hold an investigation and if it's found that Starmer did indeed break the rules the party should ask for his resignation .
get real tyke
Why is the Labour leader above the law too Sydney ?
Read my post again , I said an internal inquiry that would establish the facts .
Surely if Starmer broke the rules his position is untenable and you'd demand that Labour do the right thing .
Nobody is above the law , isn't that right Sydney ?????
You should stop embarrassing yourself tyke, the burden of proof for this idea is worse than a midsomer murder plot
I think you'll find Sydney that it's Starmer who is embarrassing himself having just watched the interview he gave this morning .
My point is let's establish the facts , nothing more than that .
That shouldn't be too unacceptable surely .
-
What I will say is that the Labour Party should hold an investigation and if it's found that Starmer did indeed break the rules the party should ask for his resignation .
get real tyke
Why is the Labour leader above the law too Sydney ?
Read my post again , I said an internal inquiry that would establish the facts .
Surely if Starmer broke the rules his position is untenable and you'd demand that Labour do the right thing .
Nobody is above the law , isn't that right Sydney ?????
You should stop embarrassing yourself tyke, the burden of proof for this idea is worse than a midsomer murder plot
I think you'll find Sydney that it's Starmer who is embarrassing himself having just watched the interview he gave this morning .
My point is let's establish the facts , nothing more than that .
That shouldn't be too unacceptable surely .
He made it very clear what had happened in Hartlepool and it is in no way comparable to what Boris et al have been upto.
-
What I will say is that the Labour Party should hold an investigation and if it's found that Starmer did indeed break the rules the party should ask for his resignation .
get real tyke
Why is the Labour leader above the law too Sydney ?
Read my post again , I said an internal inquiry that would establish the facts .
Surely if Starmer broke the rules his position is untenable and you'd demand that Labour do the right thing .
Nobody is above the law , isn't that right Sydney ?????
You should stop embarrassing yourself tyke, the burden of proof for this idea is worse than a midsomer murder plot
I think you'll find Sydney that it's Starmer who is embarrassing himself having just watched the interview he gave this morning .
My point is let's establish the facts , nothing more than that .
That shouldn't be too unacceptable surely .
He made it very clear what had happened in Hartlepool and it is in no way comparable to what Boris et al have been upto.
In the interests of trust and credibility then I'd suggest an internal inquiry would be best served to establish that with all due respect .
Mr Starmer has lost plenty of currency since he became leader and I'm afraid his word isn't acceptable as a consequence .
-
#OperationBigDogsb*llocks
Of course he should resign. Having a drink with your dinner whilst you are planning a by-election & local election campaign, is exactly the same as organising drinks in the garden to enjoy the sunshine, wheeling a suitcase full of booze down the street & booking a dj during a period of national mourning - and rehearsing a press conference to work out how to deny it to the public.
Altthough why someone who wont have a bad word said against the bloke making life or death decisions for the country yet can't recognise a party when he is at it, has the nerve to ask the question - well.
#starmerout
You should stand for leader of the opposition, Wilts. You'd have the job for years to come, based on your response is so much better than your leader Starmer's.
......Unless Starmer was in enough shite without stating stuff that he couldn't back up?
My leader? I thought I was a socialist leftie (like Tyke) - now I am a right leaning centerist without even noticing!
Who knew.
-
#OperationBigDogsb*llocks
Of course he should resign. Having a drink with your dinner whilst you are planning a by-election & local election campaign, is exactly the same as organising drinks in the garden to enjoy the sunshine, wheeling a suitcase full of booze down the street & booking a dj during a period of national mourning - and rehearsing a press conference to work out how to deny it to the public.
Altthough why someone who wont have a bad word said against the bloke making life or death decisions for the country yet can't recognise a party when he is at it, has the nerve to ask the question - well.
#starmerout
You should stand for leader of the opposition, Wilts. You'd have the job for years to come, based on your response is so much better than your leader Starmer's.
......Unless Starmer was in enough shite without stating stuff that he couldn't back up?
My leader? I thought I was a socialist leftie (like Tyke) - now I am a right leaning centerist without even noticing!
Who knew.
Same party but standing in a different corner.................. Oops, pardon the irony.
-
There’s a Loyal Labrador posting in this thread!
-
Just trying to retriever bit of balance.
-
Starmer should have been tried as a traitor six years ago and the key thrown away. I wouldn't trust him to go to the shop.
-
Those in glass houses and all that.
crystal palace & a glass bead NR
So stabber is just slightly hypocritical then?
-
Aidanstu why is the level of hypocrisy relevant
You can’t complain about someone keying a car and then try to justify pulling up a couple of bushes in a garden because it’s not as serious
-
The state of this thread.
The obsessive desire that some folk have for all politicians to be equally bad, so they don't have to make moral judgements.
-
It needs looking into for sure, where as boris should just resign, it is not as bad as what boris has done but if he has broke any rules then as the Labour leader he should go as well
-
All politicians are equal. Except some are more equal than others.
-
The state of this thread.
The obsessive desire that some folk have for all politicians to be equally bad, so they don't have to make moral judgements.
With the greatest respect, BST, that's a bit of a copout. We're all stuck with 2 dreadful choices in the next GE, unless things change.
One is an out and out liar; the other is a cheat who doesn't respect democracy. Forgive us if some of us would rather stay at home than turn out to vote for either of those 2 w*nkers.
-
SS.
1) In what way is Starmer a cheat?
2) In what way is calling for a vote, a failure to respect democracy?
This point two is just utterly and completely ridiculous, and the idle parroting of it is debasing the language.
-
Interesting that because a poster disagrees with the whole thread, that he denounces it.
-
SS.
1) In what way is Starmer a cheat?
2) In what way is calling for a vote, a failure to respect democracy?
This point two is just utterly and completely ridiculous, and the idle parroting of it is debasing the language.
1) Go and ask the people of the North and North East.
2) Go and ask the people of the North and North East.
If you think that trying to cheat people out of the result of the biggest referendum this country's ever had, and in doing so bringing about an absolute mullering in the GE, to an absolute f*cking clown and liar, wasn't seen as an affront to democracy, then you're seriously deluded.
Don't bother coming back with the usual mini-polls and hypotheses, and "if this" and "if that" to try and justify that Labour was right in pushing for Ref 2, because it's just all b*ll*cks.
-
SS.
Take a big deep breath and think about what you are saying. And I'll repeat a set of facts that are no less facts for being stuff you don't want to hear.
The results of the 2016 referendum left a small number of right wing politicians to decide what "Leave" meant. Not one single person in the country knee what "Leave" meant in 2016. Prominent Leave campaigners who told you what "Leave" could mean in 2016 were, within months of the vote, telling you that version of "Leave" was a betrayal of the Will of the People.
Those are all facts.
With that in mind, the thought that the 2016 vote was a sacrosanct model of democracy, and it was treasonous for anyone to suggest that a vote to ask the public if they truly wanted the Leave that the Tory party decided was good for them is just ridiculous.
But that's what Brexit has done to us. It's has entrenched opinions among people who want something to cling to.
-
And anyway. You have your f**king Brexit now.
You won.
You got it.
Why do you insist on continuing to fight that war?
Move on. Deal with the current and future issues.
-
Certainly not on the basis of the false equivalence made in the opening post.
There is no reasonable comparison between that and the chaos of Downing St party time.
That said, Starmer must be held to account for serious errors, such as the financial collapse of the Labour Party under his management;
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-labour-asl-staff-pay-cut-cash-crunch/
All is not going well under Keith and his staff.
-
I’m sorry Scawsby I have to disagree with you
The vote was a very close NO so why should there be a need for a second vote
If the next general election was win by one seat would it be right to ask for a second election Monitor wouldn’t
You can’t just change things because you lose that’s a nonsense and I democratic
One of the major issues with the Nrexit problems is the initial kick back from MPs who didn’t like the result
In my view all the MPs should have sought guidance from their constituents and not voted against what the people who elected them wanted
That’s not only for Brexit it is also for The non Brexit voters as well
Let’s hope we don’t lose any games 1 nil to a 96th minute goal. You’ll be demanding a replay
-
I’m sorry Scawsby I have to disagree with you
The vote was a very close NO so why should there be a need for a second vote
If the next general election was win by one seat would it be right to ask for a second election Monitor wouldn’t
You can’t just change things because you lose that’s a nonsense and I democratic
One of the major issues with the Nrexit problems is the initial kick back from MPs who didn’t like the result
In my view all the MPs should have sought guidance from their constituents and not voted against what the people who elected them wanted
That’s not only for Brexit it is also for The non Brexit voters as well
Let’s hope we don’t lose any games 1 nil to a 96th minute goal. You’ll be demanding a replay
Phil, you're arguing with the wrong person here; it's BST you should be arguing with.
My views are the same as yours. Go back and read the posts again.
-
To answer the original q, yes, let him resign.
Then give the reigns to someone who will lead the Labour Party onwards and upwards. A natural born leader. Someone to rekindle everything that is good about left wing politics.
I give you……Diane Abbott.
-
Phil.
We've been round this one SO many times. I find it frankly scary how little people remember about what happened after the referendum, but how trenchant their opinions are.
Labour said IMMEDIATELY after the ref that they would support A form of Brexit. One that kept our economy closely aligned to the EU.
May kicked that one out in January 2017 in her Lancaster House speech in which she unilaterally, without any reference to the British people, decided that Brexit meant Hard Brexit.
There was never a vote on that decision. It immediately contradicted every Brexit supporter who in 2016 said we could be like Switzerland or Norway. Everyone who said there was no intention of Brexit mean us leaving the Single Market.
That was a decision taken in a private office.
Labour could not possibly support that. They had not been consulted. And every sane Economist said that decision would greatly hurt future living standards.
Then the very people who had campaigned FOR Brexit, voted against it in Parliament. Johnson and his group. THEY voted against May's Brexit! But he's never critised for that.
Because in certain closed minds, there's only the followers of Starmer who tried to block Brexit.
It's actually frightening how people have been deliberately deceived on this, and encouraged to have a visceral hatred of one group.
-
Stanmer is a true leader, he needs to get Mandelson to put the ‘Spin’ on Rayner she can take one for the party… or two or three !
-
In my opinion Rayner is the only one including Starmer who seriously puts the shytes up Johnson or whoever stands in for him in Parliament .
They've absolutely no idea how to combat a feisty and authentic working class lass who pulled herself up from a pregnancy at 16 years of age .
Where Starmer pulls back when he's got Johnson on the ropes Rayner would cut his balls off and show them to the rest of the House as a prize .
That's the problem with the Labour centre , soft as shyte .
Pyssing in the same pot as those they are meant to oppose isn't without foundation at times .
-
#OperationBigDogsb*llocks
Of course he should resign. Having a drink with your dinner whilst you are planning a by-election & local election campaign, is exactly the same as organising drinks in the garden to enjoy the sunshine, wheeling a suitcase full of booze down the street & booking a dj during a period of national mourning - and rehearsing a press conference to work out how to deny it to the public.
Altthough why someone who wont have a bad word said against the bloke making life or death decisions for the country yet can't recognise a party when he is at it, has the nerve to ask the question - well.
#starmerout
You should stand for leader of the opposition, Wilts. You'd have the job for years to come, based on your response is so much better than your leader Starmer's.
......Unless Starmer was in enough shite without stating stuff that he couldn't back up?
My leader? I thought I was a socialist leftie (like Tyke) - now I am a right leaning centerist without even noticing!
Who knew.
Same party but standing in a different corner.................. Oops, pardon the irony.
Nah. I am just providing balance against the biased government supporters who refuse to criticise their leader.
-
#OperationBigDogsb*llocks
Of course he should resign. Having a drink with your dinner whilst you are planning a by-election & local election campaign, is exactly the same as organising drinks in the garden to enjoy the sunshine, wheeling a suitcase full of booze down the street & booking a dj during a period of national mourning - and rehearsing a press conference to work out how to deny it to the public.
Altthough why someone who wont have a bad word said against the bloke making life or death decisions for the country yet can't recognise a party when he is at it, has the nerve to ask the question - well.
#starmerout
You should stand for leader of the opposition, Wilts. You'd have the job for years to come, based on your response is so much better than your leader Starmer's.
......Unless Starmer was in enough shite without stating stuff that he couldn't back up?
My leader? I thought I was a socialist leftie (like Tyke) - now I am a right leaning centerist without even noticing!
Who knew.
Same party but standing in a different corner.................. Oops, pardon the irony.
Nah. I am just providing balance against the biased government supporters who refuse to criticise their leader.
Known as loyal Labradors :)
-
Starmer says johnson lied. on national tv and it's been said in many national newspapers, this is where johnson can step up and sue them all, show the world he's not a lying t**t, on top of everything else I guess.
-
#OperationBigDogsb*llocks
Of course he should resign. Having a drink with your dinner whilst you are planning a by-election & local election campaign, is exactly the same as organising drinks in the garden to enjoy the sunshine, wheeling a suitcase full of booze down the street & booking a dj during a period of national mourning - and rehearsing a press conference to work out how to deny it to the public.
Altthough why someone who wont have a bad word said against the bloke making life or death decisions for the country yet can't recognise a party when he is at it, has the nerve to ask the question - well.
#starmerout
You should stand for leader of the opposition, Wilts. You'd have the job for years to come, based on your response is so much better than your leader Starmer's.
......Unless Starmer was in enough shite without stating stuff that he couldn't back up?
My leader? I thought I was a socialist leftie (like Tyke) - now I am a right leaning centerist without even noticing!
Who knew.
Same party but standing in a different corner.................. Oops, pardon the irony.
Nah. I am just providing balance against the biased government supporters who refuse to criticise their leader.
Known as loyal Labradors :)
Tell me about it. I'd go to a psychiatrist if I was allowed on the couch.
-
Starmer says johnson lied. on national tv and it's been said in many national newspapers, this is where johnson can step up and sue them all, show the world he's not a lying t**t, on top of everything else I guess.
Perhaps the Labour membership should do the same with Keith and his leadership pledges that he's broken .
-
Starmer says johnson lied. on national tv and it's been said in many national newspapers, this is where johnson can step up and sue them all, show the world he's not a lying t**t, on top of everything else I guess.
Perhaps the Labour membership should do the same with Keith and his leadership pledges that he's broken .
Maybe I was wrong the other day and your call is flower arranging tyke
-
Starmer says johnson lied. on national tv and it's been said in many national newspapers, this is where johnson can step up and sue them all, show the world he's not a lying t**t, on top of everything else I guess.
Perhaps the Labour membership should do the same with Keith and his leadership pledges that he's broken .
Maybe I was wrong the other day and your call is flower arranging tyke
Maybe your so tribal you can't even see your own hypocrisy .
-
Any time you want to post some proof that belongs with the thread title go-ahead and beat yourself up tyke, but becoming a bb clone doesn't help your reputation. bb chucks a pile of horse shit onto the forum, it doesn't matter how much you poke about in it the are no gold nuggets in there just the chance to smell the same. The chances are bb got his 'facts' from the express anyway rather than watching the interview on the bbc, where did you see it tyke?
-
Any time you want to post some proof that belongs with the thread title go-ahead and beat yourself up tyke, but becoming a bb clone doesn't help your reputation. bb chucks a pile of horse shit onto the forum, it doesn't matter how much you poke about in it the are no gold nuggets in there just the chance to smell the same. The chances are bb got his 'facts' from the express anyway rather than watching the interview on the bbc, where did you see it tyke?
On my tv this morning inside my florists shop .
Business is brisk with the church goers on a Sunday morning .
:byebye: :byebye: :byebye:
-
No proof then tyke?
-
No proof then tyke?
Understandably this may come as a bit of a shock to you but none the less I get emails from groups you'd probably not like and on those emails are links to tv coverage , technology is remarkable .
Groups that would cut off Keith's head and spit down his headless neck .
Now I'm a little more moderate than that but none the less I have an affiliation with those groups you wouldn't like .
Every action leads to a reaction Sydney and if you want to wage war with people who were inside the Labour movement then expect a reaction .
Whilst they'd gladly bury Johnson alive there's also a lime pit dug for his opposite number .
Just letting you know the enemies he's made for himself and nothing more than that .
-
No proof then tyke?
Understandably this may come as a bit of a shock to you but none the less I get emails from groups you'd probably not like and on those emails are links to tv coverage , technology is remarkable .
Groups that would cut off Keith's head and spit down his headless neck .
Now I'm a little more moderate than that but none the less I have an affiliation with those groups you wouldn't like .
Every action leads to a reaction Sydney and if you want to wage war with people who were inside the Labour movement then expect a reaction .
Whilst they'd gladly bury Johnson alive there's also a lime pit dug for his opposite number .
Just letting you know the enemies he's made for himself and nothing more than that .
so no proof then tyke?
-
No proof then tyke?
Understandably this may come as a bit of a shock to you but none the less I get emails from groups you'd probably not like and on those emails are links to tv coverage , technology is remarkable .
Groups that would cut off Keith's head and spit down his headless neck .
Now I'm a little more moderate than that but none the less I have an affiliation with those groups you wouldn't like .
Every action leads to a reaction Sydney and if you want to wage war with people who were inside the Labour movement then expect a reaction .
Whilst they'd gladly bury Johnson alive there's also a lime pit dug for his opposite number .
Just letting you know the enemies he's made for himself and nothing more than that .
so no proof then tyke?
I don't have to prove one fecking thing matey to the likes of you let me make that perfectly clear .
-
No proof then tyke?
Understandably this may come as a bit of a shock to you but none the less I get emails from groups you'd probably not like and on those emails are links to tv coverage , technology is remarkable .
Groups that would cut off Keith's head and spit down his headless neck .
Now I'm a little more moderate than that but none the less I have an affiliation with those groups you wouldn't like .
Every action leads to a reaction Sydney and if you want to wage war with people who were inside the Labour movement then expect a reaction .
Whilst they'd gladly bury Johnson alive there's also a lime pit dug for his opposite number .
Just letting you know the enemies he's made for himself and nothing more than that .
so no proof then tyke?
I don't have to prove one fecking thing matey to the likes of you let me make that perfectly clear .
I love it when people start getting abusive as I know I've shown them to be wrong, do you think all your mates in the above post would sit on anything they had on starmer if they were half as one eyed as you are tyke?
-
No proof then tyke?
Understandably this may come as a bit of a shock to you but none the less I get emails from groups you'd probably not like and on those emails are links to tv coverage , technology is remarkable .
Groups that would cut off Keith's head and spit down his headless neck .
Now I'm a little more moderate than that but none the less I have an affiliation with those groups you wouldn't like .
Every action leads to a reaction Sydney and if you want to wage war with people who were inside the Labour movement then expect a reaction .
Whilst they'd gladly bury Johnson alive there's also a lime pit dug for his opposite number .
Just letting you know the enemies he's made for himself and nothing more than that .
so no proof then tyke?
I don't have to prove one fecking thing matey to the likes of you let me make that perfectly clear .
I love it when people start getting abusive as I know I've shown them to be wrong, do you think all your mates in the above post would sit on anything they had on starmer if they were half as one eyed as you are tyke?
Well firstly they aren't my mates and secondly if I was to abuse you which I haven't so stop with the centre of the Labour Party soft shyte you would have reason to go crying to the mods .
Simply plain South Yorkshire talk maybe all that sun has pyssed about with your DNA .
The feeling I get is that if Starmer offers up one feck up these people who were once part of the Labour movement will gladly bury him which isn't to be confused with my own view .
Let me make that clear .
He's the next best thing than the Tories , nothing more than that which isn't actually the greatest endorsement given almost anybody could currently be better than Johnson in my opinion .
Even if he's PM what I'm hearing isn't good , these people will go to the end of the earth to bury him including working with the Tory Press .
I only say what I'm hearing nothing more than that so don't shoot the messenger .
-
No proof then tyke?
Understandably this may come as a bit of a shock to you but none the less I get emails from groups you'd probably not like and on those emails are links to tv coverage , technology is remarkable .
Groups that would cut off Keith's head and spit down his headless neck .
Now I'm a little more moderate than that but none the less I have an affiliation with those groups you wouldn't like .
Every action leads to a reaction Sydney and if you want to wage war with people who were inside the Labour movement then expect a reaction .
Whilst they'd gladly bury Johnson alive there's also a lime pit dug for his opposite number .
Just letting you know the enemies he's made for himself and nothing more than that .
so no proof then tyke?
I don't have to prove one fecking thing matey to the likes of you let me make that perfectly clear .
I love it when people start getting abusive as I know I've shown them to be wrong, do you think all your mates in the above post would sit on anything they had on starmer if they were half as one eyed as you are tyke?
Well firstly they aren't my mates and secondly if I was to abuse you which I haven't so stop with the centre of the Labour Party soft shyte you would have reason to go crying to the mods .
Simply plain South Yorkshire talk maybe all that sun has pyssed about with your DNA .
The feeling I get is that if Starmer offers up one feck up these people who were once part of the Labour movement will gladly bury him which isn't to be confused with my own view .
Let me make that clear .
He's the next best thing than the Tories , nothing more than that which isn't actually the greatest endorsement given almost anybody could currently be better than Johnson in my opinion .
Even if he's PM what I'm hearing isn't good , these people will go to the end of the earth to bury him including working with the Tory Press .
I only say what I'm hearing nothing more than that so don't shoot the messenger .
I can see you now in a darkened room plotting starmer's demise across the internet, except without any proof it's going to be difficult.
Come tyke post what you have, just make sure you can afford to be wrong.
-
Tyke you may like Raynor but can anyone seriously think she has any credibility after claiming that as a child she was given dog food to eat because her mum wasn’t very educated
-
Tyke you may like Raynor but can anyone seriously think she has any credibility after claiming that as a child she was given dog food to eat because her mum wasn’t very educated
The few of the Establishment have fecked up and smashed the health and aspirations of the many under the cloth of class and good manners and it's a 300 year old template .
Other than May we've had a good look at the Eton and Oxford brigade over the last 10 years once again .
It's worked out really well hasn't it ?
Where you see that as a weakness I see it as strength which is where we differ .
Adversity provides strength and forms characters .
80% of the current Labour Party couldn't spell hardship which is why they are clueless in how to get folk such as me to vote for em .
The irony is she's the perfect Thatcherite model , pulled herself up by her own means and still she gets it in the ass .
What the feck do people want I ask myself ?
Play the game like that half wit currently leading the Labour Party ?
-
Yep, the half wit had the job for less than a year ...............
https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/
-
And this doesn't take into account the latest rubbish from #10 over the last few days.
''LONDON, Jan 15 (Reuters) - Britain's opposition Labour Party has opened up its biggest lead over Prime Minister Boris Johnson's governing Conservatives since 2013 after an outcry over revelations of social gatherings at Downing Street during COVID-19 lockdowns, an opinion poll showed.
The poll by Opinium gave Labour 41% of the vote share compared with 31% for the Conservatives''
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-labour-has-biggest-lead-over-johnsons-party-since-2013-poll-2022-01-15/
-
No proof then tyke?
Understandably this may come as a bit of a shock to you but none the less I get emails from groups you'd probably not like and on those emails are links to tv coverage , technology is remarkable .
Groups that would cut off Keith's head and spit down his headless neck .
Now I'm a little more moderate than that but none the less I have an affiliation with those groups you wouldn't like .
Every action leads to a reaction Sydney and if you want to wage war with people who were inside the Labour movement then expect a reaction .
Whilst they'd gladly bury Johnson alive there's also a lime pit dug for his opposite number .
Just letting you know the enemies he's made for himself and nothing more than that .
so no proof then tyke?
I don't have to prove one fecking thing matey to the likes of you let me make that perfectly clear .
I love it when people start getting abusive as I know I've shown them to be wrong, do you think all your mates in the above post would sit on anything they had on starmer if they were half as one eyed as you are tyke?
Well firstly they aren't my mates and secondly if I was to abuse you which I haven't so stop with the centre of the Labour Party soft shyte you would have reason to go crying to the mods .
Simply plain South Yorkshire talk maybe all that sun has pyssed about with your DNA .
The feeling I get is that if Starmer offers up one feck up these people who were once part of the Labour movement will gladly bury him which isn't to be confused with my own view .
Let me make that clear .
He's the next best thing than the Tories , nothing more than that which isn't actually the greatest endorsement given almost anybody could currently be better than Johnson in my opinion .
Even if he's PM what I'm hearing isn't good , these people will go to the end of the earth to bury him including working with the Tory Press .
I only say what I'm hearing nothing more than that so don't shoot the messenger .
I can see you now in a darkened room plotting starmer's demise across the internet, except without any proof it's going to be difficult.
Come tyke post what you have, just make sure you can afford to be wrong.
Not my darkened room matey but people with considerable clout who have the means to decide and determine the Labour Party budget of which Keith is some what struggling with right now .
A bigger problem than you are in my opinion willing to accept .
There's more ways to skin a cat Sydney .
Starmer has given them the motivation and that's all they need .
He isn't Blair in the way he put the left in their box he's not that clever .
He's waged war , he got the left's vote and he's pyssed all over it .
The left take no prisoners when they are fecked over and it's surprising you don't know that , well maybe not .
Keith may think he's making progress which isn't that difficult given Johnson has more or less handed it to him on a plate .
Watch your back Keith would be my advice .
You've more enemies within the Labour Movement than you'll ever have with the opposition .
That tells its own story .
-
Tyke.
An MP was murdered only a few weeks ago. You might reflect on your choice of language.
-
No proof then tyke?
Understandably this may come as a bit of a shock to you but none the less I get emails from groups you'd probably not like and on those emails are links to tv coverage , technology is remarkable .
Groups that would cut off Keith's head and spit down his headless neck .
Now I'm a little more moderate than that but none the less I have an affiliation with those groups you wouldn't like .
Every action leads to a reaction Sydney and if you want to wage war with people who were inside the Labour movement then expect a reaction .
Whilst they'd gladly bury Johnson alive there's also a lime pit dug for his opposite number .
Just letting you know the enemies he's made for himself and nothing more than that .
so no proof then tyke?
I don't have to prove one fecking thing matey to the likes of you let me make that perfectly clear .
I love it when people start getting abusive as I know I've shown them to be wrong, do you think all your mates in the above post would sit on anything they had on starmer if they were half as one eyed as you are tyke?
Well firstly they aren't my mates and secondly if I was to abuse you which I haven't so stop with the centre of the Labour Party soft shyte you would have reason to go crying to the mods .
Simply plain South Yorkshire talk maybe all that sun has pyssed about with your DNA .
The feeling I get is that if Starmer offers up one feck up these people who were once part of the Labour movement will gladly bury him which isn't to be confused with my own view .
Let me make that clear .
He's the next best thing than the Tories , nothing more than that which isn't actually the greatest endorsement given almost anybody could currently be better than Johnson in my opinion .
Even if he's PM what I'm hearing isn't good , these people will go to the end of the earth to bury him including working with the Tory Press .
I only say what I'm hearing nothing more than that so don't shoot the messenger .
I can see you now in a darkened room plotting starmer's demise across the internet, except without any proof it's going to be difficult.
Come tyke post what you have, just make sure you can afford to be wrong.
Not my darkened room matey but people with considerable clout who have the means to decide and determine the Labour Party budget of which Keith is some what struggling with right now .
A bigger problem than you are in my opinion willing to accept .
There's more ways to skin a cat Sydney .
Starmer has given them the motivation and that's all they need .
He isn't Blair in the way he put the left in their box he's not that clever .
He's waged war , he got the left's vote and he's pyssed all over it .
The left take no prisoners when they are fecked over and it's surprising you don't know that , well maybe not .
Keith may think he's making progress which isn't that difficult given Johnson has more or less handed it to him on a plate .
Watch your back Keith would be my advice .
You've more enemies within the Labour Movement than you'll ever have with the opposition .
That tells its own story .
Is that all you have tyke? what a strange fellow you are, never been involved in politics by your own word, not done any union 'stuff' for over 2 decades, we are in the midst of arguably the worst period of government ever and a continuation of a government that gave the UK Austerity with over 50,000 unnecessary deaths, 10s of thousands of unnecessary deaths with the worst response to the pandemic in Europe and you would tear down and dance on the grave of the only person that appears to be able to stand up to them. And worse you can't offer an alternative except your life experiences. Starmer would not be my first choice by a long shot if there was any other path to government, but there isn't and you can't show otherwise.
''Austerity in England linked to more than 50,000 extra deaths in five years
This article is more than 3 months old
Researchers looked at 2010-2015 when Cameron cuts to NHS and social care were starting to bite'''
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/14/austerity-in-england-linked-to-more-than-50000-extra-deaths-in-five-years
There's a thread about midget gems which may be more suited to the active over 60s tyke.
added
''Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good''
-
Made me grin...
(http://)
-
Tyke is right, old Raynor is looking slap bang between the shoulder blades.
-
Made me grin...
(http://)
According to the polls, they've found most of those votes and millions of others.
-
BST wrote... you don't tell anything from individual polls.
And then... I’m not sure that opinion polls are an accurate barometer of opinion anymore.
So last year!
-
Back to the topic, and ignoring the reason given in the opening post...yes, because of this today;
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1483768328107827201
Bury South was lost by 400 odd votes, and this bloke stood against Labour to win it.
Now Starmer expects the local Labour members to campaign for him at the next GE.
This seat would have returned to Labour at the next GE if Lucy Burke (the Bury South candidate) stood again. Massive own goal from Keith to welcome a climate change denier with a right wing voting record, against the wishes of the local party.
This bloke needs to be as good as his word;
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/christian-wakeford-backed-bill-mandating-22802850
Don't hold your breathe!
-
BST wrote... you don't tell anything from individual polls.
And then... I’m not sure that opinion polls are an accurate barometer of opinion anymore.
So last year!
Very good BB.
You've got me bang to rights.
Except. Hold on.
1) You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "individual" in your first point.
2) In your second point, you don't seem to understand the concept of who writes things. This might help
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=281596.msg1071222#msg1071222
Still. You got a like from Belton, who has previous on the theme of taking me to task for things that other people have said.
And I see you got a like from Hound who always likes to have his conviction that I'm a hypocrite reinforced. Despite the evidence never being there.
So that's nice.
-
Trying to avoid political bias here.
Johnson should definitely resign for the culture he oversaw in Downing Street during lockdown regardless of whether he attended certain events and for how long. I'm shocked that at least 54 Tory MPs haven't sent in letters to try and force him out. Shame on them!
The evidence so far means Starmer's position should be under review. Of course how he has shown to have behaved is not anywhere near as bad as Johnson - but that doesn't make his behaviour acceptable.
In my many years attending all-day meetings, training days and conferences often into the evening where food and drink have been provided never, ever has alcohol been available. To do so would be highly inappropriate at the best of times never mind during a lockdown.
The fact is Keir Starmer was enjoying alcoholic drinks indoors with people from other households when the rest of us were banned from going to the pub, visiting friends/relatives regardless of whether they were severely ill or even dying, prevented from attending funerals etc etc. It is very difficult to justify his behaviour - like I say his position should be under review.
-
It is not bias BR when comparing egregious and reckless law breaking to what? we know in detail the circumstances for the law breaking at #10, is there any detail about Starmer?
-
Syd, the Coulston four have proved the law is an ass. Don't put your faith in it.
-
Syd, the Coulston four have proved the law is an ass. Don't put your faith in it.
I thought you said you don't drink selby?
-
It is not bias BR when comparing egregious and reckless law breaking to what? we know in detail the circumstances for the law breaking at #10, is there any detail about Starmer?
Hi Sydney. I agree with you re "egregious and reckless law breaking" at No. 10 under Johnson's watch hence why he must go. Re bias I just meant I was trying to avoid my own bias clouding my thoughts - not accusing anyone else of bias.
Like I inferred comparing Starmer's behaviour to Johnson's in order to justify Starmer's behaviour is ridiculous.
To properly assess whether Starmer's behaviour is acceptable we need to look at the prevailing conditions the rest of us were expected to adhere to at the time - which certainly didn't include sitting indoors enjoying alcoholic drinks with people from other households.
-
You are correct Branton, in your last post and your previous one on this subject.
Correct on ALL points.
I think that certain posters will not accept though that Starmer has done anything wrong.
-
Sydney. There you go again.
Asking questions.
Answer the half a dozen I have asked you recently and I will have a go at answering yours.
Incidentally, where is your proof that Keith wasn’t partying.
-
You don’t answer questions SR yet you expect everyone to jump on your command.
Perhaps you could post evidence that he wasn’t doing anything wrong.
Anyway, as usual you can have the last word.
-
Haha, I bet you have them on speed dial.
:welcome:
(In response to some kind of help line for poms in Australia).
-
Sydney, Are you se embarrassed by what you wrote in those last half a dozen posts that you have deleted them.
Trying to hide something, like Keith maybe.
-
hound you are desperate to be part of the conversation and yet at the same time want to wreck it.
I consider it a waste of my time trying, therefore I no longer will.
-
It is not bias BR when comparing egregious and reckless law breaking to what? we know in detail the circumstances for the law breaking at #10, is there any detail about Starmer?
Hi Sydney. I agree with you re "egregious and reckless law breaking" at No. 10 under Johnson's watch hence why he must go. Re bias I just meant I was trying to avoid my own bias clouding my thoughts - not accusing anyone else of bias.
Like I inferred comparing Starmer's behaviour to Johnson's in order to justify Starmer's behaviour is ridiculous.
To properly assess whether Starmer's behaviour is acceptable we need to look at the prevailing conditions the rest of us were expected to adhere to at the time - which certainly didn't include sitting indoors enjoying alcoholic drinks with people from other households.
Which is why I was asking for proof, when I was attacked by a mosquito, thanks BR
-
hound you are desperate to be part of the conversation and yet at the same time want to wreck it.
I consider it a waste of my time trying, therefore I no longer will.
For certain I am not desperate to converse with you but you have a way of posting which is intended to antagonise and draw people in.
You ask so many questions and demand answers but regularly refuse to answer those asked by other posters.
This post of yours is a classic example:
[quote author=SydneyRover
Which is why I was asking for proof, when I was attacked by a mosquito, thanks BR
The man in the south stand was very accurate in his description of you.
-
Didn'tt Raab say the other day in an interview that a drink with a working lunch was OK?
-
Didn'tt Raab say the other day in an interview that a drink with a working lunch was OK?
He probably did because it is. It was fine for a few drinks in the garden whilst working at no 10 and it was fine for Keir Starmer in my view.
Organised drinks not right and shouldn't be accepted.
I do think the hypocrisy of some knows no bounds. You can't criticise the drinks whilst working for one but not the other yet many seem to.
-
Of course a drink with a working meal was OK. The whole concept was about limiting UNNECESSARY contacts, not wearing sackcloth and ashes.
If you were having a meeting that simply wasn't possible to hold virtually, and that meeting ran on into the evening, there is nothing at all wrong with having a takeaway and a small drink.
It is qualitatively different to put out an invite to 100 people to congregate together specifically to have a drink and socialise. It's bizarre that anyone wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two.
But in any case, that misses the core question.
If Johnson's only crime was to have attended an ill-judged party, he'd probably survive. The REAL resigning issue is that it is plain as day now that he has repeatedly lied to the Commons about this issue. No PM can ever survive that.
-
But if the issue wasn't an issue why was it raised in the commons?
-
It was an issue. It raises questions about his judgement and morals. But it would have blown over if he hadn't lied about it. It wouldn't have become a resigning issue.
-
And what about Starmer's questionable judgement and morals, when he decided and still insists that it was fine for him to drink beer with workmates at at a time when it was not allowed?
-
Where in the rules did it say you weren't allowed to have something to eat and drink while you were meeting people for work?
-
Like I've already explained to your buddy Wilts, the picture was taken when indoor mixing between different households was not allowed except for work. Now, if you class eating takeaway and drinking beer as 'work', then I suggest, for the sake of unbiasedness, your liberal attitude towards that should extend to all parties.
-
And what about Starmer's questionable judgement and morals, when he decided and still insists that it was fine for him to drink beer with workmates at at a time when it was not allowed?
Even Raab says it's OK
-
But Raab's not being hypocritical like Starmer is.
-
What's he saying that's hypocritical?
-
Starmer is saying that it's wrong to gather in the workplace and drink alcohol with your workmates unless you're the Labour leader.
-
Aaah workplace and drinking in workplace, nothing to do with actually working when in said workplace, I see it now BB
-
But Raab's not being hypocritical like Starmer is.
Is this the same Raab that was getting off with his colleague during the social distancing measures?
-
But Raab's not being hypocritical like Starmer is.
Is this the same Raab that was getting off with his colleague during the social distancing measures?
Mmmm, who was drinking what though ;)
-
Of course a drink with a working meal was OK. The whole concept was about limiting UNNECESSARY contacts, not wearing sackcloth and ashes.
If you were having a meeting that simply wasn't possible to hold virtually, and that meeting ran on into the evening, there is nothing at all wrong with having a takeaway and a small drink.
It is qualitatively different to put out an invite to 100 people to congregate together specifically to have a drink and socialise. It's bizarre that anyone wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two.
But in any case, that misses the core question.
If Johnson's only crime was to have attended an ill-judged party, he'd probably survive. The REAL resigning issue is that it is plain as day now that he has repeatedly lied to the Commons about this issue. No PM can ever survive that.
I'm glad I'm not the accused in your court Billy....
What's the problem with waiting...... it's not like Starmer and co are waiting to take over...
-
Of course a drink with a working meal was OK. The whole concept was about limiting UNNECESSARY contacts, not wearing sackcloth and ashes.
If you were having a meeting that simply wasn't possible to hold virtually, and that meeting ran on into the evening, there is nothing at all wrong with having a takeaway and a small drink.
It is qualitatively different to put out an invite to 100 people to congregate together specifically to have a drink and socialise. It's bizarre that anyone wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two.
But in any case, that misses the core question.
If Johnson's only crime was to have attended an ill-judged party, he'd probably survive. The REAL resigning issue is that it is plain as day now that he has repeatedly lied to the Commons about this issue. No PM can ever survive that.
I'm glad I'm not the accused in your court Billy....
What's the problem with waiting...... it's not like Starmer and co are waiting to take over...
He has already admitted he has done wrong; he has even apologised. Why would you advocate spending money on a public enquiry? Had he been honest from the start it wouldn’t have been required and he wouldn’t have taken his party and colleagues down with him.
He is a spineless, narcissistic, egotistical prat who should be allowed to play with his train set unsupervised never mind lead the country.
-
Of course a drink with a working meal was OK. The whole concept was about limiting UNNECESSARY contacts, not wearing sackcloth and ashes.
If you were having a meeting that simply wasn't possible to hold virtually, and that meeting ran on into the evening, there is nothing at all wrong with having a takeaway and a small drink.
It is qualitatively different to put out an invite to 100 people to congregate together specifically to have a drink and socialise. It's bizarre that anyone wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two.
But in any case, that misses the core question.
If Johnson's only crime was to have attended an ill-judged party, he'd probably survive. The REAL resigning issue is that it is plain as day now that he has repeatedly lied to the Commons about this issue. No PM can ever survive that.
I'm glad I'm not the accused in your court Billy....
What's the problem with waiting...... it's not like Starmer and co are waiting to take over...
He is a spineless, narcissistic, egotistical prat who should be allowed to play with his train set unsupervised never mind lead the country.
Not a fan....?
-
Of course a drink with a working meal was OK. The whole concept was about limiting UNNECESSARY contacts, not wearing sackcloth and ashes.
If you were having a meeting that simply wasn't possible to hold virtually, and that meeting ran on into the evening, there is nothing at all wrong with having a takeaway and a small drink.
It is qualitatively different to put out an invite to 100 people to congregate together specifically to have a drink and socialise. It's bizarre that anyone wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two.
But in any case, that misses the core question.
If Johnson's only crime was to have attended an ill-judged party, he'd probably survive. The REAL resigning issue is that it is plain as day now that he has repeatedly lied to the Commons about this issue. No PM can ever survive that.
I'm glad I'm not the accused in your court Billy....
What's the problem with waiting...... it's not like Starmer and co are waiting to take over...
He is a spineless, narcissistic, egotistical prat who should not be allowed to play with his train set unsupervised never mind lead the country.
Not a fan....?
You could say that.
-
Of course a drink with a working meal was OK. The whole concept was about limiting UNNECESSARY contacts, not wearing sackcloth and ashes.
If you were having a meeting that simply wasn't possible to hold virtually, and that meeting ran on into the evening, there is nothing at all wrong with having a takeaway and a small drink.
It is qualitatively different to put out an invite to 100 people to congregate together specifically to have a drink and socialise. It's bizarre that anyone wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two.
But in any case, that misses the core question.
If Johnson's only crime was to have attended an ill-judged party, he'd probably survive. The REAL resigning issue is that it is plain as day now that he has repeatedly lied to the Commons about this issue. No PM can ever survive that.
I'm glad I'm not the accused in your court Billy....
What's the problem with waiting...... it's not like Starmer and co are waiting to take over...
He is a spineless, narcissistic, egotistical prat who should be allowed to play with his train set unsupervised never mind lead the country.
Not a fan....?
You could say that.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
This is the 21st Century consumption of alcohol at a workplace esp whilst working is no longer acceptable behaviour - the days of liquid lunches and well-stocked boardroom drinks cabinets are long gone. Drinking alcohol with others is a sociable activity not a work-related one.
If a photo of my team was put before me of them sitting together in a room in the office drinking coffee - obviously no issue.
Same photo drinking alcohol - I'd be asking questions and considering disciplinary procedures.
Same photo drinking alcohol timed during lockdown - the chance of disciplinary procedures would be much higher. I'm sure this would be the case at most companies/organizations. Why should this be any different for Starmer?
The chance of disciplinary procedure/dismissal would grow even higher if: -
- the company I worked for was high profile/vulnerable to bad PR
- the workers were high profile and seen as representatives of the company
- the workers had publicly on behalf of the company advocated lockdown rules
All the above can be applied to Starmer and the Labour Party. Furthermore he's aspiring to be PM and here is evidence of him, if not flouting the rules, then certainly acting questionably in regards to them.
Previously in this thread I've said Starmer's behaviour bears no comparison to Johnson's (though that doesn't mean Starmer's behaviour is acceptable). But perhaps one comparison is apt: Johnson considers himself above his laws which are for us plebs: similarly defenders of Starmer's behaviour seem to believe he should be considered entirely innocent for behaviour which would see most of us disciplined if not sacked outright by our employers.
-
This is the 21st Century consumption of alcohol at a workplace esp whilst working is no longer acceptable behaviour - the days of liquid lunches and well-stocked boardroom drinks cabinets are long gone. Drinking alcohol with others is a sociable activity not a work-related one.
If a photo of my team was put before me of them sitting together in a room in the office drinking coffee - obviously no issue.
Same photo drinking alcohol - I'd be asking questions and considering disciplinary procedures.
Same photo drinking alcohol timed during lockdown - the chance of disciplinary procedures would be much higher. I'm sure this would be the case at most companies/organizations. Why should this be any different for Starmer?
The chance of disciplinary procedure/dismissal would grow even higher if: -
- the company I worked for was high profile/vulnerable to bad PR
- the workers were high profile and seen as representatives of the company
- the workers had publicly on behalf of the company advocated lockdown rules
All the above can be applied to Starmer and the Labour Party. Furthermore he's aspiring to be PM and here is evidence of him, if not flouting the rules, then certainly acting questionably in regards to them.
Previously in this thread I've said Starmer's behaviour bears no comparison to Johnson's (though that doesn't mean Starmer's behaviour is acceptable). But perhaps one comparison is apt: Johnson considers himself above his laws which are for us plebs: similarly defenders of Starmer's behaviour seem to believe he should be considered entirely innocent for behaviour which would see most of us disciplined if not sacked outright by our employers.
You seem to have a very puritanical take on this Branton.
Have you never had a meeting that's gone on all day, and ended up with all involved going to dinner, having a glass or two and continuing the discussions?
Some of the most fruitful ideas come from those moments in my experience.
-
God no Billy! I'd rather not be socialising with some of the people I work with esp after spending all day in a meeting with them!
But going to a reastaurant/pub after work is socialising regardless of what is discussed and such activities were barred during lockdown. If you're suggesting that Starmer and Co decided after the end of the working day to get food/drinks in given the restaurants/pubs were shut then he would be on very shaky ground.
How would your boss (or you if you're in charge of a team) react to photos taken during lockdown showing employees sat round at your workplace drinking alcohol?
-
This is the 21st Century consumption of alcohol at a workplace esp whilst working is no longer acceptable behaviour - the days of liquid lunches and well-stocked boardroom drinks cabinets are long gone. Drinking alcohol with others is a sociable activity not a work-related one.
If a photo of my team was put before me of them sitting together in a room in the office drinking coffee - obviously no issue.
Same photo drinking alcohol - I'd be asking questions and considering disciplinary procedures.
Same photo drinking alcohol timed during lockdown - the chance of disciplinary procedures would be much higher. I'm sure this would be the case at most companies/organizations. Why should this be any different for Starmer?
The chance of disciplinary procedure/dismissal would grow even higher if: -
- the company I worked for was high profile/vulnerable to bad PR
- the workers were high profile and seen as representatives of the company
- the workers had publicly on behalf of the company advocated lockdown rules
All the above can be applied to Starmer and the Labour Party. Furthermore he's aspiring to be PM and here is evidence of him, if not flouting the rules, then certainly acting questionably in regards to them.
Previously in this thread I've said Starmer's behaviour bears no comparison to Johnson's (though that doesn't mean Starmer's behaviour is acceptable). But perhaps one comparison is apt: Johnson considers himself above his laws which are for us plebs: similarly defenders of Starmer's behaviour seem to believe he should be considered entirely innocent for behaviour which would see most of us disciplined if not sacked outright by our employers.
You have a very good argument there Branton …. But it is going to become just that, Starmers defenders won’t let this go.
-
This is the 21st Century consumption of alcohol at a workplace esp whilst working is no longer acceptable behaviour - the days of liquid lunches and well-stocked boardroom drinks cabinets are long gone. Drinking alcohol with others is a sociable activity not a work-related one.
If a photo of my team was put before me of them sitting together in a room in the office drinking coffee - obviously no issue.
Same photo drinking alcohol - I'd be asking questions and considering disciplinary procedures.
Same photo drinking alcohol timed during lockdown - the chance of disciplinary procedures would be much higher. I'm sure this would be the case at most companies/organizations. Why should this be any different for Starmer?
The chance of disciplinary procedure/dismissal would grow even higher if: -
- the company I worked for was high profile/vulnerable to bad PR
- the workers were high profile and seen as representatives of the company
- the workers had publicly on behalf of the company advocated lockdown rules
All the above can be applied to Starmer and the Labour Party. Furthermore he's aspiring to be PM and here is evidence of him, if not flouting the rules, then certainly acting questionably in regards to them.
Previously in this thread I've said Starmer's behaviour bears no comparison to Johnson's (though that doesn't mean Starmer's behaviour is acceptable). But perhaps one comparison is apt: Johnson considers himself above his laws which are for us plebs: similarly defenders of Starmer's behaviour seem to believe he should be considered entirely innocent for behaviour which would see most of us disciplined if not sacked outright by our employers.
I disagree with that first paragraph. Sure, the days of pouring a whiskey for a 10am meeting have long gone (if they ever existed; I’m going on films I’ve seen!) but lots of companies now will have all hands meetings at the end of the day with a beer or a glass of wine - it’s a means to reward hard work and to make things slightly less formal than an old-fashioned, rigid, corporate environment. Likewise when my team has had to stay late we’ve broken things up for half an hour with a takeaway and a beer from the fridge - no-one’s operating heavy machinery so one beer isn’t going to hurt, and it’s a chance to switch off briefly before getting refocused and stuck back in.
It might be the industry I work in (I work for a tech company), but I used to work for a media company and there was a similar philosophy there.
-
God no Billy! I'd rather not be socialising with some of the people I work with esp after spending all day in a meeting with them!
But going to a reastaurant/pub after work is socialising regardless of what is discussed and such activities were barred during lockdown. If you're suggesting that Starmer and Co decided after the end of the working day to get food/drinks in given the restaurants/pubs were shut then he would be on very shaky ground.
How would your boss (or you if you're in charge of a team) react to photos taken during lockdown showing employees sat round at your workplace drinking alcohol?
My workplace has specific H&S issues which mean that alcohol is banned.
I have no problem whatsoever with anyone not under those restrictions finishing a 12 or 14 hour working day with a drink as the work winds down. It seems to me to be looking for a reason to be shocked to think otherwise.
I'll say again. The spirit AND the letter of the law on social distancing were about minimising unnecessary contacts. If half a dozen people have spent hours in the same room working, finishing off the day with half a pint wasn't going to make any difference to their infection situation. Drawing any similarity between this and a planned social event for 100 people who clearly did not spend all day in contact with each other is fatuous bothsidesism. Faux balance.
(I'm not accusing you of equating them by the way. But plenty are doing.)
-
Ok Billy clearly we disagree on this no point extending the discussion and going round in circles.
Just on your last point "Drawing any similarity between this and a planned social event for 100 people who clearly did not spend all day in contact with each other is fatuous bothsidesism. Faux balance." I have repeatedly said on this thread that Starmer's behaviour bears absolutely no relation to Johnson's so that's a bit unfair. (Sorry just seen your latest edit)
I've also said that Starmer's behaviour (and that applies to anyone else whose behaviour in lockdown is called into question) should be viewed in the light of what conditions/behaviours were expected of all of us not against how Johnson has behaved.
If Johnson's behaviour in this area is set as the barometer by which other politicians are judged now and into the future that would be a terrible consequence for the future of our democracy and the ethical standards set for our political leaders.
-
Starmer was in Labour Party office in Durham organising campaigning for the Hatlepool by-election. The hotel he was staying in was not serving food at that time - only take-aways were open.
Lot of myths going around here.
Can someone point me to where Bentley has critised Johnson for his eating and drinking at 'work related events' I appear to have missed it? Again.
-
If for instance, you're operating heavy machinery you should not be drinking at work.
But in my career, I have often worked many hours unpaid at work. If I give my own time to work late and freely, then I don't think anyone will complain if I have a drink during that time, so long as there are no safety issues.
Now I'm not sure but weren't Starmer and his colleagues working late after work when they ordered their takeaway? Time outside paid working hours and yet still working?
Now the same is true of Johnson and the Tories. The question is, were they still working?
Because it seems Johnson was rewarding them and allowing them to "let off steam". Quite a lot of steam since it sometimes involved suitcases full of booze and a DJ.
-
Branton
I fully agree that Johnson should not be the standard again which we compare all politicians. But equally, we shouldn't expect some sort of beatific puritanical behaviour. There's a big wide spectrum. Different folk will draw their lines at different places on it and I fully get that.
-
Just a final thought. The lockdown rules could certainly be considered puritanical (that's not saying I was against them btw) so during lockdown shouldn't we have expected "beatific puritanical behaviour" from our politicians to match given the seriousness of the situation and what the populace was being asked to endure? i.e. setting an example.
Imagine the photo of Starmer enjoying an alcoholic drink with others had been published at the time. Anyone care to disagree that a certain small percentage of the population with a particular mindset would have used that as a cue/argument to break lockdown rules? So increasing Covid spread. So increasing Covid deaths.
Still think his behaviour, given his position and profile, is acceptable?
-
Just a final thought. The lockdown rules could certainly be considered puritanical (that's not saying I was against them btw) so during lockdown shouldn't we have expected "beatific puritanical behaviour" from our politicians to match given the seriousness of the situation and what the populace was being asked to endure? i.e. setting an example.
Imagine the photo of Starmer enjoying an alcoholic drink with others had been published at the time. Anyone care to disagree that a certain small percentage of the population with a particular mindset would have used that as a cue/argument to break lockdown rules? So increasing Covid spread. So increasing Covid deaths.
Still think his behaviour, given his position and profile, is acceptable?
As a Labour supporter I do t think it was excusable; neither were Boris’ parties, him repeatedly walking around hospitals without masks.
People never picked up on the fact that when he allegedly caught covid he was at Downing Street and went to a local hospital but then was discharged and went to his second home at Chequers. that, at the time, was also against the rules.
Both have acted against the rules; Boris has absolutely taken the p#%s though.
-
Starmer was in Labour Party office in Durham organising campaigning for the Hatlepool by-election. The hotel he was staying in was not serving food at that time - only take-aways were open.
Lot of myths going around here.
Can someone point me to where Bentley has critised Johnson for his eating and drinking at 'work related events' I appear to have missed it? Again.
Don't call him Bentley, call him what he is, The Daily Mail.
-
Can someone point out to me which rule Starmer broke?
-
Starmer was in Labour Party office in Durham organising campaigning for the Hatlepool by-election. The hotel he was staying in was not serving food at that time - only take-aways were open.
Lot of myths going around here.
Can someone point me to where Bentley has critised Johnson for his eating and drinking at 'work related events' I appear to have missed it? Again.
Perhaps he should have done what the rest of the country did and booked suitable self catering hospitality for himself and his staff separately. My former business did that despite the high cost. Poor excuse.
-
Starmer was in Labour Party office in Durham organising campaigning for the Hatlepool by-election. The hotel he was staying in was not serving food at that time - only take-aways were open.
Lot of myths going around here.
Can someone point me to where Bentley has critised Johnson for his eating and drinking at 'work related events' I appear to have missed it? Again.
I'll criticise Johnson for eating and drinking at 'work-related events' when you criticise Starmer for eating and drinking at 'work related events.'
-
This is the point.
Was it a work related event?
-
A bigger question RD would be, has there any work done in #10 at all since johnson parked his arse in there?
-
What do you think SR.
Do you have an opinion to share on this.
-
I think there were a lot of after-work parties.
I suspect Johnson doesn't have a great work ethic.
I'm a bit perplexed after all that has emerged and as even his own MPs abandon him, why some Tory supporters still want to retain him.
-
I wondered where Corbyn had been......
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-new-political-party-keir-starmer-reinstated-labour-mp-1392176
-
Starmer was in Labour Party office in Durham organising campaigning for the Hatlepool by-election. The hotel he was staying in was not serving food at that time - only take-aways were open.
Lot of myths going around here.
Can someone point me to where Bentley has critised Johnson for his eating and drinking at 'work related events' I appear to have missed it? Again.
I'll criticise Johnson for eating and drinking at 'work-related events' when you criticise Starmer for eating and drinking at 'work related events.'
Just for clarity, what do you define as a "work related ev...
Actually, f**k it. What is the point?
-
There's no point talking to you. No matter what I say it'll be wrong in your one-sided, biased and bent view.
-
I wondered where Corbyn had been......
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-new-political-party-keir-starmer-reinstated-labour-mp-1392176
Kin ell MM, that would make it even more difficult for Starmer if it went ahead.
-
Bloody 'ell, not another party.
-
Back to Keith, and Sharon is shaping up tricky:
https://twitter.com/UniteSharon/status/1491482643711594506
The red hot poker of insolvency creeping up on Starmer if Shaz follows through.
This is before the probable payouts for unlawful discrimination against Labour members under his leadership.
-
I do wonder if any Labour supporters on here would even recognise that Starmer is failing them currently?
-
I do wonder if any Labour supporters on here would even recognise that Starmer is failing them currently?
Only about 8% ahead in the polls? Not good enough!
-
I do wonder if any Labour supporters on here would even recognise that Starmer is failing them currently?
Only about 8% ahead in the polls? Not good enough!
I'd imagine almost every opposition party would be 8 points in front given recent events .
The elephant in the room is that if he was actually any great shakes , had a vision etc etc .......
Then he'd be 20 points plus ahead wouldn't he ?
-
I do wonder if any Labour supporters on here would even recognise that Starmer is failing them currently?
Only about 8% ahead in the polls? Not good enough!
We all know that those polls count for nothing when it comes to GE time.
-
I do wonder if any Labour supporters on here would even recognise that Starmer is failing them currently?
The pulling of union money away from the Labour Party isn't just about cash per se .
This is about lack of representation amongst a significant number of people who percentage wise do the less glamourless jobs .
What Starmer doesn't see is that we've been here before with New Labour .
What Starmer doesn't see is that this country is way different to what it was during the Blair years .
The financial crash and austerity have changed the dynamics massively .
The New Labour play book will not work with today's trade unions whose money funds the party .
I'd suggest he finds some policies and pretty quickly that the trade unions can support .
Otherwise it won't be just funding he'll be losing its thousands of votes too .
-
My comment was not a dig. I’m asking genuine honest Labour supporters if they think starmer is fit to lead their party. He is for the bankers and the bosses. He is about as far detached from the trade unions as he possibly could be.,
-
My comment was not a dig. I’m asking genuine honest Labour supporters if they think starmer is fit to lead their party. He is for the bankers and the bosses. He is about as far detached from the trade unions as he possibly could be.,
I suppose what the Labour Party is supposed to be means different things to different people .
No matter how you see the Party there should always be policies that trade unions can support given it was they who founded it , funded and supported it .
The fact that funding is getting withdrawn certainty suggests that's currently not the case .
-
I do wonder if any Labour supporters on here would even recognise that Starmer is failing them currently?
The pulling of union money away from the Labour Party isn't just about cash per se .
This is about lack of representation amongst a significant number of people who percentage wise do the less glamourless jobs .
What Starmer doesn't see is that we've been here before with New Labour .
What Starmer doesn't see is that this country is way different to what it was during the Blair years .
The financial crash and austerity have changed the dynamics massively .
The New Labour play book will not work with today's trade unions whose money funds the party .
I'd suggest he finds some policies and pretty quickly that the trade unions can support .
Otherwise it won't be just funding he'll be losing its thousands of votes too .
All these people cannot speak directly to their MP? does this stop the union fighting for it's members? does it stop these people from being members of the labour party?
Looks, via the polls that labour are gaining thousands of votes, Of course people will make all sort of silly observations that these polls don't matter or the only poll that matters is the GE, but if these polls didn't matter johnson's job wouldn't be in such peril.
-
I do wonder if any Labour supporters on here would even recognise that Starmer is failing them currently?
The pulling of union money away from the Labour Party isn't just about cash per se .
This is about lack of representation amongst a significant number of people who percentage wise do the less glamourless jobs .
What Starmer doesn't see is that we've been here before with New Labour .
What Starmer doesn't see is that this country is way different to what it was during the Blair years .
The financial crash and austerity have changed the dynamics massively .
The New Labour play book will not work with today's trade unions whose money funds the party .
I'd suggest he finds some policies and pretty quickly that the trade unions can support .
Otherwise it won't be just funding he'll be losing its thousands of votes too .
All these people cannot speak directly to their MP? does this stop the union fighting for it's members? does it stop these people from being members of the labour party?
Looks, via the polls that labour are gaining thousands of votes, Of course people will make all sort of silly observations that these polls don't matter or the only poll that matters is the GE, but if these polls didn't matter johnson's job wouldn't be in such peril.
That's precisely what the union's who withdraw funding to the Labour Party are are set to do .
Use the money instead to fight and support more localised projects for the members .
Johnson's job prospects of lack of them isn't anything to do with what Starmer 's done .
That's the precisely the point , Johnson falling on his sword isn't even a third of the argument .
Falling on his sword and replaced by someone who actually wants to really improve the country for the better is the debate .
At this moment in time the evidence isn't there .
-
So get on with it then tyke, what are you doing?
So you want Starmer to give in to blackmail? damned if he does ..................
-
My comment was not a dig. I’m asking genuine honest Labour supporters if they think starmer is fit to lead their party. He is for the bankers and the bosses. He is about as far detached from the trade unions as he possibly could be.,
NR, I think that even by looking at the small snapshot of Labour supporters on here that there is a great division in the Labour Party.
When Johnson is gone and someone better takes over those polls will change again.
-
My comment was not a dig. I’m asking genuine honest Labour supporters if they think starmer is fit to lead their party. He is for the bankers and the bosses. He is about as far detached from the trade unions as he possibly could be.,
NR, I think that even by looking at the small snapshot of Labour supporters on here that there is a great division in the Labour Party.
When Johnson is gone and someone better takes over those polls will change again.
fingers crossed aye tyke?
-
Neil Coyle, the Labour MP has been suspended just a day after allegations were made that he made racist comments to a journalist.
Mark Webster, the Tory MP has been promoted to Leader of the House while an investigation continues into allegations that he made racist comments to a colleague.
But yeah, all the political parties are as bad as each other.
-
Coyle has form for abuse of others and racism going back years.
This is well known within Labour and nothing has been done about him until it can no longer be ignored.
The name of the LABOUR Party is a big clue as to what the priorities of the Party should be.
Labour exists to improve the prospects for those who sell their labour, rather than those who are supported by capital assets.
It is NOT the purpose of the Labour Party to enable the activities of the financial sector, despite what neo-liberals like Mandelson and Starmer think. Labour should be a counterweight to the dominance of vested interests, not captured by those interests.
Sharon Graham understands this, and explains her focus here;
https://leftfootforward.org/2022/02/sharon-graham-we-dont-need-lectures-from-the-rich-on-pay-restraint/?doing_wp_cron=1644683145.6072568893432617187500
There are some who believe Starmer is purposely destroying Labour by undermining the support base and impoverishing the reserves.
If Keith is not doing this deliberately, the effect is the same on current trend.
-
Are we ignoring Mark Spencer who is being investigated for his "muslimness" comments but still gets Leader of the House postion as a reward as he put it.
-
Coyle is a nasty piece of work, always has been an abusive, bullying prick like most of the Labour right. Of course anyone calling that out before now was dismissed as a Corbynite.
-
You are saying nothing has been done about Coyle until Starmer became leader Albie?
-
Coyle has form for abuse of others and racism going back years.
This is well known within Labour and nothing has been done about him until it can no longer be ignored.
The name of the LABOUR Party is a big clue as to what the priorities of the Party should be.
Labour exists to improve the prospects for those who sell their labour, rather than those who are supported by capital assets.
It is NOT the purpose of the Labour Party to enable the activities of the financial sector, despite what neo-liberals like Mandelson and Starmer think. Labour should be a counterweight to the dominance of vested interests, not captured by those interests.
Sharon Graham understands this, and explains her focus here;
https://leftfootforward.org/2022/02/sharon-graham-we-dont-need-lectures-from-the-rich-on-pay-restraint/?doing_wp_cron=1644683145.6072568893432617187500
There are some who believe Starmer is purposely destroying Labour by undermining the support base and impoverishing the reserves.
If Keith is not doing this deliberately, the effect is the same on current trend.
Not a lot can be solved from opposition Albie but this appears to be falling on stony ground.
I think you need to tell us why Starmer or anyone (please name them ) would purposely destroy labour and what advantage that would give anyone, you are not making sense Albie
Sound like another conspiracy theory Albie
-
Interesting article on Starmer and his varying political direction - not sure if already shared.
https://bylinetimes.com/2022/02/16/has-keir-starmer-sold-out-pro-europeans-on-brexit/
Of particular note is the fact that he is ruling out any prospect of the UK ever returning to the EU and insisting that the country must embrace the “opportunities” of Brexit.
Also another quote suggests that "he abandoned his previous support for nationalising utility companies, as well as supporting the free movement of people – both of which featured in his ’10 pledges’ to Labour members.
I'm not a big follower of Labour policies, but found it credible that he was able to adapt and change policy......
-
Labour need to have clean hands, clear of the dirty money scandals of the Tories with their Russian backers.
Unfortunately, Mandelson has muddied himself with Russian interests, and financial support from Israeli interests has tainted the Starmer brand.
Abandoning support for nationalising utilities is borderline insane.
It is very popular with voters, and it perpetuates the problem of utilities profiteering from rising energy costs.
More bumper pay-outs in shareholder dividends, large salaries for CEO's with share options etc, the whole racket.
It is interesting that France is rising energy prices by 4%, when the UK is looking at 54% increases.
Energy supply in France is seen as public service infrastructure, and is 85% in public control.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/kwasi-kwarteng-france-uk-energy-prices-310893/
The difference to the UK dependence upon the private sector is stark.
-
Interesting labour have made an honest mistake and now admitted things a little different to their original take on the Durham gathering. And seemingly Starmer had cake for his birthday too. That's awkward.
-
Any new evidence to report pud?
-
Cake report for Starmer in the Mail gives the date ...there was no lockdown then. Also, don't the Mail know there's a war going on!
-
I'll put the kettle on for us Hounslow
-
Cake report for Starmer in the Mail gives the date ...there was no lockdown then. Also, don't the Mail know there's a war going on!
Yeah, but....bothsides! Clearly if Starmer is going to complain about Johnson breaking the law, he shouldn't have...err...not broken the law himself. So ...err ...hypocrite!
-
Cake report for Starmer in the Mail gives the date ...there was no lockdown then. Also, don't the Mail know there's a war going on!
Yeah, but....bothsides! Clearly if Starmer is going to complain about Johnson breaking the law, he shouldn't have...err...not broken the law himself. So ...err ...hypocrite!
The guidance at the time suggests he may have done (unless he bought himself 2 cakes). I don't understand why they'd like about who was in Durham either it's all a bit odd.
Does any of it really matter? Probably not but akward given he's made it an issue for the PM.
-
I always get the impression that BST has more success in convincing himself of his hypocrisy than he has in convincing others.
-
He couldn't have broken any social distancing laws in September 2020, because there weren't any.
-
I always get the impression that BST has more success in convincing himself of his hypocrisy than he has in convincing others.
Aye. You have great difficulty in looking at evidence and forming any grown up conclusion. It's factored in to everything you ever post in here.
-
He couldn't have broken any social distancing laws in September 2020, because there weren't any.
Yes, there were.
-
You REALLY sure you want to do this BB?
-
I always get the impression that BST has more success in convincing himself of his hypocrisy than he has in convincing others.
Aye. You have great difficulty in looking at evidence and forming any grown up conclusion. It's factored in to everything you ever post in here.
We all have one thing in common on this fourth division football forum, we are all losers.
Some of us, however, are better losers than others.
-
Cake report for Starmer in the Mail gives the date ...there was no lockdown then. Also, don't the Mail know there's a war going on!
Yeah, but....bothsides! Clearly if Starmer is going to complain about Johnson breaking the law, he shouldn't have...err...not broken the law himself. So ...err ...hypocrite!
The guidance at the time suggests he may have done (unless he bought himself 2 cakes). I don't understand why they'd like about who was in Durham either it's all a bit odd.
Does any of it really matter? Probably not but akward given he's made it an issue for the PM.
So, what do you think the outcome will be pud?
-
Lockdown was brought in on the 14 September, the Mail sys at the start of September Starmer was given a birthday cake.
-
Doesn't matter what the truth is when you're desperate for a distraction, but there you go.
-
Lockdown was brought in on the 14 September, the Mail sys at the start of September Starmer was given a birthday cake.
Yes but...both sides are as bad as each other!
One broke the law and lied about it in Parliament.
The other did neither.
Clearly both are equally bad.
-
It's a pyramid scheme style of government with a criminal at the top supported by ever increasing rows of stooges propping him up.
-
From The Week.
“Has Boris Johnson committed a crime?
The prime minister broke the law but by paying the fixed penalty fine he has avoided being prosecuted for the offence and so will not have a criminal record.”
“An offender would face criminal prosecution only if a fixed penalty notice was unpaid after 28 days and the relevant police force decided to prosecute,” explained the Commons’ Justice Committee in a report into the Covid-related offences.”
Sydney has told another untruth then.
-
BBC News at lunchtime has a reporter saying that when Starmer was asked about that beer he was drinking in front of the window, whether Raynor was at the gathering.
He said no she wasn’t but now apparently there is proof that she was there.
He says it was an honest mistake to make in denying she was there.
That’s ok then.
Are they all the same?
-
Apparently, Keir Starmer was presented with two birthday cakes in September 2020, when Covid guidance stated that people "should not hold or attend celebrations" where social distancing would be difficult.
-
BBC News at lunchtime has a reporter saying that when Starmer was asked about that beer he was drinking in front of the window, whether Raynor was at the gathering.
He said no she wasn’t but now apparently there is proof that she was there.
He says it was an honest mistake to make in denying she was there.
That’s ok then.
Are they all the same?
Of course they're not all the same, Hound. Wash your mouth out! Only Tory party members lie. Labour party members just make mistakes!
-
Tha Mail produces no evidence whether a birthday party were held, or who was there when he ate it.
-
Apparently, Keir Starmer was presented with two birthday cakes in September 2020, when Covid guidance stated that people "should not hold or attend celebrations" where social distancing would be difficult.
And your point is?
Were they crammed in like sardines? We're the shagging over the photocopier.
Was having a birthday cake any different to going out for a meal in a restaurant, which had been subsidised by the Chancellor for the past month?
-
My point is Keir Starmer is a hypocrite, and anyone (like you) who is defending him while condemning Johnson for what basically amounts to the same offence is a hypocrite too.
Why do you constantly think it is acceptable that you change the course of the argument instead of addressing the point being made?
-
Surely Starmer has followed the rules, police agree, Johnson made the rules and broke them, of which there is no argument. It is not the same offence, Starmer has not broken any rules that has resulted in a police fine.
-
Surely Starmer has followed the rules, police agree, Johnson made the rules and broke them, of which there is no argument. It is not the same offence, Starmer has not broken any rules that has resulted in a police fine.
Police got involved 2 (TWO) years after Johnson's party through sheer peer pressure, in my opinion. The police should now be put under the same pressure to charge Starmer for similar offence(s), also in my opinion.
-
What does the law say, was guidance law? I genuinely don't know the answer to that as to me guidance was worth following.
-
Cake report for Starmer in the Mail gives the date ...there was no lockdown then. Also, don't the Mail know there's a war going on!
Yeah, but....bothsides! Clearly if Starmer is going to complain about Johnson breaking the law, he shouldn't have...err...not broken the law himself. So ...err ...hypocrite!
The guidance at the time suggests he may have done (unless he bought himself 2 cakes). I don't understand why they'd like about who was in Durham either it's all a bit odd.
Does any of it really matter? Probably not but akward given he's made it an issue for the PM.
So, what do you think the outcome will be pud?
He'll deny it's an issue and move on but the other party will constantly bring it up thus ending his attack line on Boris Johnson.
-
It is clearly the intention to push a false equivalence narrative, to deflect from the repeat offences of Johnson.
It always surprises me to find the things people fixate on as important.
Partygate is indicative of a wider sickness at the heart of the establishment, but no way is it more serious than the corruption over the PPE contracts, for example, or the release of Covid infected patients into care homes, causing 20,000 deaths.
For his part, Starmer should be asked to explain Labour whipping to abstain in the Lords on the Rwanda extraordinary rendition for refugees plan.
There is plenty to be concerned about with Keith, not least his reliance on Israeli interests for financial backing.
New Statesman has a review of the new book "The Starmer Project", a warts and all expose of Keith and his doings;
https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/04/tell-us-who-you-really-are-keir-starmer
His back story is more complex than the public image presented.
-
Why would anyone want to push a 'false' equivalence narrative?
-
Why would anyone want to push a 'false' equivalence narrative?
Because it's the best they can come up with when faced with the leader of the government they voted for being proven to be a liar?
-
I don't think you understand the question Mr Pies.
-
I understood the question, Mr Bullet. Just chose to answer it in a way that wouldn't suit your agenda.
-
Haha, you crease me up, Mr Pies!
-
I think we can accept we all think that Boris tells small fibs now and again, but this is the first time I have ever known a whole party to accept they lied to cover the leader and that well known lady of virtue the understudy with long legs as liar's
-
BB.
I'm sure you really DO understand the issue here and you're desperately pretending not to.
Johnson broke the law.
He lied about that in Parliament.
Starmer didn't break a law. There's zero evidence that he even touched the boundary of voluntary guidelines.
You're smart enough to get that. And biassed enough to pretend you don't.
-
You know BST, I reckon you composed that post while staring in a mirror in a desperate play-acting attempt at convincing yourself that that is the case.
You talking about me being biased is like Keith Richards calling Aled Jones a junkie.
-
Get ready Billy you are going to have to do better than that the character assassination squad is just starting up in the other direction, His past stance on nuclear disarmament and NATO and his two cake party will be next.
And the Tories will have a lot of info coming in from the Labour left as they see another power grab just beginning to open the door to get rid.
-
Always been the same with Labour, "main opposition party" give over, this lot just cannot sit down and agree about absolutely anything, as far back as i can remember they have been factions all looking to steer the party en mass in their direction, and how many directions?. Its the only party i know that veers from further to the left than Stalin to right wingers who would make this tory party blush.
How can an organisation like this ever hope to form an effective government?
The best they can now hope for is to woo the ginger jock and the latch onto the "anything that gets us recognition" LibDems and try to create some form of grand coalition, the only problem with that is they would have to promise PR to the minor patties to ever get the opportunity to run.
Its not going to happen and they will be forever in opposition, all the while allowing Johnson to do his worst.
What a future!
-
A typical exchange in here:
Tories have done something illegal --> Labour must have done something at least as bad ---> Zero evidence found for the preceding assertion --> Conclusion: Yeah but Labour are f**king awful aren't they?
It's like arguing with a random prejudice generator.
-
Blinkered!!
-
Waddyamean zero evidence?
If the boot was on the other foot you'd say, 'Keir Starmer admits it was a mistake saying Angela Rayner wasn't at the Windowgate Party that didn't exist, in fact, she was at the Windowgate party that didn't exist.
-
Come on BB, he did apologise and said it was an honest mistake to say Raynor wasn’t there.
That must make it ok.
Isn’t Starmer too upstanding to lie?
-
My point is Keir Starmer is a hypocrite, and anyone (like you) who is defending him while condemning Johnson for what basically amounts to the same offence is a hypocrite too.
Why do you constantly think it is acceptable that you change the course of the argument instead of addressing the point being made?
tell us again about when you were going to be a moderator ................................
-
Talk radio and TV have really gone to town most of the day on old stabber Starmer, Rayner, and the Labour party lying to cover up their own party's during lock down.
The sh*t is being shovelled the other way now, the only question to be answered is how long have the Tories known the details, and is it a coincidence it has come out at an opportune time for the local elections, The next PMQ will be as funny as anything, I bet Boris can't wait and lucky legs will be wearing a trouser suit.
-
Great.
Half a dozen gobshites reinforcing the prejudices of a couple of dozen pensioners. It'll change the world!
-
Blinkered !!
And still having a gripe about pensioners.
-
Great.
Half a dozen gobshites reinforcing the prejudices of a couple of dozen pensioners. It'll change the world!
It's great being a pensioner, it's the future.
If you're lucky.
-
Cake report for Starmer in the Mail gives the date ...there was no lockdown then. Also, don't the Mail know there's a war going on!
Yeah, but....bothsides! Clearly if Starmer is going to complain about Johnson breaking the law, he shouldn't have...err...not broken the law himself. So ...err ...hypocrite!
The guidance at the time suggests he may have done (unless he bought himself 2 cakes). I don't understand why they'd like about who was in Durham either it's all a bit odd.
Does any of it really matter? Probably not but akward given he's made it an issue for the PM.
So, what do you think the outcome will be pud?
He'll deny it's an issue and move on but the other party will constantly bring it up thus ending his attack line on Boris Johnson.
Funny aye pud, absolute proof that johnson broke the law but you and the other desperados rely on the sun and the mail to cobble together a smear to distract, I wouldn't give any of you a job.
-
I really find the hypocrisy of some people unbelievable
It doesn’t matter what party you support. At least be adult enough to admit when yours does / possibly does something wrong
How the hell could K Starmer forget his deputy was in a room with him when there was such a furore at the time because of the stupidity of the tories
It just shows him to be as bad if not worse than Boris. To be all high and mighty and then be found to be FORGETFUL is as bad if not worse than Boris just been a liar
Please at least be honest to yourselves
-
I really find the hypocrisy of some people unbelievable
It doesn’t matter what party you support. At least be adult enough to admit when yours does / possibly does something wrong
How the hell could K Starmer forget his deputy was in a room with him when there was such a furore at the time because of the stupidity of the tories
It just shows him to be as bad if not worse than Boris. To be all high and mighty and then be found to be FORGETFUL is as bad if not worse than Boris just been a liar
Please at least be honest to yourselves
I hope you're not involved in the law in any way phil because you don't appear to have any grasp of it, the police have investigated the gathering and deemed it not unlawful therefore who attended is immaterial wouldn't you say phil?
-
I really find the hypocrisy of some people unbelievable
It doesn’t matter what party you support. At least be adult enough to admit when yours does / possibly does something wrong
How the hell could K Starmer forget his deputy was in a room with him when there was such a furore at the time because of the stupidity of the tories
It just shows him to be as bad if not worse than Boris. To be all high and mighty and then be found to be FORGETFUL is as bad if not worse than Boris just been a liar
Please at least be honest to yourselves
Do you remember who was in every room you were in 2 years ago?
-
Cake report for Starmer in the Mail gives the date ...there was no lockdown then. Also, don't the Mail know there's a war going on!
Yeah, but....bothsides! Clearly if Starmer is going to complain about Johnson breaking the law, he shouldn't have...err...not broken the law himself. So ...err ...hypocrite!
The guidance at the time suggests he may have done (unless he bought himself 2 cakes). I don't understand why they'd like about who was in Durham either it's all a bit odd.
Does any of it really matter? Probably not but akward given he's made it an issue for the PM.
So, what do you think the outcome will be pud?
He'll deny it's an issue and move on but the other party will constantly bring it up thus ending his attack line on Boris Johnson.
Funny aye pud, absolute proof that johnson broke the law but you and the other desperados rely on the sun and the mail to cobble together a smear to distract, I wouldn't give any of you a job.
To be fair if I worked with you I'd ask you a question and you'd fail to answer it as normal.
You are of course picking and choosing your points. I made it very clear I thought Boris Johnson should resign two wrongs do not make a right.
I find it strange that labour and Starmer spent so long saying the restrictions weren't tight enough and guidance should be followed yet when they don't follow the guidance your excuse is "well it wasn't braking a law".
Of course every press outlet covered the Durham story yesterday, except the guardian of course....
-
Again pud you fail the reality test and still rely on a couple of rags, I have no problem with you posting anything it's an open forum but expect to be challenged. When you ask a question based on something I have posted at least have the curtesy to quote it so I can see when I said it and in what context. I guess your next stop is to go to the police for a briefing to see what they found.
-
Unbelievably child like response there Syd.
Good of you to not object when pud makes a post on here.
-
hound:
''With regards to tax avoidance, there will be plenty of people on this site who are making a noise about the likes of the Sunak situation, who do the same thing (on a much lower scale of course) to pay as little income tax, CGT and unearned income tax as they can.
This is not comparing a mega-rich treasurer who's partner who's partner has even more money, to those on those on this forum?
some struggle to remember what they wrote and what it meant, but there you go aye
-
Once again Syd, no one knows what the hell you are babbling on about.
Have you started drinking early.
-
hound:
''With regards to tax avoidance, there will be plenty of people on this site who are making a noise about the likes of the Sunak situation, who do the same thing (on a much lower scale of course) to pay as little income tax, CGT and unearned income tax as they can.
This is not comparing a mega-rich treasurer who's partner who's partner has even more money, to those on those on this forum?
some struggle to remember what they wrote and what it meant, but there you go aye
Hound: ''Once again Syd, no one knows what the hell you are babbling on about.
Have you started drinking early.''
you're still visible with your eyes closed hound.
-
I’m still getting a whiff of your bullshit even though you are half a world away.
-
I’m still getting a whiff of your bullshit even though you are half a world away.
You are Clippit and I demand you delete yourself
-
I’m still getting a whiff of your bullshit even though you are half a world away.
You are Clippit and I demand you delete yourself
:ohmy:
:lol:
-
Looks like The Mail has got the smoking gun on Starmer.
Not only did he break social distancing rules while eating his snap. He dug up a corpse and sat too close to it.
https://mobile.twitter.com/withnailjones/status/1521044573883146241
Objective Truth eh? As I've said for years, if that f**king rag told me it was Monday 2 May I go and check the calendar before I trusted them.
-
There's a few on here that believe that rubbish, they need to take their new evidence and show it to Durham police.
-
By the way. The Culture Minister had re-tweeted that picture.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1520886236797444097
You reckon she'll apologise and withdraw it now she's been told categorically that it's a typical Mail scam?
-
Not the same Nadine Dorries who's trying her best to trash the 'world's best broadcaster'
-
Somehow I don't think Starmer is defending himself very well with this beer gate business. The claim in the red tops today is they spent £200 at a takeaway to put on a late night party for 30 people!
But hang on £200 doesn't feed 30 people with takeaway. It might pay for 30 items from the menu. But then an Indian meal is usually a wet course and a starch, rice or bread. So that's 15 people. They order takeaway because everything else was closed, so presumably the drinks came with that order. Fewer people still. £200 isn't going to make much of a rave up is it?
I think we're looking at a group having a meal and a single drink each. Witnesses say there were lights on until the early hours. Well they can't have been partying, so presumably they were working.
-
Don’t forget the rules RD
Tories = lie
Labour = mistake made in good faith
He will be fine
-
who said he made a mistake Ldr?
-
I'll put the kettle on then
-
Never said he had Syd,
Just explaining how the rules appear to be on here
-
Never said he had Syd,
Just explaining how the rules appear to be on here
To combat that is to offer proof Ldr as it cannot be challenged, points can be debated, but it's not optional. I will never knowingly post something I know to be false, I may post opinion but that should be obvious to most when I do.
-
The point stands though, doesn't it?
You can't run a party for 30 people on £200 if you're ordering from a shmantzy takeaway.
It's £6.60 each. The price of a McDonalds.
-
Never said he had Syd,
Just explaining how the rules appear to be on here
To combat that is to offer proof Ldr as it cannot be challenged, points can be debated, but it's not optional. I will never knowingly post something I know to be false, I may post opinion but that should be obvious to most when I do.
Syd my friend, I would say deflection with those rules tends not to be done by you
-
If ten people had (legally) been working in the same room all day, how on earth did them having a takeaway at 10pm break the rules? That's the question that the Right wing press and intellectually challenged folk like Nadine Forties have never addressed.
Because they don't want to. They want to hint at an equivalence that simply doesn't exist with the No10 events.
And clearly it works. Because it gives the bothsidesits the ammunition they need.
-
The labour Party haven't even got a good memory, was Angela Raynor in the vicinity?
And Billy don't give me Stabber was in the same room or others there all day I would imagine the visit itinerary would soon disprove that.
They are more likely to have been out all day and come back to the office for a good party curry and beer and back slapping at how clever they are while the country is locked up, they may even had a practice of looking all sympathetic of others situations of life in lock down and feigned looks of disgust in Westminster for the TV in days to come as if they were really bothered.
Of course the real subject would have been who got the receipt for the booze and food for their expenses claim and would the restaurant add twenty quid to the real cost on the bill.
-
Selby
Then no doubt the police will be looking into it. For a second time.
If it turns out that he has been lying about this, I'd want him removed immediately.
If it turns out that there's no case to answer, I'd hope you'd belt up and reflect on where you get your news from.
Some chance.
-
Proof so far:
Angela Rayner
A curry
A beer
-
Those who live by the smear, die by the smear.
-
a smear bagatelle
-
If ten people had (legally) been working in the same room all day, how on earth did them having a takeaway at 10pm break the rules? That's the question that the Right wing press and intellectually challenged folk like Nadine Forties have never addressed.
Because they don't want to. They want to hint at an equivalence that simply doesn't exist with the No10 events.
And clearly it works. Because it gives the bothsidesits the ammunition they need.
If a number of people had been working in the same room and had some cake on the same day is that thus acceptable, or drinks in a garden?
Most of that is irrelevant of course, the issue is him being hypocritical calling for tighter restrictions but not following them himself. Same again with the NI rise which they keep slating. Asked this morning if they'd reverse it he wouldn't say they would - staggering.
-
The police will have guidelines to decide whether or not an event is a working meal or a party.
-
The decision whether an event is work or a party depends upon the main reason people were there, that's all you have to know.
-
Hey up Syd, put Talk TV on Ian Collins is burying old stabber on this subject, embarrassing.
-
If ten people had (legally) been working in the same room all day, how on earth did them having a takeaway at 10pm break the rules? That's the question that the Right wing press and intellectually challenged folk like Nadine Forties have never addressed.
Because they don't want to. They want to hint at an equivalence that simply doesn't exist with the No10 events.
And clearly it works. Because it gives the bothsidesits the ammunition they need.
If a number of people had been working in the same room and had some cake on the same day is that thus acceptable, or drinks in a garden?
Most of that is irrelevant of course, the issue is him being hypocritical calling for tighter restrictions but not following them himself. Same again with the NI rise which they keep slating. Asked this morning if they'd reverse it he wouldn't say they would - staggering.
But that misses the point. It WASN'T the same people who had worked all day that attended No10 parties. At the cake party, Johnson's wife and her house designer were there. In the Cabinet Room.
For another party, emails were sent out to 100 people, INVITING them to come to No10 specifically for a party.
It's not hard to see the difference. Unless you really don't want to.
-
I call it Smear Karma.
-
Billy I can remember you spouting Covid Armageddon,The Eu has stopped a war on mainland Europe for fifty years, what happened there then was it the fact the real power military wise left them to their own devices? or just luck?
So no, you have more chance of seeing rocking horse doo doo than me not posting, it's no more rubbish than your long boring sermons and Syds going off on a tangent when BB or Hound has him by his goolies.
-
I call it Smear Karma.
Christ.How long till the pie and peas and the headline act? This warm up comedian is struggling again.
-
Billy I can remember you spouting Covid Armageddon,The Eu has stopped a war on mainland Europe for fifty years, what happened there then was it the fact the real power military wise left them to their own devices? or just luck?
So no, you have more chance of seeing rocking horse doo doo than me not posting, it's no more rubbish than your long boring sermons and Syds going off on a tangent when BB or Hound has him by his goolies.
You do a really good job of pretending to be too thick to remember what other people have said n the past Selby. So good, it regularly fools me.
The point about the EU (which I'm sure you will get if you stop listening to Mike Graham for a moment and apply your brain) is that no transnational war, civil major internal terrorist campaign, military dictatorship or coup d'etat has ever started between two or inside any one EU nation.
You, playing that thicko, are pretending to think that people claimed that the EU waved a wand and stopped all wars outside its boundaries. Which no-one ever said.
You can stop trying to fool us that you are too thick to get this now. We see right through you.
-
I call it Smear Karma.
Christ.How long till the pie and peas and the headline act? This warm up comedian is struggling again.
Cheeky bugger. I AM the headline act.
Funny how all of us unbiased people believe in equal justice for all politicians, but the likes of Billy Snubs Keir's misdemeanours.
-
who said he made a mistake Ldr?
Starmer did.
When he was asked if Raynor was there he said no.
When it was proven that she was there he accepted that she had been and that he had made an mistake.
-
Starmer could have just said "it costs £200 to have a dozen indian meals delivered. If the Conservatives don't realise that, it shows how out of touch they are.
He hasn't made a great job communicating his side of this.
-
As you've said RD, it is bizarre that this idea they invited 30 people to a curry night has taken hold.
-
Of course, it could never be true.
To some people.
-
If only Sir Smear practised democracy as much as hypocrisy.
-
Billy I can remember you spouting Covid Armageddon,The Eu has stopped a war on mainland Europe for fifty years, what happened there then was it the fact the real power military wise left them to their own devices? or just luck?
So no, you have more chance of seeing rocking horse doo doo than me not posting, it's no more rubbish than your long boring sermons and Syds going off on a tangent when BB or Hound has him by his goolies.
Oy! Why are you leaving me out? I regularly have Syd by his goolies.
-
I've only just noticed that first point in Selby's dribbling rant.
COVID. How quickly folk forget. It has killed about 200,000 Brits. And that's now washed over by folk like Selby.
-
As you've said RD, it is bizarre that this idea they invited 30 people to a curry night has taken hold.
by chance i did a search on here last night to see how many examples of the usage of the word "bizarre" i could find (the results would even drive Clarice Cliff "potty") my findings were going to go down a different route to what they have now - so what do i find today
another bizarre example of using the word bizarre f.f.s. do other wurdz xist in dem bwitish language ? or is that word currently featured on the back of a cereal packet -- in the good old days cereal packets used to educate us.
after todays usage of said word his score is now showing an AMAZING 9 "bizarres" out of the last 30 usages of said word IN THE OFF TOPIC SECTION your truly scored an un-impressive one out of 30
as always here is proof of my "bizarre" findings quite bizarre ?? :suicide::
1
Off Topic / Re: Should Starmer Resign?
« by BillyStubbsTears on Today at 03:49:27 pm »
...... you've said RD, it is bizarre that this idea they invited 30 people to a curry ......
2
Off Topic / Re: Talk Your Way Out Of This One Johnson
« by normal rules on April 22, 2022, 02:40:29 pm »
...... because of local council elections is completely bizarre. Does anyone know of any precedent for this type ......
3
Off Topic / Re: Ukraine
« by BillyStubbsTears on March 29, 2022, 02:47:02 pm »
...... really about extending American power. That was bizarre in as much as America has very little strategic ......
4
Off Topic / Re: Su-knackered
« by BillyStubbsTears on March 26, 2022, 12:14:09 am »
...... sense, voting Labour is for losers. And yet, bizarrely, all the great economic policy blunders of ......
5
Off Topic / Re: Brexit Dividend
« by Branton Red on February 16, 2022, 07:35:54 pm »
...... put their staff on the living wage. Billy - you bizarrely implied I was right wing for saying postal ......
6
Off Topic / Re: Coronavirus
« by normal rules on January 18, 2022, 01:49:59 pm »
...... from the actual disease itself. I find it truly bizarre that parents are simply prepared to gamble with ......
7
Off Topic / Re: Downing street party
« by BillyStubbsTears on January 15, 2022, 10:33:11 pm »
...... politician as wishing ill on the country. It's a bizarre stance but it's one he won't be moved on. No ......
8
Off Topic / Re: Xmas Party
« by BillyStubbsTears on December 09, 2021, 03:22:48 pm »
...... to find the facts." This may be the most bizarre statement if the whole affair. If you suspend ......
9
Off Topic / Re: Boris
« by Bentley Bullet on November 25, 2021, 01:55:51 pm »
...... , BB, conclude from that that Starmer is a liar. Bizarre behaviour. Compare and contrast to Johnson ......
10
Off Topic / Re: Channel crossing record beat.(again and again and again)
« by Axholme Lion on November 30, 2021, 08:25:10 am »
...... to refugees to solve the problem. Totally bizarre. At least some one can see the way forward. ......
11
Off Topic / Re: Owen Paterson
« by big fat yorkshire pudding on November 03, 2021, 09:35:27 pm »
...... it's NOT one isolated case BFYP. 1) Johnson's bizarre claim that he never thought to ask where the £1/ ......
12
Off Topic / the Met and the palace
« by SydneyRover on October 08, 2021, 10:34:11 pm »
...... family never had any of these problems it's quite bizarre. ......
13
Off Topic / Coincidences
« by Viking Don on October 20, 2012, 10:06:28 pm »
...... Some are quite amazing, but has anyone got a more bizarre one than this.... http:// ............ .org/user-submitted-coincidences/heres-very-bizarre-one Excuse the typos BTW, I was in a rush ......
14
Off Topic / When can the death of a King steal your club away?
« by jucyberry on January 18, 2012, 11:25:24 am »
...... -club-face-eviction-21-years-death-Norwegian-king-bizarre-legal-clause.html Note the way the. as always ......
15
Off Topic / Re: Priti Patel
« by BillyStubbsTears on June 16, 2021, 09:52:59 am »
...... for this decision which, prima facie looks bizarre.[1] The whole edifice looks rotten to the core. ......
16
Off Topic / Re: The queen say's matt hancock is full of ..................
« by BillyStubbsTears on June 28, 2021, 01:58:11 pm »
...... he did? No Belton. You have chosen to make a bizarre interpretation of what I wrote, in a way that ......
17
Off Topic / Re: Labour Support Required
« by BillyStubbsTears on December 13, 2021, 03:43:41 pm »
...... calling for harder measures this time last year, bizarrely resulted in several 10s of thousands of ......
18
Off Topic / Re: Brexit Benefits Log
« by Colemans Left Hook on June 07, 2021, 11:25:34 pm »
...... 2021, 10:54:44 am Even for The Express that is a bizarre piece of "news". Writing today about a ......
19
Off Topic / Re: Remind me again why we left the EU
« by drfchound on May 05, 2021, 08:30:44 am »
...... .com/united-kingdom/manufacturing-production Bizarre how these alternative facts get bandied round. ......
20
Off Topic / Re: Local Elections And Hartlepool
« by MachoMadness on May 05, 2021, 09:49:21 pm »
...... too cool for school minority as well. Bizarre stuff. ......
21
Off Topic / Re: Batley & Spen Byelection
« by albie on July 03, 2021, 12:58:21 am »
...... again. The idea of nationalistic left wing is bizarre, as a key element of the left is its ......
22
Off Topic / Re: No Brexit Extension
« by wilts rover on December 14, 2020, 06:06:54 pm »
...... Colours well and truly nailed there, Tyke. What bizarre logic you have. I wonder what those people who ......
23
Off Topic / Re: US Election
« by big fat yorkshire pudding on November 04, 2020, 12:28:17 pm »
...... bizarre thing is if there's a draw. It goes to the house ......
24
Off Topic / Re: Trump and democracy
« by Donnywolf on November 05, 2020, 06:02:23 pm »
...... to vote - and for that vote to be counted How bizarre that a nation that sends observers to far flung ......
25
Off Topic / Re: Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson
« by Janso on September 30, 2020, 10:39:36 am »
...... we are so they can get away with certain things". Bizarre attitude. ......
26
Off Topic / Re: NHS
« by Glyn_Wigley on November 24, 2021, 11:37:15 am »
...... rather than call it out and get improvements. Bizarre. If you're going to presume to tell everybody ......
27
Off Topic / Re: A-Levels
« by BillyStubbsTears on August 17, 2020, 05:12:33 pm »
...... you didn't include links. That is a genuinely bizarre thing to claim. I said that your comments on how ......
28
Off Topic / Re: HS2
« by River Don on November 15, 2021, 09:08:43 am »
...... -link-to-leeds-reports If true this seems really bizarre. Not fully cancelling the High speed Leeds link, ......
29
Off Topic / Re: Socialism
« by drfchound on October 30, 2021, 10:40:30 pm »
What strange and bizarre reply.
30
Off Topic / Re: Track and Trace
« by IDM on May 29, 2020, 11:32:45 am »
...... on the grounds of a political viewpoint is just bizarre. Getting out of the hole that we, as a race are ......
-
What a truly biz...err...strange post.
-
https://youtu.be/C2cMG33mWVY
-
Hey up Syd, put Talk TV on Ian Collins is burying old stabber on this subject, embarrassing.
I'll bet you know what deeply embarrassing feels like quite often selby
-
''Piers Morgan ratings dive as talkTV struggles to attract viewers
Flagship show audience down 80% after launch and rating agency detects ‘zero viewers’ for other key slots''
That leaves only you and hound still watching selby
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/may/04/piers-morgan-ratings-dive-as-talktv-struggles-to-attract-viewers
-
''Piers Morgan ratings dive as talkTV struggles to attract viewers
Flagship show audience down 80% after launch and rating agency detects ‘zero viewers’ for other key slots''
That leaves only you and hound still watching selby
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/may/04/piers-morgan-ratings-dive-as-talktv-struggles-to-attract-viewers
Not me, I’ve never watched it.
-
Nor me Hound, and having been in his company a few times in the hospitality box's at the Arsenal, I can honestly say I can't stand the fella.
A bit like I wouldn't watch Syd on the TV really. Anyway from 5pm I am not allowed the control buttons, the adults in the house take over.
Apologies Steve, just pictured you treading in dog doo doo and wiping it off your shoe on the nearby patch of grass as you regularly do to Syd, very funny, just a passing irritant.
-
https://youtu.be/y2oC99e_xPY
-
https://youtu.be/y2oC99e_xPY
You can imitate my style, but you can't imitate my creativity. Thanks for the sincere compliment, though!
-
Billy I can remember you spouting Covid Armageddon,The Eu has stopped a war on mainland Europe for fifty years, what happened there then was it the fact the real power military wise left them to their own devices? or just luck?
So no, you have more chance of seeing rocking horse doo doo than me not posting, it's no more rubbish than your long boring sermons and Syds going off on a tangent when BB or Hound has him by his goolies.
Oy! Why are you leaving me out? I regularly have Syd by his goolies.
Is 'I had Syd by the goolies' this forums version of 'I was only looking at tractors'?
-
Billy I can remember you spouting Covid Armageddon,The Eu has stopped a war on mainland Europe for fifty years, what happened there then was it the fact the real power military wise left them to their own devices? or just luck?
So no, you have more chance of seeing rocking horse doo doo than me not posting, it's no more rubbish than your long boring sermons and Syds going off on a tangent when BB or Hound has him by his goolies.
Oy! Why are you leaving me out? I regularly have Syd by his goolies.
Is 'I had Syd by the goolies' this forums version of 'I was only looking at tractors'?
Maybe. However, it's a good job it's only metaphorical. The real thing doesn't bear thinking about.
-
daily mail, wow, looks like Starmer has been exonerated ......... oh that's right voting is over.
-
Police now re opening investigation into so called party
-
"Significant new information"
-
Don’t forget the rules BB
-
Don’t forget the rules BB
Well, at least the authorities have done the decent thing and waited until after the local elections so as not to affect the results.
.....Hang on a minute!.......... :ohmy:
-
Don’t forget the rules BB
Well, at least the authorities have done the decent thing and waited until after the local elections so as not to affect the results.
.....Hang on a minute!.......... :ohmy:
If there is anything to it BB certain posters will dismiss as an honest mistake made in good faith (not you Syd!)
-
If they have new evidence, they are right to investigate. If it turns out he did break the law, of course he should resign.
What is so difficult about this?
-
If they have new evidence, they are right to investigate. If it turns out he did break the law, of course he should resign.
What is so difficult about this?
What about a revote of the local elections?
-
Also,,why nor re-investigate Dominic Cummings while they're at it.
-
People voted based on Sir Smear being innocent because the Durham police said there was nothing to answer.
-
Today's very inconclusive for him results is the story of his life, He's never made a good fist of any important job he's had and is now proving beyond doubt that as a leader he just does not cut it with voters outside the metropolitan areas.
Johnson has given him the biggest own goal you could ever give an opposition party at mid term hoping to form the next government, what does he do, very little here to suggest he will be leading the next government in a couple of years time. i mean come on what more could the present government have done to aid this dull man into power.
If i was a leading labour bigwig i would be seriously worried that if anything the period up to the next election cannot be as fertile hunting ground for Labour as the previous two years.
They picked the wrong person for the job, this nation would never vote this individual into power, these bang average results show a population wanting to let the government know they are concerned but are still to be convinced that this labour leadership has their best interests at heart.
-
DD
"The People" voted Boris Johnson into power. I think that sets a precedent that there is no lower limit to who might win an election. If we vote into No 10 a man who has been sacked twice for lying and won't even publicly acknowledge how many kids he's fathered, all things are possible.
-
Labour has picked up votes because of its relentless smear campaign. To find out the day after the local elections that the Labour party itself is NOW being investigated by the police for the same offence it relentlessly smeared the government over leaves quite a potent stench in the air.
-
And then for more fines to be issued over Partygate etc etc etc
-
And then for more fines to be issued over Partygate etc etc etc
The damage to the Tories has already been done regarding the loss of votes for Partygate.
-
Today's very inconclusive for him results is the story of his life, He's never made a good fist of any important job he's had and is now proving beyond doubt that as a leader he just does not cut it with voters outside the metropolitan areas.
Johnson has given him the biggest own goal you could ever give an opposition party at mid term hoping to form the next government, what does he do, very little here to suggest he will be leading the next government in a couple of years time. i mean come on what more could the present government have done to aid this dull man into power.
If i was a leading labour bigwig i would be seriously worried that if anything the period up to the next election cannot be as fertile hunting ground for Labour as the previous two years.
They picked the wrong person for the job, this nation would never vote this individual into power, these bang average results show a population wanting to let the government know they are concerned but are still to be convinced that this labour leadership has their best interests at heart.
You mean the bang average results they gained purely by smears?
-
DD
"The People" voted Boris Johnson into power. I think that sets a precedent that there is no lower limit to who might win an election. If we vote into No 10 a man who has been sacked twice for lying and won't even publicly acknowledge how many kids he's fathered, all things are possible.
But this is just it, "The People" voted such a wastrel into power and even now, cannot bring themselves to jettison a Johnson led regime for the tantalising prospects of this current Labour party.
There's a massive disconnect in this country just now and its only going to get worse with this tory government run by sub-par liberals that will ensure that this Labour party will struggle to convince a big enough majority in the country that they have the answers when this pretend Tory party have proved they are already inept and a Labour version of the same policies just will not do.
I would imagine a great many Conservative voting people are quite frustrated with this government but do not have a real alternative to vote for, in the meantime most will hold their nose and vote the best of a really poor bunch, this will not include this poor example of a labour party.
-
I disagree with that danum don. We have to see what full policies labour come through with it but they're much more moderate and that will attract more liberal conservatives who are fed up with the current government. That's not to say Boris can't turn it around, he absolutely can unless he's prosecuted further for parties (where's sue gray?)
If Keir Starmer is found in breach he's in a really impossible situation.
-
And then for more fines to be issued over Partygate etc etc etc
The damage to the Tories has already been done regarding the loss of votes for Partygate.
Do you not think it might get worse when more fines come out, orhave you drawn a line under it, move on?
-
I disagree with that danum don. We have to see what full policies labour come through with it but they're much more moderate and that will attract more liberal conservatives who are fed up with the current government. That's not to say Boris can't turn it around, he absolutely can unless he's prosecuted further for parties (where's sue gray?)
If Keir Starmer is found in breach he's in a really impossible situation.
I would imagine a great many voters are looking and waiting, and still waiting to see these newly fangled Labour polices, the fact that they are very sparse would lead a cynic to think that they may not be all that? or are his left wing starting to extract some leverage to toe the line?
After we had the failed experiment of Corbyn trying his damnedest to give the house away and some, are we now to expect some middle ground from this Labour party, might it consist of the dragged out remnants of this failed Tory government?
For all the gnashing of teeth and wailing behind the scenes, make no mistake Starmer will try to smuggle out specially dressed up and botched versions of what this Johnson regime is already trying, i'm just wondering what the likes of Raynor and her cabal of failed Corbyneistas will have to say to that.
Tony Blair Mk2, i don't think so.
-
And then for more fines to be issued over Partygate etc etc etc
The damage to the Tories has already been done regarding the loss of votes for Partygate.
Do you not think it might get worse when more fines come out, orhave you drawn a line under it, move on?
No. You can't not vote for someone twice. You can, however, decide not to vote for someone whose party is under investigation for the same offence for which they have smeared another party.
If the police had opened up the Beergate case again the day before yesterday instead of today the results would have been very, very different.
-
BB
You seem to be suggesting that the main problem for the Tories is that Labour "smeared" them.
Forgive me if I sound condescending, but have you actually been engaging with the world recently? The problem is that Johnson was found to have broken the law.
-
BST
It was Labour's smearing that caused a police inquiry, and the resultant charge.
The fact is that your leader is pictured potentially breaking a similar law, so therefore can be assumed guilty just as you assumed Johnson of being guilty before the court judgement.
-
How did Labour smear him, the police did that by investigating and fining him. Labour asked if there were any parties, Johnson continually said no, so he also smeared himself.
-
How did Labour smear him? Are you for real? That's not even worthy of an answer.
Perhaps Sir Smear will say he didn't realise he was at a party after continually denying it.
-
Smear
damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.
So when did Starmer make false accusations or slander Johnson?
-
RD. You're wasting your time. BB is by some way THE most partisan person on this forum. He doesn't think Johnson should resign even though he's been found guilty of breaking his own law, and lied to Parliament about it several times.
With BB, it's never, ever about trying to get to the truth. It is always about his childish need to convince himself that he is right.
-
BST
It was Labour's smearing that caused a police inquiry, and the resultant charge.
The fact is that your leader is pictured potentially breaking a similar law, so therefore can be assumed guilty just as you assumed Johnson of being guilty before the court judgement.
BB.
If you're not even capable of using words correctly, I think I'm going to drop out, rather than having yet another evening taking up by your self indulgent b*llocks.
-
The point BB is right on though is that Starmer called for Johnson's resignation the minute he was investigated before any judgement, that was a mistake and by that token he should call for his own resignation.
-
Smear
damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.
So when did Starmer make false accusations or slander Johnson?
I interpret it to mean "to accuse someone publicly with the intention of harming the person's reputation"
-
BST
It was Labour's smearing that caused a police inquiry, and the resultant charge.
The fact is that your leader is pictured potentially breaking a similar law, so therefore can be assumed guilty just as you assumed Johnson of being guilty before the court judgement.
BB.
If you're not even capable of using words correctly, I think I'm going to drop out, rather than having yet another evening taking up by your self indulgent b*llocks.
BST, the only reason why you're going to 'drop out' is because you're wrong, and you f**king well know it.
You are a fake.
-
The point BB is right on though is that Starmer called for Johnson's resignation the minute he was investigated before any judgement, that was a mistake and by that token he should call for his own resignation.
No. He didn't. He called for Johnson to resign for misleading the House, which he clearly did from the very earliest stages of the whole process.
-
BB
Learn how to use words correctly like a grown up, then come back and talk with the grown ups.
-
Smear
damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.
So when did Starmer make false accusations or slander Johnson?
I interpret it to mean "to accuse someone publicly with the intention of harming the person's reputation"
You mean, damage someone's reputation through true accusations???
-
BST.
Let's ignore your distracting insults for a while so you can actually address my posts, for once.
If the police had opened up the Beergate case again the day before yesterday instead of today would the results have been different?
-
BB's doing the Humpty Dumpty impression now, is he? Deciding what words mean to suit his own agenda.
Look BB. The grown up thing to do at this point is admit you have used the word "smear" totally wrongly, in your obsession to score political points, and withdraw it.
-
Smear
damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.
So when did Starmer make false accusations or slander Johnson?
I interpret it to mean "to accuse someone publicly with the intention of harming the person's reputation"
You mean, damage someone's reputation through true accusations???
I mean exactly what I said!
-
So saying Hitler hated Jews would be a smear against Hitler.
Grow up you fool.
-
Smear
damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.
So when did Starmer make false accusations or slander Johnson?
I interpret it to mean "to accuse someone publicly with the intention of harming the person's reputation"
You mean, damage someone's reputation through true accusations???
I mean exactly what I said!
Right .. didn't his reputation deserve to be harmed?
I mean, he was caught lying to parliament repeatedly.
-
BB's doing the Humpty Dumpty impression now, is he? Deciding what words mean to suit his own agenda.
Look BB. The grown up thing to do at this point is admit you have used the word "smear" totally wrongly, in your obsession to score political points, and withdraw it.
Nay BST, I meant exactly what I said! If I'm wrong suggesting Starmer gained votes because of his relentless smear campaign then I am far from alone with that view.
Now, just answer the question, there's a good chap.
-
Smear
damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.
So when did Starmer make false accusations or slander Johnson?
I interpret it to mean "to accuse someone publicly with the intention of harming the person's reputation"
You mean, damage someone's reputation through true accusations???
I mean exactly what I said!
Right .. didn't his reputation deserve to be harmed?
I mean, he was caught lying to parliament repeatedly.
If the best Sir Smear could come up with was Partygate, then Johnson's reputation couldn't have been that bad.
-
I thought we'd established nobody was smeared, unless we all accept your new definition of the word BB.
-
So saying Hitler hated Jews would be a smear against Hitler.
Grow up you fool.
No, but it would be a bit hypocritical if Heinrich Himmler said it.
-
I thought we'd established nobody was smeared, unless we all accept your new definition of the word BB.
It's not my definition RD. This is the definition I use.
smear verb (ACCUSE)
[ T ]
to accuse someone publicly with the intention of harming the person's reputation:
He was smeared in the newspapers.
-
So, now we've cleared up that "one-word" discussion stopper, how about actually responding to the actual content of my posts?
In your own time.
-
BB's doing the Humpty Dumpty impression now, is he? Deciding what words mean to suit his own agenda.
Look BB. The grown up thing to do at this point is admit you have used the word "smear" totally wrongly, in your obsession to score political points, and withdraw it.
Nay BST, I meant exactly what I said! If I'm wrong suggesting Starmer gained votes because of his relentless smear campaign then I am far from alone with that view.
Now, just answer the question, there's a good chap.
How can anyone address anything you say? You use words to mean things that no-one else does. So we literally don't know what you are talking about.
-
I thought we'd established nobody was smeared, unless we all accept your new definition of the word BB.
It's not my definition RD. This is the definition I use.
smear verb (ACCUSE)
[ T ]
to accuse someone publicly with the intention of harming the person's reputation:
He was smeared in the newspapers.
What's your source for that definition?
-
BB's doing the Humpty Dumpty impression now, is he? Deciding what words mean to suit his own agenda.
Look BB. The grown up thing to do at this point is admit you have used the word "smear" totally wrongly, in your obsession to score political points, and withdraw it.
Nay BST, I meant exactly what I said! If I'm wrong suggesting Starmer gained votes because of his relentless smear campaign then I am far from alone with that view.
Now, just answer the question, there's a good chap.
How can anyone address anything you say? You use words to mean things that no-one else does. So we literally don't know what you are talking about.
BST. There are lots of posters on here who use words, often made up words, that mean something else.
It happens all the time.
I never see you correcting them, especially if they are on your side, and telling them to grow up.
You are well aware what BB was alluding to but decided to swerve the conversation into an argument about the definition of a single word.
Another deflection attempt by yourself.
-
In using the word smear he was alluding to a false allegation or slander.
But that hasn't happened.
-
I thought we'd established nobody was smeared, unless we all accept your new definition of the word BB.
It's not my definition RD. This is the definition I use.
smear verb (ACCUSE)
[ T ]
to accuse someone publicly with the intention of harming the person's reputation:
He was smeared in the newspapers.
What's your source for that definition?
Here:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/smear
And it's very telling of BB's mendacity that he deliberately left out the fact that the bit he copy and pasted was the US definition, not the UK one...which is exactly as you described it.
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-labour-party-leader-starmer-faces-investigation-over-potential-lockdown-2022-05-06/
" LONDON, May 6 (Reuters) - British police said on Friday they would investigate opposition leader Keir Starmer over a potential breach of COVID-19 lockdown rules in 2021 after receiving significant new information, delivering an embarrassing blow to the Labour Party.
Starmer, who previously served as the country's top prosecutor, has led calls for Prime Minister Boris Johnson and finance minister Rishi Sunak to resign after they both received fines relating to a birthday party celebration thrown for Johnson by staff in his Downing Street office in June 2020.
An internal report found that staff in Downing Street held a string of boozy parties during COVID lockdowns, angering the public and damaging trust in the country's political system.
Johnson could receive more fines for other events still being investigated by London police.
Starmer has also faced increased scrutiny over footage from April 2021 showing him drinking a bottle of beer with colleagues indoors during a visit to the northeast of England.
The local Durham police force previously said it had concluded that no offence had been established but on Friday it said that "following the receipt of significant new information over recent days" an investigation had been opened.
A spokesperson for the Labour Party said they were "obviously happy to answer any questions".
"We remain clear that no rules were broken," the spokesperson said."
can someone please translate the "labourisly" laboured words in RED :facepalm:
Donnyhound i believe is Sydneys "official translator"
-
Another one struggling with what words mean?
-
Amazing how nothing much changes when Billy and his Disciples are stuck for answers so they have to refer to the old 'let's analyse one word as a distraction' routine!
Starmer started a smear campaign as soon as he heard about what was to become Partygate, and that was before anyone knew if the accusations were true or false. So, both interpretations of the word can be construed as correct when used before the court judgement.
Starmer has earned his Sir Smear title in my opinion.
-
BB.
That's entirely predictable given your political bias.
Starmer made accusations based on his assessment of the facts in front of him.
Guess what!?! He was 100% correct. By no sensible assessment can that be called a smear.
But there's the problem. I used the word "sensible" when addressing you.
-
Except as we have now established it wasn't a smear campaign...
Unless you come from Bentley, Ohio.
-
The trouble with you, Billy lad, is your struggle with the truth. You bend and twist anything and everything to fit your bent and twisted political mind.
Get back to me when you're ready to rid yourself of the bullshit and answer some questions for a change.
-
The point BB is right on though is that Starmer called for Johnson's resignation the minute he was investigated before any judgement, that was a mistake and by that token he should call for his own resignation.
No. He didn't. He called for Johnson to resign for misleading the House, which he clearly did from the very earliest stages of the whole process.
His words:
31 January – Sir Keir Starmer argues that being under investigation alone is grounds for Boris Johnson's resignation. He tweets: 'Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.'
After months of denials, Keir Starmer is now under investigation, what would he say about himself?
-
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
― Margaret Thatcher
-
Except as we have now established it wasn't a smear campaign...
Unless you come from Bentley, Ohio.
But it was a smear campaign! It was the smear campaign that led to the police having to get what seemed to be reluctantly involved.
-
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
― Margaret Thatcher
RD, thanks for your support. At last one of Billy's disciples has the guts to call him out on his personal attacks.
-
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
― Margaret Thatcher
RD, thanks for your support. At last one of Billy's disciples has the guts to call him out on his personal attacks.
Billy wouldn't count me as a disciple, we have disagreements. I voted for Brexit for one thing. We are able to discuss matters without rancour and understanding.
I do not buy into ideologies or political extremes and I like to think I am open to different ideas.
You should try it.
-
Let's be honest any of the people fined should resign simple as, as far as starmer he says there was no party, that does not make a difference if they were eating and drinking and not following the rules then that is what matters, 6 of my friends were in the pub that one owned talking business and having a beer and all got fined
-
Let's be honest any of the people fined should resign simple as, as far as starmer he says there was no party, that does not make a difference if they were eating and drinking and not following the rules then that is what matters, 6 of my friends were in the pub that one owned talking business and having a beer and all got fined
If Starmer is found guilty then he should stand down. No question.
The big issue seems to be beer. If he had been swigging mineral water then I don't think we'd be discussing it now.
-
Let's be honest any of the people fined should resign simple as, as far as starmer he says there was no party, that does not make a difference if they were eating and drinking and not following the rules then that is what matters, 6 of my friends were in the pub that one owned talking business and having a beer and all got fined
If Starmer is found guilty then he should stand down. No question.
The big issue seems to be beer. If he had been swigging mineral water then I don't think we'd be discussing it now.
Genuine question RD.
If the number ten gathering had only been drinking mineral water would there have been no case to answer, in your opinion of course.
-
If he hadn't started a smear campaign over "Partygate" we might not have been discussing it now.
He who lives by the smear dies by the smear.
-
If they had only been drinking mineral water then it would not have been an extended social gathering.
If it had only been mineral water then people would have been less likely to engage in close contact.
It's difficult to party on water.
It wouldn't be conclusive but it would change things, don't you think?
-
If he hadn't started a smear campaign over "Partygate" we might not have been discussing it now.
He who lives by the smear dies by the smear.
There was no smear
-
Is Beergate a smear campaign?
Sir Keir thinks so.
-
If they had only been drinking mineral water then it would not have been an extended social gathering.
If it had only been mineral water then people would have been less likely to engage in close contact.
It's difficult to party on water.
It wouldn't be conclusive but it would change things, don't you think?
I don’t know whether having beer makes it an extended social gathering or not but going from what you are suggesting then it is cut and dried that in Starmers case, it was a social gathering because he was drinking a beer.
Agreed?
-
If they had only been drinking mineral water then it would not have been an extended social gathering.
If it had only been mineral water then people would have been less likely to engage in close contact.
It's difficult to party on water.
It wouldn't be conclusive but it would change things, don't you think?
I don’t know whether having beer makes it an extended social gathering or not but going from what you are suggesting then it is cut and dried that in Starmers case, it was a social gathering because he was drinking a beer.
Agreed?
Not agreed because apparently it was only one small bottle of beer and drinking alcohol with a meal is not against the rules.
-
There is a difference between a drinks party and half a larger with a curry.
-
There is a difference between a drinks party and half a larger with a curry.
you were not allowed round peoples houses to have half a lager and a curry thou, is it any different at work? Most normal people would not have done that
-
Is Beergate a smear campaign?
Sir Keir thinks so.
We will know when the police finish their investigation.
But consider the prima facie evidence that we knew of at the start of both police inquiries.
1) The No10 cases. We knew for facts before the police investigations started:
-There were over a dozen events.
- At at least 1, a round robin email had gone out specifically inviting people not in No10 to come to No10 specifically for a party.
-At another, the PMs wife and her interior designer were present.
- Johnson claimed to have no knowledge of any of this being against the rules. Crucially, he claimed that IN PARLIAMENT.
- Johnson's hand picked media staff were videoed cracking jokes a out how they would handle press stories about parties at No10 WAY before there was any interest in these parties in the press or in Parliament, suggesting very strongly that they knew the rules had been broken.
Of course we now know that the law was broken. Anyone putting their balls on the line 5 months ago and saying the evidence pointed to a breach of the law has been vindicated.
2) In the case of Starmer's situation, we know for a fact:
-There is a single event under consideration.
- He was at a perfectly legal political campaigning meeting 250 miles from home.
- He and presumably several other staff were staying overnight in a hotel that didn't serve food.
- They ordered a curry and drinks at the place where they had been working all day.
-There is no evidence at all that anyone attended specifically to eat curry and have a beer, having not been involved in the work previously.
The question of any breach of the law seems to me to revolve around whether it was reasonable for the people who had been working together all day to conclude that day with food and a drink, or whether the law compelled them to go back to wherever they were spending the night and eat alone.
We will see what the outcome is. If the investigation finds him guilty, he has to resign and he will, or he'll be forced out by the Party. If the investigation finds him not guilty, I assume some folk in here will be apolo....nah, only joking. If course they won't.
-
And of course the inquiry into johnson and Arcuri has still to be concluded.
-
Hound seems to think that after a 12 hour day working together, much of it in the same room, folk should have gone back to their own hotel rooms to eat, then come back to continue the work.
The contorted logic of people desperate to find an equivalence is quite something to behold.
-
Bpool.
I'm sure you've been following this carefully. You know that event in Downing Street where someone took a photo from Sunak's office of the No19 staff out in the garden drinking?
You DO know that the Met decided there was no breach of the law in that case. Because they were all working together, and stopping to have a drink wasn't considered to be a social event.
Given that wasn't a breach of the law, why are you so certain that Starmer broke the law?
-
There is a difference between a drinks party and half a larger with a curry.
you were not allowed round peoples houses to have half a lager and a curry thou, is it any different at work? Most normal people would not have done that
Well yes it is different. Different periods of the crisis different restrictions.
Basically it's a case of just following the rules.
-
There is a difference between a drinks party and half a larger with a curry.
you were not allowed round peoples houses to have half a lager and a curry thou, is it any different at work? Most normal people would not have done that
People still went into offices during the pandemic because they had to, and during the time they were in they potentially had lunch and I'm sure Covid wouldn't have changed its mind whether it infected those people based on what kind of beverage they were having with their meal.
-
So from the squealing and outcry for justice there should be around 47 resignations to go from the government side plus any others that are given a fpn
-
I think the number of people who want a leader who breaks the law is tiny. People also don't want someone who criticises others, wants tighter restrictions and then may have broken them aswell.
-
Hound seems to think that after a 12 hour day working together, much of it in the same room, folk should have gone back to their own hotel rooms to eat, then come back to continue the work.
The contorted logic of people desperate to find an equivalence is quite something to behold.
That first paragraph is another lie by you bst, and you know it.
I challenge you to show where I have said that.
In your own time of course.
-
Starmer might actually look a bigger fool than Johnson if Durham decide to issue a Fixed Penalty and it is an if
Playing the resignation card constantly whether right or wrong whether people agree or disagree with him about Johnson he’s put himself in a corner
It doesn’t really matter what Johnson does or has done. If Durham decide Starmer has now broken lockdown rules he will look a real hypocrite and lose all credibility if he doesn’t follow his own advice.
Irrelevant of Johnson how does he not follow his own advice/suggestions of the right thing to do.
Saying I’m not resigning because he didn’t won’t wash. It would just put him in the same boat.
I know there are some differences about the situations and some on here will support Starmer and are 100% against the Tories
I’m not writing this in support Johnson I’d be saying this if it was the other way around
-
If Starmer is fined, then he's got to go, hoist by his own petard.
But if he did resign that would pile yet more pressure on Johnson to do the same.
-
Right now, knowing what we know, I still think Starmer will be cleared.
£200 doesn't pay for 30 people to party into the early hours.
The students who filmed the event say they saw a number of people socialising for 45mins. That's about as long as it takes to eat a meal. It still tally's with Starmers version of events.
-
Johnson was found guilty of breaking restriction rules and was subsequently fined. If Starmer is found guilty he should also be fined. However, whether Starmer should resign because of him proving to be a hypocrite is another matter.
-
BB.
Johnson also lied to the House.
You are on record as saying you don't think he should resign.
Yet here you are hypothesising over whether Starmer should resign for a situation that in all likelihood will not happen.
You are going to look even more of a biassed idiot than you already do if Starmer is cleared. And given that the police have already set a precedent that eating drinking alcohol with people you spent all day with at a workplace, in a break from work wasn't breaking the law, I'm struggling to see how there is any case for Starmer to answer.
If Starmer is found guilty, I think he should resign and I think I should apologise for having supported him.
What do you think you should do if he isn't?
-
BST
Johnson lied to the house IN YOUR OPINION. Why should he resign just because a politically twisted and biased person like you says he should?
Starmer shouldn't even wait for a verdict, after all, he argued that being under investigation alone is grounds for Boris Johnson's resignation, so why hasn't he resigned?
-
You are an embarrassment BB. I genuinely try to have grown up discussions with you but it's impossible. You are a perfect example of why the Chinese think that democracy is dated to collapse.
-
Starter has painted himself into a corner,it's a credibility issue now!
-
You are an embarrassment BB. I genuinely try to have grown up discussions with you but it's impossible. You are a perfect example of why the Chinese think that democracy is dated to collapse.
You are trying to cover your own embarrassment, BST. You don't answer questions because you can't, without embarrassing yourself. That is why you deviate all the time.
Now, I'll reiterate what I suggested last night. Get back to me when you're ready to rid yourself of the bullshit and answer some questions for a change.
-
You are an embarrassment BB. I genuinely try to have grown up discussions with you but it's impossible. You are a perfect example of why the Chinese think that democracy is dated to collapse.
An embarrassment to who?
-
BB
I used to think you were a very committed WUM. I actually think now that you believe what you say. You believe it when Starmer makes one mistake and says something incorrect in the House, then corrects it within hours, that you are justified in saying Starmer is a liar just like Johnson. You believe it when you say Johnson didn't lie in the House over the parties, when even his closest media spin doctors were laughing about how they would deal with questions about parties that he attended. I think you actually do believe in this false equivalence you throw up.
You're pitiful.
-
This all hinges on whether the people in that office continued to work after the meal/drinks were consumed.
If they did that's fine - there was nothing in the rules stating you couldn't pause work to eat at your workplace.
If they stopped work then enjoyed a meal/drink together afterwards before leaving then that is socialising and they broke the rules.
It should be easy to produce evidence of innocence here to provide to the police and public to kill this story. E-mails sent, computer files saved, CCTV of people leaving etc. - timed well after the time of the video/time on the receipt for the food (which would have been saved for an expense claim).
The failure of the Labour Party to produce such evidence together with the time of the video, the presence of alcohol and the number of people still in the office so late is highly suggestive, but not proof, of guilt.
-
I don't want, nor need your pity, BST, besides, when you're ready to rid yourself of the bullshit and answer some questions you'll need all the pity you can muster for yourself.
-
Branton
Have you ever been involved in campaigning during an election?
I have. Numerous times. There are often peoole working at HQ until well after midnight.
And that's without having the LotO and his team present, who had a lot more to deal with than just the campaigning.
And it's NOT a case of whether they continued working after the food. There is the (strong?) possibility that they were working while having the food (and the drink). Discussing whatever issues had come up during the day, and what needed to be done the next day.
I don't know if that's what happened. But I know from experience that there's no much partying goes on during campaigning. What there is is a shed load of bloody hard work and late nights.
Which makes me veer towards the event being, at worst, a working wind down.
Now, I may be wrong. Maybe they were having a right old knees up. In which case, if evidence of such comes out, unquestionably, Starmer should and will be toast.
-
I don't want, nor need your pity, BST, besides, when you're ready to rid yourself of the bullshit and answer some questions you'll need all the pity you can muster for yourself.
BB
I don't see any sense in engaging anymore with someone so partisan that they cannot even use words to mean what they mean. When you finally come to realise how stupid it makes you seem, come and have a chat. Until then, I'll confine myself to pointing out your errors. There's no point arguing in good faith with you because you don't understand the concept of arguing in good faith.
-
You are an embarrassment BB. I genuinely try to have grown up discussions with you but it's impossible. You are a perfect example of why the Chinese think that democracy is dated to collapse.
An embarrassment to who?
Exactly, Belton!
-
I don't want, nor need your pity, BST, besides, when you're ready to rid yourself of the bullshit and answer some questions you'll need all the pity you can muster for yourself.
BB
I don't see any sense in engaging anymore with someone so partisan that they cannot even use words to mean what they mean. When you finally come to realise how stupid it makes you seem, come and have a chat. Until then, I'll confine myself to pointing out your errors. There's no point arguing in good faith with you because you don't understand the concept of arguing in good faith.
Haha, and you call ME embarrassing!
-
Quick Billy's disciples, look up the definition of 'muster'! Must be summat you can zoom in on!!
-
Quick Billy's disciples, look up the definition of 'muster'! Must be summat you can zoom in on!!
Like I say. An utter embarrassment.
-
Answers man...........Answers..........
-
The point BB is right on though is that Starmer called for Johnson's resignation the minute he was investigated before any judgement, that was a mistake and by that token he should call for his own resignation.
No. He didn't. He called for Johnson to resign for misleading the House, which he clearly did from the very earliest stages of the whole process.
His words:
31 January – Sir Keir Starmer argues that being under investigation alone is grounds for Boris Johnson's resignation. He tweets: 'Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.'
After months of denials, Keir Starmer is now under investigation, what would he say about himself?
BFYP
You're not going to like this, but this is politics. Read Starmer's words. Nowhere does he say: "Johnson must resign BECAUSE he is under investigation."
-
Answers man...........Answers..........
It's just dawned on me. You do this regularly but I've never clicked before. You reckon it rules me don't you!
How very, very sad.
-
Now it's clicked, maybe you can start answering the actual contents of posts instead of diverting them.
-
Branton
And it's NOT a case of whether they continued working after the food. There is the (strong?) possibility that they were working while having the food (and the drink). Discussing whatever issues had come up during the day, and what needed to be done the next day.
I don't know if that's what happened. But I know from experience that there's no much partying goes on during campaigning. What there is is a shed load of bloody hard work and late nights.
Which makes me veer towards the event being, at worst, a working wind down.
Now, I may be wrong. Maybe they were having a right old knees up. In which case, if evidence of such comes out, unquestionably, Starmer should and will be toast.
I don't think, nor am I suggesting, there was a party/knees up.
As far as the rules in place at the time eating a meal and drinking alcohol together was a social activity, regardless of what was being discussed, and therefore if this was being done after the end of the working day the rules were breached.
Therefore it is absolutely crucial to this case whether work was carried out after the meal was consumed.
It is telling that the Labour Party has not produced into the public realm (nor I assume to the police as the investigation is being reopened) any evidence that work was being carried out after the meal/drinks - this would kill the story/investigation dead. As such evidence (computers/CCTV) should be easy to obtain if Starmer is innocent.
-
The daily mail is going though landfill sites and recycling depots to try and find more evidence as we speak.
-
Branton.
No. It's not. If work was carried out DURING the meal, that suffices.
-
One fascinating aspect to this. There's literally no-one senior in the Tory party having a pop at Starmer. From Johnson down.
It takes a special form of naivete to imagine there's some moral reason for this. Seems to me they know Starmer is very likely to be cleared and they don't want to look stupid when that happens. So they leave their attack dogs in the right wing press to do the hatchet job and convince those who are gullible or biassed enough to be convinced.
-
Or, because they have more important things to do other than the need to apply accusations against the opposition as their only way of progressing as a party.
Labours' only way of gaining political credit is to discredit the opposition.
-
The Express, Mail and Sun are all going hard on partygate because it draws criticism away from Johnson. As you say, senior tories are keeping shtum.
If Starmer is fined then it could well back fire on the tories because I do believe Starmer would resign... Leaving Johnson exposed.
Which makes me suspect, they know there's nothing in the Starmer stories. It's a distraction.
Edit. Apparently Starmer has told friends he will resign if he's fined.
-
Or, because they have more important things to do other than the need to apply accusations against the opposition as their only way of progressing as a party.
Labours' only way of gaining political credit is to discredit the opposition.
Like I said. A special naivete.
-
Discrediting the opposition is the meat and drink of politics BB.
-
BB and Diane Abbott...strange bedfellows.
-
BST
Johnson lied to the house IN YOUR OPINION. Why should he resign just because a politically twisted and biased person like you says he should?
Starmer shouldn't even wait for a verdict, after all, he argued that being under investigation alone is grounds for Boris Johnson's resignation, so why hasn't he resigned?
BB Johnson was asked directly were there any parties his answer was no.
This was later changed to he was not aware of any parties but that all rules had been followed at all times
The Met have decided differently and issued him with a FPN so does that not mean that he did in fact mislead/lie to the house?
-
BST
Johnson lied to the house IN YOUR OPINION. Why should he resign just because a politically twisted and biased person like you says he should?
Starmer shouldn't even wait for a verdict, after all, he argued that being under investigation alone is grounds for Boris Johnson's resignation, so why hasn't he resigned?
BB Johnson was asked directly were there any parties his answer was no.
This was later changed to he was not aware of any parties but that all rules had been followed at all times
The Met have decided differently and issued him with a FPN so does that not mean that he did in fact mislead/lie to the house?
No
-
BB and Diane Abbott...strange bedfellows.
Whatever turns you on, Mr Wiggerly.
-
BST
Johnson lied to the house IN YOUR OPINION. Why should he resign just because a politically twisted and biased person like you says he should?
Starmer shouldn't even wait for a verdict, after all, he argued that being under investigation alone is grounds for Boris Johnson's resignation, so why hasn't he resigned?
BB Johnson was asked directly were there any parties his answer was no.
This was later changed to he was not aware of any parties but that all rules had been followed at all times
The Met have decided differently and issued him with a FPN so does that not mean that he did in fact mislead/lie to the house?
No
Why not?
-
BB.
Johnson also lied to the House.
You are on record as saying you don't think he should resign.
Yet here you are hypothesising over whether Starmer should resign for a situation that in all likelihood will not happen.
You are going to look even more of a biassed idiot than you already do if Starmer is cleared. And given that the police have already set a precedent that eating drinking alcohol with people you spent all day with at a workplace, in a break from work wasn't breaking the law, I'm struggling to see how there is any case for Starmer to answer.
If Starmer is found guilty, I think he should resign and I think I should apologise for having supported him.
What do you think you should do if he isn't?
Quote from mugnapper.
« on: May 05, 2022, 12:58:23 pm »
Well it took a while but now we're back to name calling.
Here endeth another interesting thread.
Well said mugnapper.
Calling another poster a biased idiot is out of order.
-
BST
Johnson lied to the house IN YOUR OPINION. Why should he resign just because a politically twisted and biased person like you says he should?
Starmer shouldn't even wait for a verdict, after all, he argued that being under investigation alone is grounds for Boris Johnson's resignation, so why hasn't he resigned?
BB Johnson was asked directly were there any parties his answer was no.
This was later changed to he was not aware of any parties but that all rules had been followed at all times
The Met have decided differently and issued him with a FPN so does that not mean that he did in fact mislead/lie to the house?
No
Why not?
Because you can be unaware of events or misinterpret them.
I'll keep it at that for now until Billy and his disciples have analysed every word I've written.
-
BST
Johnson lied to the house IN YOUR OPINION. Why should he resign just because a politically twisted and biased person like you says he should?
Starmer shouldn't even wait for a verdict, after all, he argued that being under investigation alone is grounds for Boris Johnson's resignation, so why hasn't he resigned?
BB Johnson was asked directly were there any parties his answer was no.
This was later changed to he was not aware of any parties but that all rules had been followed at all times
The Met have decided differently and issued him with a FPN so does that not mean that he did in fact mislead/lie to the house?
No
There are two possibilities.
1) He knew that an event where his wife and her interior designer come to his office to hold a party broke the rules that he had set in law. In which case he lied to the House about it.
Or
2) He didn't know that broke his own rules. In which case he is dangerously stupid.
There is no other possible conclusion.
Either way, we should have resigned weeks ago.
BB is convinced that he shouldn't resign. Which means he's happy to have a PM who is either irredeemably stupid, or one who deliberately and knowingly misleads the House of Commons.
Folk just need to factor that in when they discuss things with BB.
-
BST
Johnson lied to the house IN YOUR OPINION. Why should he resign just because a politically twisted and biased person like you says he should?
Starmer shouldn't even wait for a verdict, after all, he argued that being under investigation alone is grounds for Boris Johnson's resignation, so why hasn't he resigned?
BB Johnson was asked directly were there any parties his answer was no.
This was later changed to he was not aware of any parties but that all rules had been followed at all times
The Met have decided differently and issued him with a FPN so does that not mean that he did in fact mislead/lie to the house?
No
BST
Johnson lied to the house IN YOUR OPINION. Why should he resign just because a politically twisted and biased person like you says he should?
Starmer shouldn't even wait for a verdict, after all, he argued that being under investigation alone is grounds for Boris Johnson's resignation, so why hasn't he resigned?
BB Johnson was asked directly were there any parties his answer was no.
This was later changed to he was not aware of any parties but that all rules had been followed at all times
The Met have decided differently and issued him with a FPN so does that not mean that he did in fact mislead/lie to the house?
No
There are two possibilities.
1) He knew that an event where his wife and her interior designer come to his office to hold a party broke the rules that he had set in law. In which case he lied to the House about it.
Or
2) He didn't know that broke his own rules. In which case he is dangerously stupid.
There is no other possible conclusion.
Either way, we should have resigned weeks ago.
BB is convinced that he shouldn't resign. Which means he's happy to have a PM who is either irredeemably stupid, or one who deliberately and knowingly misleads the House of Commons.
Folk just need to factor that in when they discuss things with BB.
You're missing the third possibility - that consistently arguing the toss as ever BB is yet again using his own definition, this time of the word 'no'. :silly:
-
BB and Diane Abbott...strange bedfellows.
Whatever turns you on, Mr Wiggerly.
Whatever turns me on it certainly isn't any thought of you.
-
Trying to get a bigger gang together aye Billy?!! You really don't see how pathetic you sound, do you!
You are most probably the biggest hypocrite I've EVER come across, and that is from quite a big selection.
It is Labour supporters like you that stop other potential voters from voting for Labour. Who in their right mind wants to be on the same side as a hypocrite like you?
-
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
― Margaret Thatcher
-
Trying to get a bigger gang together aye Billy?!! You really don't see how pathetic you sound, do you!
You are most probably the biggest hypocrite I've EVER come across, and that is from quite a big selection.
It is Labour supporters like you that stop other potential voters from voting for Labour. Who in their right mind wants to be on the same side as a hypocrite like you?
So you don't agree with logic? Everything makes sense now.
-
BB and Diane Abbott...strange bedfellows.
Whatever turns you on, Mr Wiggerly.
Whatever turns me on it certainly isn't any thought of you.
I was actually thinking more of your desire for Diane Abbott! still, whatever turns you on.
-
Trying to get a bigger gang together aye Billy?!! You really don't see how pathetic you sound, do you!
You are most probably the biggest hypocrite I've EVER come across, and that is from quite a big selection.
It is Labour supporters like you that stop other potential voters from voting for Labour. Who in their right mind wants to be on the same side as a hypocrite like you?
So you don't agree with logic? Everything makes sense now.
Oh I agree with logic, owd lad, just not yours!
-
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
― Margaret Thatcher
You're wasting your time RD, Billy and his disciples will never agree with Thatcher. Thanks for the support, though.
-
Trying to get a bigger gang together aye Billy?!! You really don't see how pathetic you sound, do you!
You are most probably the biggest hypocrite I've EVER come across, and that is from quite a big selection.
It is Labour supporters like you that stop other potential voters from voting for Labour. Who in their right mind wants to be on the same side as a hypocrite like you?
So you don't agree with logic? Everything makes sense now.
Oh I agree with logic, owd lad, just not yours!
Yet another new definition!
-
Ahh, that makes sense. You have your own definition of "logic".
-
just out of interest BB where would you say the flaw in Billy's logic is?
-
Ahh, that makes sense. You have your own definition of "logic".
Logic is correct reasoning. It is your version of correct reasoning that I don't agree with.
Now, get back to me when you're ready to rid yourself of the bullshit and answer some questions for a change.
-
BST
Johnson lied to the house IN YOUR OPINION. Why should he resign just because a politically twisted and biased person like you says he should?
Starmer shouldn't even wait for a verdict, after all, he argued that being under investigation alone is grounds for Boris Johnson's resignation, so why hasn't he resigned?
BB Johnson was asked directly were there any parties his answer was no.
This was later changed to he was not aware of any parties but that all rules had been followed at all times
The Met have decided differently and issued him with a FPN so does that not mean that he did in fact mislead/lie to the house?
No
So Johnson was fined for attending an actual party as deemed illegal by The Met interpreting his own Govt rules, yet having said there were no parties in the House he didn't mislead/lie to the House? Fraid you've lost me on that one even with your interpretation of the English language
-
just out of interest BB where would you say the flaw in Billy's logic is?
BST comes on here preaching about his honesty and integrity to all and sundry and his ambition to see his precious Labour party back in power. He wants a Labour government that gets into power by the only means it can with right-wing policies and then move to the left when it achieves it. In other words, he wants HIS party of choice to lie through its back teeth to the electorate.
Honesty and integrity my arse.
-
Yeah, you've answered a different question there BB.
-
Ahh, that makes sense. You have your own definition of "logic".
Logic is correct reasoning. It is your version of correct reasoning that I don't agree with.
Now, get back to me when you're ready to rid yourself of the bullshit and answer some questions for a change.
Thing is BB, you DON'T disagree with my reasoning.
You said so here yourself that Johnson didn't realise that an event where his wife and her interior designer came into his office with a birthday cake wasn't a breach of the law.
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1158054#msg1158054
Your own words. "you can be unaware of events or misinterpret them". In other words, you can be too thick to understand that a party is a party. Just like I said.
So why exactly are you arguing? Other that that cloying need you have to make every exchange about you and arguing?
-
No RD, just about every subject regarding politics and the Tory party involves BST talking about their lack of honesty and integrity. That includes this one.
He's a fake.
-
And you're changing the subject there BB.
-
Just imagine BB,
You could admit your man is flawed. I'm not asking you to change your political beliefs. You could just accept he's not perfect, it's staring you in the face.
It might be easier to argue that his failures can be forgiven because he makes up for it in other ways. I don't want to lead the witness but that's the line some Tory MPs are taking.
-
There are posters on this forum who have never criticised Johnson and never will, whatever he does. What they will do is attack the people who do point out his lying and hypocracy.
Just like the right wing press who, 2 weeks ago, said that people weren't interested in parties and we should concentrate on thigs that really matter like the war in Ukraine and the cost of living crises. I said before there is no way they will let Labour into power, however moderate and boring the leader and his policies are. Because they will have to stop avoiding paying their taxes.
Thats how fascism started and thats how it has worked throught the ages.
No point arguing with them. Call them out - then ignore them.
-
There are posters on this forum who have never criticised Johnson and never will, whatever he does. What they will do is attack the people who do point out his lying and hypocracy.
Just like the right wing press who, 2 weeks ago, said that people weren't interested in parties and we should concentrate on thigs that really matter like the war in Ukraine and the cost of living crises. I said before there is no way they will let Labour into power, however moderate and boring the leader and his policies are. Because they will have to stop avoiding paying their taxes.
Thats how fascism started and thats how it has worked throught the ages.
No point arguing with them. Call them out - then ignore them.
Wilts, just out of curiosity, who do have on the list of posters who have never criticised Johnson.
-
Just imagine BB,
You could admit your man is flawed. I'm not asking you to change your political beliefs. You could just accept he's not perfect, it's staring you in the face.
It might be easier to argue that his failures can be forgiven because he makes up for it in other ways. I don't want to lead the witness but that's the line some Tory MPs are taking.
I've said Johnson has made mistakes, and of course, he's flawed. It is probably his buffoonish persona that has got him to be PM. But I'm f**ked if I'm gonna join BST & co's constant abuse of him and the Tory party, especially when BST's blatant one-sided biasedness takes him to new heights of hypocrisy like it has on this thread.
Now, to put the record straight, Johnson is not 'my man', and I would only vote for him if the only alternative was Labour.
-
Just imagine BB,
You could admit your man is flawed. I'm not asking you to change your political beliefs. You could just accept he's not perfect, it's staring you in the face.
It might be easier to argue that his failures can be forgiven because he makes up for it in other ways. I don't want to lead the witness but that's the line some Tory MPs are taking.
I've said Johnson has made mistakes, and of course, he's flawed. It is probably his buffoonish persona that has got him to be PM. But I'm f**ked if I'm gonna join BST & co's constant abuse of him and the Tory party, especially when BST's blatant one-sided biasedness takes him to new heights of hypocrisy like it has on this thread.
Now, to put the record straight, Johnson is not 'my man', and I would only vote for him if the only alternative was Labour.
Alright accepted. So in this case, has he done wrong?
-
He's been found guilty of doing wrong. Just suppose, though, he wasn't found guilty? Would BST and co have apologised for the false accusations? More to the point, do you think BST and co would say the judgement was wrong, and Johnson was guilty anyway?
I think the latter, don't you?
-
There are posters on this forum who have never criticised Johnson and never will, whatever he does. What they will do is attack the people who do point out his lying and hypocracy.
Just like the right wing press who, 2 weeks ago, said that people weren't interested in parties and we should concentrate on thigs that really matter like the war in Ukraine and the cost of living crises. I said before there is no way they will let Labour into power, however moderate and boring the leader and his policies are. Because they will have to stop avoiding paying their taxes.
Thats how fascism started and thats how it has worked throught the ages.
No point arguing with them. Call them out - then ignore them.
Wilts, just out of curiosity, who do have on the list of posters who have never criticised Johnson.
It's a short list hound. You aren't on it.
-
Yes, he's been found guilty of doing wrong BB.
But do you accept that decision?
Think on.... You could be a reasonable person now.
-
BB.
I've said several times in this thread that if Starmer is found to have broken the law, I think he should resign.
Yet you obsess about me being a partisan hypocrite.
You flag up a pointless hypothesis about what you think I would or would not have done in some parallel universe.
What you don't, ever do, is to consider how and why I form my opinions.
I don't accuse Johnson of being an amoral liar because he is a Tory. I accuse him of being an amoral liar because all his life he has been an amoral liar.
Now, you could accept that that is my approach and engage on the substance of what I say.
Or, you could continue doing what you have done for years - decide that everything I say comes from a position of hypocritical bad faith, and insist on taking ludicrous positions and driving idiotic arguments to match them.
Your call.
-
Yes, he's been found guilty of doing wrong BB.
But do you accept that decision?
Think on.... You could be a reasonable person now.
Of course I accept the decision, just like Boris Johnson does.
I don't want to be a reasonable person in your, or anyone else's eyes if it means me joining the campaign of hate against everything I didn't vote for, just because I lost.
-
BST
Johnson lied to the house IN YOUR OPINION. Why should he resign just because a politically twisted and biased person like you says he should?
Starmer shouldn't even wait for a verdict, after all, he argued that being under investigation alone is grounds for Boris Johnson's resignation, so why hasn't he resigned?
BB Johnson was asked directly were there any parties his answer was no.
This was later changed to he was not aware of any parties but that all rules had been followed at all times
The Met have decided differently and issued him with a FPN so does that not mean that he did in fact mislead/lie to the house?
No
So Johnson was fined for attending an actual party as deemed illegal by The Met interpreting his own Govt rules, yet having said there were no parties in the House he didn't mislead/lie to the House? Fraid you've lost me on that one even with your interpretation of the English language
BB?
-
Yes, he's been found guilty of doing wrong BB.
But do you accept that decision?
Think on.... You could be a reasonable person now.
Of course I accept the decision, just like Boris Johnson does.
I don't want to be a reasonable person in your, or anyone else's eyes if it means me joining the campaign of hate against everything I didn't vote for, just because I lost.
BB, if you could just be a bit more critical of your own side, you might be bearable.
They aren't perfect you know? Nothing in life is perfect. People are farfrom being perfect.
The human condition is fundamentally imperfect. We just make best guesses.
-
Yes, he's been found guilty of doing wrong BB.
But do you accept that decision?
Think on.... You could be a reasonable person now.
Of course I accept the decision, just like Boris Johnson does.
I don't want to be a reasonable person in your, or anyone else's eyes if it means me joining the campaign of hate against everything I didn't vote for, just because I lost.
BB, if you could just be a bit more critical of your own side, you might be bearable.
They aren't perfect you know? Nothing in life is perfect. People are farfrom being perfect.
The human condition is fundamentally imperfect. We just make best guesses.
You know what RD. There are quite a few Labour supporters on here who are extremely partisan in their undying love of the Labour Party.
So partisan in fact that many of them will not accept any criticism of the LP.
Maybe they should listen to your words of reasoning.
I had to laugh at a recent post by bst which accused BB of being politically biased.
-
No RD, just about every subject regarding politics and the Tory party involves BST talking about their lack of honesty and integrity. That includes this one.
He's a fake.
What cracks me up is "the said person" does so much posting on here in a normal persons "working hours" performing extra curricula activities in working hours (a.k.a. delivering sermons) could also be interpreted as "fraud"
-
No RD, just about every subject regarding politics and the Tory party involves BST talking about their lack of honesty and integrity. That includes this one.
He's a fake.
What cracks me up is "the said person" does so much posting on here in a normal persons "working hours" performing extra curricula activities in working hours (a.k.a. delivering sermons) could also be interpreted as "fraud"
I think you'd struggle with that one.
-
No RD, just about every subject regarding politics and the Tory party involves BST talking about their lack of honesty and integrity. That includes this one.
He's a fake.
What cracks me up is "the said person" does so much posting on here in a normal persons "working hours" performing extra curricula activities in working hours (a.k.a. delivering sermons) could also be interpreted as "fraud"
Aye. Like you have any idea of the hours I work.
-
in breaking news the mail has announced they are very close to identifying the alleged bottle that Starmer drank from and have sent several hundred thousand for forensic examination, fingerprinting and thermoluminescence dating to determine:
The exact size 275 or 330ml, alcohol content, where it was brewed and hopefully how long it took from opening to empty and most importantly whether they can determine if anything was discussed about the business of the day while it was being consumed.
surprisingly spokes for the tories on a fourth tier football forum are saying that there are more important things to be getting on with at the moment ....
-
if the mail is right that it was pre planned and yes it's a if, he has to resign, let's be honest most people would class having a beer and a curry as a social gathering
-
Yeah, you've answered a different question there BB.
You've just come up against the stock-in-trade response. Enjoy the BB experience.
-
Just imagine BB,
You could admit your man is flawed. I'm not asking you to change your political beliefs. You could just accept he's not perfect, it's staring you in the face.
It might be easier to argue that his failures can be forgiven because he makes up for it in other ways. I don't want to lead the witness but that's the line some Tory MPs are taking.
I've said Johnson has made mistakes, and of course, he's flawed. It is probably his buffoonish persona that has got him to be PM. But I'm f**ked if I'm gonna join BST & co's constant abuse of him and the Tory party, especially when BST's blatant one-sided biasedness takes him to new heights of hypocrisy like it has on this thread.
Now, to put the record straight, Johnson is not 'my man', and I would only vote for him if the only alternative was Labour.
What a beautiful example of blatant BB one-sided biassedness.
Now then, what was that you were bleating about hypocrisy? :silly:
-
Just imagine BB,
You could admit your man is flawed. I'm not asking you to change your political beliefs. You could just accept he's not perfect, it's staring you in the face.
It might be easier to argue that his failures can be forgiven because he makes up for it in other ways. I don't want to lead the witness but that's the line some Tory MPs are taking.
I've said Johnson has made mistakes, and of course, he's flawed. It is probably his buffoonish persona that has got him to be PM. But I'm f**ked if I'm gonna join BST & co's constant abuse of him and the Tory party, especially when BST's blatant one-sided biasedness takes him to new heights of hypocrisy like it has on this thread.
Now, to put the record straight, Johnson is not 'my man', and I would only vote for him if the only alternative was Labour.
What a beautiful example of blatant BB one-sided biassedness.
Now then, what was that you were bleating about hypocrisy? :silly:
Of course you Glyn, are not biased at all.
-
According to the Sun, it looks like one of the students who witnessed the event is prepared to make a statement that it was a drinks party not a meal.
That could be very tricky.
-
That can’t possibly be true RD.
He will be a rigged Tory voter, brown envelopes and all that sort of stuff.
-
According to the Sun, it looks like one of the students who witnessed the event is prepared to make a statement that it was a drinks party not a meal.
That could be very tricky.
It should all be on the video they were there long enough RD, not sure why it wouldn't have been seen before.
-
Just imagine BB,
You could admit your man is flawed. I'm not asking you to change your political beliefs. You could just accept he's not perfect, it's staring you in the face.
It might be easier to argue that his failures can be forgiven because he makes up for it in other ways. I don't want to lead the witness but that's the line some Tory MPs are taking.
I've said Johnson has made mistakes, and of course, he's flawed. It is probably his buffoonish persona that has got him to be PM. But I'm f**ked if I'm gonna join BST & co's constant abuse of him and the Tory party, especially when BST's blatant one-sided biasedness takes him to new heights of hypocrisy like it has on this thread.
Now, to put the record straight, Johnson is not 'my man', and I would only vote for him if the only alternative was Labour.
What a beautiful example of blatant BB one-sided biassedness.
Now then, what was that you were bleating about hypocrisy? :silly:
Of course you Glyn, are not biased at all.
Nobody isn't. But I'm not the one bleating about hypocrisy am I?
-
Just imagine BB,
You could admit your man is flawed. I'm not asking you to change your political beliefs. You could just accept he's not perfect, it's staring you in the face.
It might be easier to argue that his failures can be forgiven because he makes up for it in other ways. I don't want to lead the witness but that's the line some Tory MPs are taking.
I've said Johnson has made mistakes, and of course, he's flawed. It is probably his buffoonish persona that has got him to be PM. But I'm f**ked if I'm gonna join BST & co's constant abuse of him and the Tory party, especially when BST's blatant one-sided biasedness takes him to new heights of hypocrisy like it has on this thread.
Now, to put the record straight, Johnson is not 'my man', and I would only vote for him if the only alternative was Labour.
What a beautiful example of blatant BB one-sided biassedness.
Now then, what was that you were bleating about hypocrisy? :silly:
Of course you Glyn, are not biased at all.
Nobody isn't. But I'm not the one bleating about hypocrisy am I?
No, you were bleating about one sided bias.
-
Branton.
No. It's not. If work was carried out DURING the meal, that suffices.
Simply incorrect and Starmer himself agrees see www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61362474
"The Labour leader has maintained the visit was a work event, and that the food and drink was consumed in between doing work, so was within the rules."
"He has also previously insisted he returned to work afterwards."
If this is so where is the proof? E-mails sent, computer files saved down, CCTV of him leaving the office. If his assertion is true some such evidence must exist to back it up. Why haven't Labour exonerated him by publishing such evidence?
There can only be one plausible explanation.
This is now backed up by this memo coming to light www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/politics/179032/mail-on-sunday-exclusive-keir-starmers-beergate-story-blown-apart-by-leaked-memo
Not looking good is it?
-
There's one obvious question to ask the dozen (not 30) attending. How many drinks did you have?
If it's more than one and definitely more than two, he's done for.
-
Branton.
No. It's not. If work was carried out DURING the meal, that suffices.
Simply incorrect and Starmer himself agrees see www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61362474
"The Labour leader has maintained the visit was a work event, and that the food and drink was consumed in between doing work, so was within the rules."
"He has also previously insisted he returned to work afterwards."
If this is so where is the proof? E-mails sent, computer files saved down, CCTV of him leaving the office. If his assertion is true some such evidence must exist to back it up. Why haven't Labour exonerated him by publishing such evidence?
There can only be one plausible explanation.
Which is now backed up by this memo coming to light www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/politics/179032/mail-on-sunday-exclusive-keir-starmers-beergate-story-blown-apart-by-leaked-memo
Not looking good is it?
-
I'd be taking a deep breath, quit the amateur detective work and wait for the police to determine what is what, staking ones reputation on what the mail, the sun or both pumps out would get you good odds at the bookies I'd bet.
-
Apparently his own legal advisor reckons it's 60/40 whether he gets a fine or not.
-
apparently?
-
apparently?
I said that because I read it in a paper yesterday but I can't provide a link to it.
-
If you can't provide a link could you hazard a guess why anyone's let alone Starmer's legal advisor release confidential information to the media? unless it was rock solid in their clients favour of course.
-
I don't know Syd, I only skimmed it but I remember 60%. It might have been attributed to Faulkner, is he his advisor?
-
dunno, it's not my story RD
-
Personally I think the problem comes down to the way the meal was consumed.
It was brought to the kitchen and people were in and out, grabbing a bite to eat, maybe standing whilst eating. Not a sit down meal around a table.
At least that's what it looks like from the pictures I have seen.
Which might be fine if it's a working meal.
But the question mark is how much alcohol was consumed? It could quite easily be viewed as a party if it's too much.
-
This is why I have problems with the scenario so far RD, it's a scenario and someone, maybe the police will explain how many drinks one is allowed in any particular situation and prove how many drinks any particular person consumed.
-
Branton.
No. It's not. If work was carried out DURING the meal, that suffices.
Simply incorrect and Starmer himself agrees see www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61362474
"The Labour leader has maintained the visit was a work event, and that the food and drink was consumed in between doing work, so was within the rules."
"He has also previously insisted he returned to work afterwards."
If this is so where is the proof? E-mails sent, computer files saved down, CCTV of him leaving the office. If his assertion is true some such evidence must exist to back it up. Why haven't Labour exonerated him by publishing such evidence?
There can only be one plausible explanation.
This is now backed up by this memo coming to light www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/politics/179032/mail-on-sunday-exclusive-keir-starmers-beergate-story-blown-apart-by-leaked-memo
Not looking good is it?
Well someone in Starmer's team was working after 10pm that night. Check out the time on this tweet..
https://mobile.twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1388240092398071809
-
I'll say again. If the police conclude that Starmer broke the rules, he has to go.
But just for context, for those who like to say they are all the same, remember this is what we already know about No10 parties.
https://mobile.twitter.com/HelenTeeDubU/status/1523221202940362752/photo/1
And not a single person has resigned.
-
dunno, it's not my story RD
Found it, it was Lord Falconer and the story was in the Mail.
It's attributed to 'a source' so make of it what you will.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10792253/Keir-Starmer-tells-colleagues-QUIT-gets-Covid-fine.html
-
Sorry can't open the mail RD
I'm not being smart RD there's quite a few things that I cannot open that those in the UK can.
-
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has reportedly told colleagues he will have to quit if he gets a Covid fine over the Beergate investigation by Durham Police.
Reports from political website Guido Fawkes suggest Starmer is so concerned about the outcome of the investigation he has asked Labour peer and former Justice Secretary Lord Falconer to put together a legal defence team.
A source told the website: '[Starmer] has told people he will have to go if he's fined.'
The source added: 'He's put his fate in the hands of the police and lawyers now.'
The news site suggests Starmer's lawyers have said there is a 60 per cent chance he will escape the investigation without a fine.
-
Thanks RD, I did add to my comment above, but again I would wonder why his lawyer would release this and to GF of all people.
-
I don't think Falconer did release it Syd. It appears to have been leaked by a source.
-
I don't think Falconer did release it Syd. It appears to have been leaked by a source.
I don't want to be a bb about this but unless the quote came directly from a named source, at this point in time as it comes from GF site a pinch of salt would be required.
-
I don't think Falconer did release it Syd. It appears to have been leaked by a source.
I don't want to be a bb about this but unless the quote came directly from a named source, at this point in time as it comes from GF site a pinch of salt would be required.
Fair enough Syd.
I think given what we know a 60% chance looks about right, so I wouldn't be surprised if the source is genuine.
-
Just imagine BB,
You could admit your man is flawed. I'm not asking you to change your political beliefs. You could just accept he's not perfect, it's staring you in the face.
It might be easier to argue that his failures can be forgiven because he makes up for it in other ways. I don't want to lead the witness but that's the line some Tory MPs are taking.
I've said Johnson has made mistakes, and of course, he's flawed. It is probably his buffoonish persona that has got him to be PM. But I'm f**ked if I'm gonna join BST & co's constant abuse of him and the Tory party, especially when BST's blatant one-sided biasedness takes him to new heights of hypocrisy like it has on this thread.
Now, to put the record straight, Johnson is not 'my man', and I would only vote for him if the only alternative was Labour.
What a beautiful example of blatant BB one-sided biassedness.
Now then, what was that you were bleating about hypocrisy? :silly:
Of course you Glyn, are not biased at all.
Nobody isn't. But I'm not the one bleating about hypocrisy am I?
No, you were bleating about one sided bias.
No I wasn't, I was bleating about how hypocritical it was of that particular person to be bleating about one-sided bias.
-
So (to correct what I'd said before) Starmer had been campaigning in other towns in the North before going to Durham.
It appears he arrived in Durham around 7pm.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MikeLLeeks/status/1388192400917532673
My understanding is that he was campaigning in the NE the next day. When LotO goes campaigning it's a big thing. Local MPs will want to make the best of it. Presumably that required some planning. Given that the timetabled meal began at 20:40 in the local MP's office, and given that he appears to have had at least some other activities before that time (the Mail conveniently cut most of those) he didn't have a great deal of time to be doing any work BEFORE eating.
https://mobile.twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1523179736104505345
The idea then that this was a social event rather than a working dinner stretches credibility just a bit.
And remember, the Met has established the principle that politicians and their staff eating and drinking alcohol while working (like below) was, so far from being a breach, not even worthy of investigation. Even when the PM's wife joined them.
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/81492860b5b6ce0c311e25db6b6e2bf2536b992f/0_0_1826_2100/master/1826.jpg?width=465&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=528fa64b91ece4e4e4c9227fb7e3ffc2
-
So much defence being offered by Billy and his gang for Starmer.
Yet when the Partygate situation arose they had the scaffold built and the noose ready after an hour.
-
Except BST has made the point, if Starmer is found to have broken the rules, then he should resign.
-
Something's been nagging me about Johnson's explanation (sic) for why he wasn't lying to the House about parties. The explanation (sic) frequently repeated by BB in here.
The line is that when he repeatedly stood up in the House and insisted that there were no parties, and no rules broken, it's because he genuinely didn't think that his wife turning up at his office with a birthday cake, accompanied by the designer of their gold wallpaper didn't count as a party.
OK. Let's accept that for now.
Problem is, he sacked his own Press Secretary for being videoed joking about what soon they would use if news of parties ever got out.
He sacked her for that. But it honestly never dawned on him to ask her, "Hang on! I thought these were all work events. Are you telling me that we've actually been having parties all along?"
So that defence requires him:
a) To be so divorced from reality that he doesn't understand that he's at a party.
And
b) To sack someone for laughing about parties, and not even think to ask her about the parties that he was insisting never happened.
I wonder who he gets to cut his food for him?
-
I'm getting really fed up of this issue being given so much coverage and legroom in the MSM.
Whilst the country crashes and burns, these pathetic individuals are paraded everywhere and the different instances are analysed and commented on ad infinitum.
Can this poor example of government and opposition get back to what we pay them for and that's to make the best decisions for everyone in the country.
I'm really hoping this additional "information" that Durham Constabulary have received (hopefully more than the plan of action doc that's appeared in the press) about Starmer's late night gig is damming enough to see this born looser made to resign with the implications that it creates enough of a stink that it causes the Tory's to jettison Johnson at the same time.
Can we then start again and have some leadership demonstrated from both side and attempt to get to the bottom of this current economic crisis.
We pay these people to do a job of work for us, i'd like to see them getting on with it.
-
You can tell Starmer is in trouble from the Labour Party's spokesman response to the memo revealed today: -
"During a fast-moving campaign, the op note doesn’t always keep up with events so it would be wrong to assume that activities occurred at the times originally planned. For ex-ample, it’s been documented that the takeaway was late."
Hilarious!
Or in other words: -
Yes we planned to break the law but events prevented the timetable from being kept to. We actually had the curry and alcohol get-together later than planned so we did therefore have time to work afterwards - oh no wait!!!
-
Something's been nagging me about Johnson's explanation (sic) for why he wasn't lying to the House about parties. The explanation (sic) frequently repeated by BB in here.
The line is that when he repeatedly stood up in the House and insisted that there were no parties, and no rules broken, it's because he genuinely didn't think that his wife turning up at his office with a birthday cake, accompanied by the designer of their gold wallpaper didn't count as a party.
OK. Let's accept that for now.
Problem is, he sacked his own Press Secretary for being videoed joking about what soon they would use if news of parties ever got out.
He sacked her for that. But it honestly never dawned on him to ask her, "Hang on! I thought these were all work events. Are you telling me that we've actually been having parties all along?"
So that defence requires him:
a) To be so divorced from reality that he doesn't understand that he's at a party.
And
b) To sack someone for laughing about parties, and not even think to ask her about the parties that he was insisting never happened.
I wonder who he gets to cut his food for him?
Sacked her?? My understanding was she resigned
-
BST
Johnson lied to the house IN YOUR OPINION. Why should he resign just because a politically twisted and biased person like you says he should?
Starmer shouldn't even wait for a verdict, after all, he argued that being under investigation alone is grounds for Boris Johnson's resignation, so why hasn't he resigned?
BB Johnson was asked directly were there any parties his answer was no.
This was later changed to he was not aware of any parties but that all rules had been followed at all times
The Met have decided differently and issued him with a FPN so does that not mean that he did in fact mislead/lie to the house?
No
So Johnson was fined for attending an actual party as deemed illegal by The Met interpreting his own Govt rules, yet having said there were no parties in the House he didn't mislead/lie to the House? Fraid you've lost me on that one even with your interpretation of the English language
BB?
C'mon BB you know what you always say to BST
-
I thought you might have picked up on my answer to that in post 381. Ah well!
He didn't mislead/lie to the house because you can be unaware of events or misinterpret them.
I went to Chesterfield a couple of years ago and if anyone asked me if I have broken the law while there I would have said no. Next thing I received a speeding ticket for doing 34/35 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. On further recollection of it, I remembered the area where the incident took place and thought it was a 40 MPH zone.
I subsequently received a £100 fine and didn't fight the case despite not intentionally or knowingly breaking the law.
I'd made an honest mistake.
-
There's tonnes of criticisms to the point BST made though. In the company I worked for through a fair whack of covid we paid extra for self catering accommodation to avoid any issues such as that.
Why did they eat together? Granted he was late in getting up there did they have to eat together?
Why deny someone was there when it was on the memo and clear she was? Why say it was a quick bit of food between work when it appears it wasn't? Why did he need to be in person for an online social event (something they criticised Boris Johnson for).
Given labours stance on all things covid you'd have thought they'd be more careful. Legal or not election guidance was not to meet up indoors whilst campaigning.
None of this excuses Boris Johnson or those fined, they should still resign particularly the pm, yet he dodges it again. Quite rightly as BST and others have said you can't call out one and not the other.
-
BB.
So you are doubling down on the idea that Johnson didn't understand that his own law forbade having a birthday party with his wife and interior designer coming to his office. And on the idea that it never dawned on him to ask the spokesperson he sacked why they were joking about parties at No10.
Do you want to buy a used car?
-
Forgive me if I’ve missed this and it’s been raised before
If Starmer is found to have breached lockdown rules and receives a fixed penalty does that mean that Angela Raynor will also get one because she was there with him I believe.
-
BFYP
Why did they eat together?
How about because they had campaigning to plan for the next day? In which case you combine eating with working. Have you never done that? I've had late evening working meals loads of times where we discuss what the next day if work is going to pan out like, because there's been no time to do it previously.
Why deny someone was there when it was on the memo and clear she was?
Because a young staffer fielded an enquiry about this from The Mail months ago and got his wires crossed.
Why did he need to be in person for an online social event?
He was there FOR the social event. He was there because he was campaigning there the following morning. The social event took place while he was there.
-
If there's one thing that Starmer and his office do need a proper kicking for, it's the horrifically amateurish way they e dealt with this story. It's a dead easy one to bat back. As Lisa Nandy did consummately today.
https://mobile.twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1523287283297783809
-
There's tonnes of criticisms to the point BST made though. In the company I worked for through a fair whack of covid we paid extra for self catering accommodation to avoid any issues such as that.
Why did they eat together? Granted he was late in getting up there did they have to eat together?
Why deny someone was there when it was on the memo and clear she was? Why say it was a quick bit of food between work when it appears it wasn't? Why did he need to be in person for an online social event (something they criticised Boris Johnson for).
Given labours stance on all things covid you'd have thought they'd be more careful. Legal or not election guidance was not to meet up indoors whilst campaigning.
None of this excuses Boris Johnson or those fined, they should still resign particularly the pm, yet he dodges it again. Quite rightly as BST and others have said you can't call out one and not the other.
Johnson was found guilty of breaking restriction rules and was subsequently fined. If Starmer is found guilty he should also be fined. In my opinion, neither should resign for what in truth thousands of people all over the country were doing.
However, whether Starmer should resign because of him proving to be a hypocrite is another matter. Starmer shouldn't even wait for a verdict, because, after all, he argued that being under investigation alone is grounds for Boris Johnson's resignation.
Why hasn't Starmer already resigned?
-
Except BST has made the point, if Starmer is found to have broken the rules, then he should resign.
Yes RD, I know he has done that.
It doesn’t change my point though that bst and his pals had Johnson hung within an hour of Partygate coming to light, before it was proven that there had been any wrong doing.
-
BB.
No. He didn't.
-
If there's one thing that Starmer and his office do need a proper kicking for, it's the horrifically amateurish way they e dealt with this story. It's a dead easy one to bat back. As Lisa Nandy did consummately today.
https://mobile.twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1523287283297783809
Would this be the same Lisa Nandy that had difficulty in defining the differences between a man and a woman?
When Starmer is toast do you think she would make a good Labour leader?
-
If there's one thing that Starmer and his office do need a proper kicking for, it's the horrifically amateurish way they e dealt with this story. It's a dead easy one to bat back. As Lisa Nandy did consummately today.
https://mobile.twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1523287283297783809
depends if she has been honest thou, if the reports are right and it is a if, work finished then they ate and drank then it is not a work event
-
If there's one thing that Starmer and his office do need a proper kicking for, it's the horrifically amateurish way they e dealt with this story. It's a dead easy one to bat back. As Lisa Nandy did consummately today.
https://mobile.twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1523287283297783809
Would this be the same Lisa Nandy that had difficulty in defining the differences between a man and a woman?
When Starmer is toast do you think she would make a good Labour leader?
And that has precisely WHAT to do with what we are discussing?
-
Starmer shouldn't be judged against Johnson's appalling behaviour (I've repeated many times on here that Johnson should go) but against the rules of the time.
This wasn't a brief meal between bouts of working or a small work-related discussion over dinner. It would appear that no work was carried out afterwards (given both no evidence has been provided suggesting such and the memo says this was the plan) and circa 30 people were there.
Curry and beer - a social event quite clearly - to which many people were invited at the end of their working day.
Starmer's guilt is clear and evident for all to see from what's in the public demain. There is clear hypocricy on here from those who (quite correctly) called for Johnson's head when his guilt was clear before he was served his penalty notice.
-
BB.
No. He didn't.
he said it on january the 25th
-
Bpool.
No. He didn't. He never once said Johnson should resign BECAUSE there was an investigation going on.
BR.
You're parroting this line from the Mail and Sun that 30 people shared £200 of beer and curry? You want to have a think about that?
-
BB.
No. He didn't.
he said it on january the 25th
:ohmy:
-
If there's one thing that Starmer and his office do need a proper kicking for, it's the horrifically amateurish way they e dealt with this story. It's a dead easy one to bat back. As Lisa Nandy did consummately today.
https://mobile.twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1523287283297783809
Would this be the same Lisa Nandy that had difficulty in defining the differences between a man and a woman?
When Starmer is toast do you think she would make a good Labour leader?
And that has precisely WHAT to do with what we are discussing?
It's got everything to do with this issue, When Starmer is jettisoned by this awful opposition because he's been hung by his own hypocrisy they will need a new "leader" would you not be considering Ms Nandy, after her last feeble attempt ?
-
Bpool.
No. He didn't. He never once said Johnson should resign BECAUSE there was an investigation going on.
BR.
You're parroting this line from the Mail and Sun that 30 people shared £200 of beer and curry? You want to have a think about that?
I never mentioned £200. You're defending the indefensible here.
-
I thought you might have picked up on my answer to that in post 381. Ah well!
He didn't mislead/lie to the house because you can be unaware of events or misinterpret them.
I went to Chesterfield a couple of years ago and if anyone asked me if I have broken the law while there I would have said no. Next thing I received a speeding ticket for doing 34/35 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. On further recollection of it, I remembered the area where the incident took place and thought it was a 40 MPH zone.
I subsequently received a £100 fine and didn't fight the case despite not intentionally or knowingly breaking the law.
I'd made an honest mistake.
Ah so he attended parties but didn't believe they were parties so didn't lie when he said there were no parties but if they were no rules were broken
Even by your standards that is prime whataboutery.
The man cannot stop he is a compulsive liar on this and many other instances within the House and knows he can get away with it with this Speaker, you should be ashamed trying to defend this , just like Raab Gove etc etc
-
25 January 2022
On 25 January, the Metropolitan Police announced it would be investigating Covid rule-breaking at Downing Street parties.
Then-Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick said it would "not normally be a proportionate use of time" for the force to investigate rule breaches as far back as two years, but police would look at allegations that "appeared to be the most serious and flagrant breach" of regulations.
Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner said: "With Boris Johnson's Downing Street now under police investigation, how on earth can he think he can stay on as prime minister?
"Boris Johnson is a national distraction. Conservative MPs should stop propping him up and he should finally do the decent thing and resign."
31 January 2022
Echoing his deputy's comments a few days later, Sir Keir tweeted: "Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the prime minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
"He needs to do the decent thing and resign."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61369912
-
Boris Johnson has always been a liar.
His old school masters noted it.
He's been sacked for it.
Max Hastings specifically warned this would happen.
It's indefensible but still they defend it.
-
I thought you might have picked up on my answer to that in post 381. Ah well!
He didn't mislead/lie to the house because you can be unaware of events or misinterpret them.
I went to Chesterfield a couple of years ago and if anyone asked me if I have broken the law while there I would have said no. Next thing I received a speeding ticket for doing 34/35 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. On further recollection of it, I remembered the area where the incident took place and thought it was a 40 MPH zone.
I subsequently received a £100 fine and didn't fight the case despite not intentionally or knowingly breaking the law.
I'd made an honest mistake.
Ah so he attended parties but didn't believe they were parties so didn't lie when he said there were no parties but if they were no rules were broken
Even by your standards that is prime whataboutery.
The man cannot stop he is a compulsive liar on this and many other instances within the House and knows he can get away with it with this Speaker, you should be ashamed trying to defend this , just like Raab Gove etc etc
ME defendig a liar? Oh the hypocrisy!
-
Boris Johnson has always been a liar.
His old school masters noted it.
He's been sacked for it.
Max Hastings specifically warned this would happen.
It's indefensible but still they defend it.
To be fair RD I can’t recall anyone on here saying Johnson hasn’t lied.
I have seen posters telling us that Starmer hasn’t lied though.
Johnson has been fined.
We have yet to see if Starmer will be fined.
-
Boris Johnson has always been a liar.
His old school masters noted it.
He's been sacked for it.
Max Hastings specifically warned this would happen.
It's indefensible but still they defend it.
To be fair RD I can’t recall anyone on here saying Johnson hasn’t lied.
I have seen posters telling us that Starmer hasn’t lied though.
Johnson has been fined.
We have yet to see if Starmer will be fined.
That's fair enough. If Starmer has broken the rules he's got to go.
I think he's already on shaky ground because I don't think he's been entirely truthful already.
I have never voted for either of them.
Not Johnson even though he was the leader of the brexit campaign, which I did vote for.
-
Boris Johnson has always been a liar.
His old school masters noted it.
He's been sacked for it.
Max Hastings specifically warned this would happen.
It's indefensible but still they defend it.
To be fair RD I can’t recall anyone on here saying Johnson hasn’t lied.
I have seen posters telling us that Starmer hasn’t lied though.
Johnson has been fined.
We have yet to see if Starmer will be fined.
That's fair enough. If Starmer has broken the rules he's got to go.
I think he's already on shaky ground because I don't think he's been entirely truthful already.
I have never voted for either of them.
Not Johnson even though he was the leader of the brexit campaign, which I did vote for.
I too have never voted for either of them RD, including the Brexit vote.
You are right about Starmer being on shaky ground.
-
Bpool.
No. He didn't. He never once said Johnson should resign BECAUSE there was an investigation going on.
BR.
You're parroting this line from the Mail and Sun that 30 people shared £200 of beer and curry? You want to have a think about that?
I never mentioned £200. You're defending the indefensible here.
From where do you get the line that there were 30 people at that working dinner?
-
Boris Johnson has always been a liar.
His old school masters noted it.
He's been sacked for it.
Max Hastings specifically warned this would happen.
It's indefensible but still they defend it.
To be fair RD I can’t recall anyone on here saying Johnson hasn’t lied.
I have seen posters telling us that Starmer hasn’t lied though.
Johnson has been fined.
We have yet to see if Starmer will be fined.
That's fair enough. If Starmer has broken the rules he's got to go.
I think he's already on shaky ground because I don't think he's been entirely truthful already.
I have never voted for either of them.
Not Johnson even though he was the leader of the brexit campaign, which I did vote for.
I can only assume that Hound has blocked BB. Because BB has said over and over again that he doesn't accept that Johnson lied.
-
Boris Johnson has always been a liar.
His old school masters noted it.
He's been sacked for it.
Max Hastings specifically warned this would happen.
It's indefensible but still they defend it.
To be fair RD I can’t recall anyone on here saying Johnson hasn’t lied.
I have seen posters telling us that Starmer hasn’t lied though.
Johnson has been fined.
We have yet to see if Starmer will be fined.
That's fair enough. If Starmer has broken the rules he's got to go.
I think he's already on shaky ground because I don't think he's been entirely truthful already.
I have never voted for either of them.
Not Johnson even though he was the leader of the brexit campaign, which I did vote for.
I can only assume that Hound has blocked BB. Because BB has said over and over again that he doesn't accept that Johnson lied.
Not quite true. I distinctly remember BB saying that he agreed Johnson had lied in the past (the occassions he was sacked for). He has never admitted/refused to admit he has lied since then (the last sacking).
-
Boris Johnson has always been a liar.
His old school masters noted it.
He's been sacked for it.
Max Hastings specifically warned this would happen.
It's indefensible but still they defend it.
To be fair RD I can’t recall anyone on here saying Johnson hasn’t lied.
I have seen posters telling us that Starmer hasn’t lied though.
Johnson has been fined.
We have yet to see if Starmer will be fined.
That's fair enough. If Starmer has broken the rules he's got to go.
I think he's already on shaky ground because I don't think he's been entirely truthful already.
I have never voted for either of them.
Not Johnson even though he was the leader of the brexit campaign, which I did vote for.
I can only assume that Hound has blocked BB. Because BB has said over and over again that he doesn't accept that Johnson lied.
Moving swiftly on again aye, Billy?
Pathetic.
-
Bpool.
No. He didn't. He never once said Johnson should resign BECAUSE there was an investigation going on.
BR.
You're parroting this line from the Mail and Sun that 30 people shared £200 of beer and curry? You want to have a think about that?
I never mentioned £200. You're defending the indefensible here.
From where do you get the line that there were 30 people at that working dinner?
I got the beer from the fact Starmer was filmed drinking from a bottle of one late in the evening when he was "working" supposedly, the curry from the leaked internal memo which stated it would be ordered and consumed just before Starmer walked (a working walk?) back to his hotel and the 30 people from a BBC news report - googling even the Guardian admit 15 people were there. (6 was the limit for gatherings at the time). 15 to discuss tomorrow's Plan of Action in 1hr 20 minutes per the memo?!
Where an earth did you get the line it was a "working" dinner. Some people are very gullible.
-
30 people isn't credible on £200.
It has been reported there were a dozen there plus a couple of policemen.
£200 probably paid for 30 items off the menu but an Indian meal usually contains two or three items.
Also it's not clear if the drinks were ordered from the takeaway or not.
-
BFYP
Why did they eat together?
How about because they had campaigning to plan for the next day? In which case you combine eating with working. Have you never done that? I've had late evening working meals loads of times where we discuss what the next day if work is going to pan out like, because there's been no time to do it previously.
Why deny someone was there when it was on the memo and clear she was?
Because a young staffer fielded an enquiry about this from The Mail months ago and got his wires crossed.
Why did he need to be in person for an online social event?
He was there FOR the social event. He was there because he was campaigning there the following morning. The social event took place while he was there.
Last April I started a new job. I had 2 hours in the office first day then didn't see anyone I work with in person for 5 months. So no, I didn't do like Starmer.
-
It takes about an hour to eat a meal.
The students who videoed the event haven't said it went on for longer than that.
The claim is the meal was delivered to the kitchen and people picked up what they wanted. That fits with the explanation it was a working meal.
-
Boris Johnson has always been a liar.
His old school masters noted it.
He's been sacked for it.
Max Hastings specifically warned this would happen.
It's indefensible but still they defend it.
To be fair RD I can’t recall anyone on here saying Johnson hasn’t lied.
I have seen posters telling us that Starmer hasn’t lied though.
Johnson has been fined.
We have yet to see if Starmer will be fined.
That's fair enough. If Starmer has broken the rules he's got to go.
I think he's already on shaky ground because I don't think he's been entirely truthful already.
I have never voted for either of them.
Not Johnson even though he was the leader of the brexit campaign, which I did vote for.
I can only assume that Hound has blocked BB. Because BB has said over and over again that he doesn't accept that Johnson lied.
Wrong yet again bst.
Quite a few times lately as well looking at the number of times others have corrected you.
-
Boris Johnson has always been a liar.
His old school masters noted it.
He's been sacked for it.
Max Hastings specifically warned this would happen.
It's indefensible but still they defend it.
To be fair RD I can’t recall anyone on here saying Johnson hasn’t lied.
I have seen posters telling us that Starmer hasn’t lied though.
Johnson has been fined.
We have yet to see if Starmer will be fined.
That's fair enough. If Starmer has broken the rules he's got to go.
I think he's already on shaky ground because I don't think he's been entirely truthful already.
I have never voted for either of them.
Not Johnson even though he was the leader of the brexit campaign, which I did vote for.
I can only assume that Hound has blocked BB. Because BB has said over and over again that he doesn't accept that Johnson lied.
Wrong yet again bst.
Quite a few times lately as well looking at the number of times others have corrected you.
Cooee.
-
Billy/River Don
Even Starmer himself has distinctly not claimed it was a "working" dinner www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61362474
"The Labour leader has maintained the visit was a work event, and that the food and drink was consumed in between doing work, so was within the rules."
"He has also previously insisted he returned to work afterwards."
-
Sir Keir said that "at various points people went through to the kitchen, got a plate, had something to eat, and got on with their work". He has also previously insisted he returned to work afterwards.
That appears to be consistent with a working meal.
And the students who filmed the event said there were lights on until late. It's not clear when Starmers car left.
So what was going on? Working or partying? On £200 I'd say working.
But we can't be sure where the drinks came from so, it's down to the police to clear things up.
-
Johnson was found guilty by the Met police.
Starmer is under investigation by the Durham police.
Hopefully, it won't be a Justice by Postcode lottery.
-
Well someone’s knocking at the door.
-
BFYP
Why did they eat together?
How about because they had campaigning to plan for the next day? In which case you combine eating with working. Have you never done that? I've had late evening working meals loads of times where we discuss what the next day if work is going to pan out like, because there's been no time to do it previously.
Why deny someone was there when it was on the memo and clear she was?
Because a young staffer fielded an enquiry about this from The Mail months ago and got his wires crossed.
Why did he need to be in person for an online social event?
He was there FOR the social event. He was there because he was campaigning there the following morning. The social event took place while he was there.
Last April I started a new job. I had 2 hours in the office first day then didn't see anyone I work with in person for 5 months. So no, I didn't do like Starmer.
You weren't the Leader of the Opposition during an election campaign were you?
My question was, have you NEVER had a working dinner at which you have discussed key work issues because there has been no other time during the day when you could all get together? (As was specifically allowed for election work).
I'd say in a normal year, I do that at least 10 times, occasionally 30 times. And my job is nowhere near as all consuming as Starmer's.
-
Billy/River Don
Even Starmer himself has distinctly not claimed it was a "working" dinner www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61362474
"The Labour leader has maintained the visit was a work event, and that the food and drink was consumed in between doing work, so was within the rules."
"He has also previously insisted he returned to work afterwards."
BR.
You are quoting a journalist's summary of Starmer's words.
Starmer's ACTUAL words in the very link you posted are:
"at various points people went through to the kitchen, got a plate, had something to eat, and got on with their work."
Don't you think you have confirmation bias going on here?
-
Johnson was found guilty by the Met police.
Starmer is under investigation by the Durham police.
Hopefully, it won't be a Justice by Postcode lottery.
It appears to be a Durham Police political lottery as they said they would not re-investigate Cummings even after he admitted he had lied about his actions.
-
Headlines coming out in tomorrows papers that Johnson intends to scrap the NI Protocol.
According to this bloke that means Johnson has recieved another fine (and the headlines have been pre-planned as a distraction). Guess we will know soon:
https://twitter.com/mi6rogue/status/1523409959916285953
-
BR.
You are quoting a journalist's summary of Starmer's words.
Starmer's ACTUAL words in the very link you posted are:
"at various points people went through to the kitchen, got a plate, had something to eat, and got on with their work."
Don't you think you have confirmation bias going on here?
The irony of being accused of confirmation bias by somebody choosing a quote open to interpretation: -
- went to kitchen, [then] got a plate, [then] had something to eat, and [then] got on with their work".
Whilst blissfully ignoring another direct quote from Starmer further down the same news article page: -
- "I was working in the office. We stopped for something to eat."
Which is clear and umambiguous and ties in with the BBC reporting I quoted on what Starmer had said previously.
They stopped working to eat.
Still want to maintain it was a working dinner?!
-
partygate photo 15/May/2020 with wife and sprog in attendance, food and wine and not a laptop to be seen is deemed not a party.
-
Deflection attempt.
-
I thought you might have picked up on my answer to that in post 381. Ah well!
He didn't mislead/lie to the house because you can be unaware of events or misinterpret them.
I went to Chesterfield a couple of years ago and if anyone asked me if I have broken the law while there I would have said no. Next thing I received a speeding ticket for doing 34/35 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. On further recollection of it, I remembered the area where the incident took place and thought it was a 40 MPH zone.
I subsequently received a £100 fine and didn't fight the case despite not intentionally or knowingly breaking the law.
I'd made an honest mistake.
Ah so he attended parties but didn't believe they were parties so didn't lie when he said there were no parties but if they were no rules were broken
Even by your standards that is prime whataboutery.
The man cannot stop he is a compulsive liar on this and many other instances within the House and knows he can get away with it with this Speaker, you should be ashamed trying to defend this , just like Raab Gove etc etc
ME defendig a liar? Oh the hypocrisy!
Which liar am I supposed to have defended BB?
-
ravenrover, whatever the outcome of the Beergate saga Starmer will have lost his credibility. He said Johnson should resign because he's under police investigation, but has failed to do so himself. He's a hypocrite. He said the 'Beergate' event wasn't planned. It was. He lied. The labour party said Angela Rayner wasn't there. She was. They lied.
You really aren't doing yourself or BST etc any favours by continuing to dig a deeper hole in attempting to defend this.
-
''Starmer tells Boris Johnson to resign immediately for misleading parliament'
-
''He [Johnson] told the house no rules were broken in Downing Street during lockdown,” the Labour leader said. “The police have now concluded there was widespread criminality. The ministerial code says that ministers who knowingly mislead the house should resign. Why is he still here?”
-
''Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, said the prime minister and the chancellor had broken the law and “repeatedly lied to the British public” over the scandal, as he insisted: “They must both resign”.''
-
ravenrover, whatever the outcome of the Beergate saga Starmer will have lost his credibility. He said Johnson should resign because he's under police investigation, but has failed to do so himself. He's a hypocrite. He said the 'Beergate' event wasn't planned. It was. He lied. The labour party said Angela Rayner wasn't there. She was. They lied.
You really aren't doing yourself or BST etc any favours by continuing to dig a deeper hole in attempting to defend this.
What's it got to do with BST?
So the questions regarding The pkan and Angela Raynor were both directed to and answered by Starmer not just soneone from the Labour Party.
But let's get back to my original point you are defending someone by saying he didn't lie to The House by saying there were no parties even though he was at many of them, on what basis can you say he didn't lie?
-
I've already explained how it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the PM could have misconstrued the events as working events, just like Starmer is now doing. It seems that you are going to one extreme to prove the PM is lying and the other extreme to prove that Starmer isn't.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/keir-starmer-beergate-durham-hartlepool-curry-angela-rayner-covid-rules-b998681.html
-
ravenrover, whatever the outcome of the Beergate saga Starmer will have lost his credibility. He said Johnson should resign because he's under police investigation, but has failed to do so himself. He's a hypocrite. He said the 'Beergate' event wasn't planned. It was. He lied. The labour party said Angela Rayner wasn't there. She was. They lied.
You really aren't doing yourself or BST etc any favours by continuing to dig a deeper hole in attempting to defend this.
which is not true
-
BB seems to think eating was banned under the Tier 2 restrictions.
-
BB seems to think eating was banned under the Tier 2 restrictions.
No I don't! Still talking bullshit I see.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/labour-boris-johnson-angela-rayner-wes-streeting-nadhim-zahawi-b2073639.html
-
https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1488176626642923521?lang=en-GB
-
ravenrover, whatever the outcome of the Beergate saga Starmer will have lost his credibility. He said Johnson should resign because he's under police investigation, but has failed to do so himself. He's a hypocrite. He said the 'Beergate' event wasn't planned. It was. He lied. The labour party said Angela Rayner wasn't there. She was. They lied.
You really aren't doing yourself or BST etc any favours by continuing to dig a deeper hole in attempting to defend this.
which is not true
And as bst pointed this out to you a few days ago when you used the same argument to call Starmer a hypocrite it would make you ................ what? dishonest at the least aye bb?
-
No I am quereing your defence of NO the PM didn't lie to The House.
If Starmer broke any rules then he is hoisted by his own petard and should of course resign which is more than you have said about PM
-
So based on this thread...
Working is fine.
Working and eating at the same time is fine.
Stopping working for 10 mins to eat is sacrilege.
:huh:
-
No I am quereing your defence of NO the PM didn't lie to The House.
If Starmer broke any rules then he is hoisted by his own petard and should of course resign which is more than you have said about PM
RR, you might think that Tory MP's lie and Labour MP's merely make mistakes, but I don't. I believe if someone is accusing another of lying, deceit or hypocrisy, they should be careful they're not liars, deceitful, or hypocrites themselves.
-
A lie is a lie end of, Tory or Labour. You are excelling yourself at whataboutery on this thread lets go here then lets go there so by your anaysis you can't call someone a liar in case you might tell or have told a lie, classic BB
-
BB.
Starmer never said Johnson should resign BECAUSE he was under investigation.
By late Jan, it was clear to everyone who looked at the situation dispassionately and honestly that Johnson had been lying to the House for weeks. THAT was the resignation offence. It's black and white in the Ministerial Code of Practice.
Starmer said that Johnson had been lying for weeks AND now he was under investigation. Not simply that he was under investigation. The police investigation was merely adding more political heat to the situation. The sin was the lying in Parliament.
You may say that Starmer should have waited for the result of the investigation. But why? Everyone knew Johnson was lying. And there was a political calculation.
In politics, you want to be and be seen to be ahead of the game. Proactive not reactive. You want to control the agenda. But there's a risk. Starmer went all in, knowing that he was going to look a right prick if the police exonerated Johnson. But he trusted his judgement. And he called it 100% right.
But you repeatedly claiming he said Johnson had to resign simply because he was being investigated is just wrong.
You repeat this, ad nauseum, just as you repeat your ridiculous excuse that Johnson didn't realise he was at a party, because you are biassed and utterly incapable of looking fairly at the situation. It's a bias that claims one leader making a career out of lying, getting sacked for it twice and regularly telling uncorrected untruths in the House is on a par with another leader once making a mistake under pressure and immediately correcting it.
-
A lie is a lie end of, Tory or Labour. You are excelling yourself at whataboutery on this thread lets go here then lets go there so by your anaysis you can't call someone a liar in case you might tell or have told a lie, classic BB
Now you're resorting to talking bullshit RR. To accuse ME of whataboutery when people whose side you're on use it by default in response to many a post, but you completely ignore, is....well....bullshit.
-
BB.
Starmer never said Johnson should resign BECAUSE he was under investigation.
By late Jan, it was clear to everyone who looked at the situation dispassionately and honestly that Johnson had been lying to the House for weeks. THAT was the resignation offence. It's black and white in the Ministerial Code of Practice.
Starmer said that Johnson had been lying for weeks AND now he was under investigation. Not simply that he was under investigation. The police investigation was merely adding more political heat to the situation. The sin was the lying in Parliament.
You may say that Starmer should have waited for the result of the investigation. But why? Everyone knew Johnson was lying. And there was a political calculation.
In politics, you want to be and be seen to be ahead of the game. Proactive not reactive. You want to control the agenda. But there's a risk. Starmer went all in, knowing that he was going to look a right prick if the police exonerated Johnson. But he trusted his judgement. And he called it 100% right.
But you repeatedly claiming he said Johnson had to resign simply because he was being investigated is just wrong.
You repeat this, ad nauseum, just as you repeat your ridiculous excuse that Johnson didn't realise he was at a party, because you are biassed and utterly incapable of looking fairly at the situation. It's a bias that claims one leader making a career out of lying, getting sacked for it twice and regularly telling uncorrected untruths in the House is on a par with another leader once making a mistake under pressure and immediately correcting it.
BST, that's rubbish. It's been on TV news most of the day every day and no one has lowered themselves like you have by trying to twist what Starmer, and Rayner, for that matter, said.
You have shown this forum exactly what lengths of desperation you will go to in order to deceive those who are daft enough to believe you.
Like I said previously, it is people like you who make people like me unwilling to even consider being in the same political party as you.
-
If you believe what you bladder on about bb that's fine I doubt many others would, you are dishonest yourself.
-
If they didn’t even know their own deputy leader was there, what hope have they in organising the country?
-
If they didn’t even know their own deputy leader was there, what hope have they in organising the country?
A junior staffer in the news room makes a mistake in response to what appeared to be an entirely unimportant issue.
You REALLY judge your political parties this way?
-
If they didn’t even know their own deputy leader was there, what hope have they in organising the country?
smoke bomb Ldr"
-
BB.
Labour know that's too subtle a logic for simple headed people to deal with. As you are demonstrating.
The false equivalence of that argument is being dealt with by the Labour party just as it should be. By not dignifying it with a response.
-
Noone runs the country like the tories aye? they can't feed the country, the only boom is in Foodbanks.
busadvertising
Come down to Dover and we'll show you what we're doin'
vote tory
-
No I am quereing your defence of NO the PM didn't lie to The House.
If Starmer broke any rules then he is hoisted by his own petard and should of course resign which is more than you have said about PM
RR, you might think that Tory MP's lie and Labour MP's merely make mistakes, but I don't. I believe if someone is accusing another of lying, deceit or hypocrisy, they should be careful they're not liars, deceitful, or hypocrites themselves.
But yet you still keep doing it!! :silly:
-
BB.
Labour know that's too subtle a logic for simple headed people to deal with. As you are demonstrating.
The false equivalence of that argument is being dealt with by the Labour party just as it should be. By not dignifying it with a response.
Whatever the verdict of this case it will soon be yesterdays chip paper and will end up in the bin. You however, will continue to recycle your bent, one-sided rubbish and no one will ever be allowed to forget your hypocrisy.
-
If they didn’t even know their own deputy leader was there, what hope have they in organising the country?
A junior staffer in the news room makes a mistake in response to what appeared to be an entirely unimportant issue.
You REALLY judge your political parties this way?
Ah, innocent mistake made in good faith? Labours sorry scratch that, BSTs answer to everything atm
-
If they didn’t even know their own deputy leader was there, what hope have they in organising the country?
A junior staffer in the news room makes a mistake in response to what appeared to be an entirely unimportant issue.
You REALLY judge your political parties this way?
Ah, innocent mistake made in good faith? Labours sorry scratch that, BSTs answer to everything atm
[/quote
I guess you have to ask if it's true and whether you are trying to equate it to johnson's behaviour, lies and criminality aye?
-
No Syd, that’s what you want me to be doing
-
Does anyone on here apart from Tyke and Albie remember the Labour Party when it was the Labour Party and represented the workers and had principles ?
-
If they didn’t even know their own deputy leader was there, what hope have they in organising the country?
Given the bloke who runs the country didn't know there were parties going on that he was at, then accepted the resignation of the one of the few people who worked for him that wasn't, it's not a high bar is it.
-
here we go again Ldr why not start a new thread and try not to use your enmity for bst and dislike of Starmer to cloud your judgement as he's not going to be found in breach of covid rules for his deputy being there, eating a curry or even having a beer is he?
-
If they didn’t even know their own deputy leader was there, what hope have they in organising the country?
Tbf Boris apparently didn't even know Boris was there at his.
-
A lie is a lie end of, Tory or Labour. You are excelling yourself at whataboutery on this thread lets go here then lets go there so by your anaysis you can't call someone a liar in case you might tell or have told a lie, classic BB
Now you're resorting to talking bullshit RR. To accuse ME of whataboutery when people whose side you're on use it by default in response to many a post, but you completely ignore, is....well....bullshit.
You accuse me of whataboutery, what about others using whataboutery?
Classic.
-
Now you're just being silly RD, but I don't really blame you. Perhaps you're better at that than being sensible.
-
The tories are wanting to explore a truce with Labour over beergate. Don't talk about these things anymore and the public will forget.
Starmer however is considering announcing he will resign if he is fined.
-
The tories are wanting to explore a truce with Labour over beergate. Don't talk about these things anymore and the public will forget.
Starmer however is considering announcing he will resign if he is fined.
That's a good option for Starmer. It's still quite a stretch that he will be fined I think, unless there's much more evidence we haven't seen and it really hammers it home that he's more principled than Boris Johnson on this (though that's not hard).
-
Why should such a fine, upstanding, law-abiding, leading statesman of Starmer's quality have to consider it before doing the decent thing if he's fined?
He should practice what he has preached and resign after being made the subject of a police investigation.
-
Statement at 4pm - Starmer WILL pledge he will resign if found to have breached rules.
-
The tories are wanting to explore a truce with Labour over beergate. Don't talk about these things anymore and the public will forget.
Starmer however is considering announcing he will resign if he is fined.
Apparently he's going to announce at 4pm today that he will resign if fined.
Tory MPs' WhatsApp group don't like this...
https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523351253383741440
-
That’s a smart move from Starmer, I’d say he’s been told he’s exonerated
-
here we go again Ldr why not start a new thread and try not to use your enmity for bst and dislike of Starmer to cloud your judgement as he's not going to be found in breach of covid rules for his deputy being there, eating a curry or even having a beer is he?
Tbh Syd I think I’m looking for a reason to vote Labour, and to that extent I’d love Starmer gone and someone like Raynor or Phillips in place (aye)
-
If he goes those two have a good chance of going with him especially Raynor
-
If he goes those two have a good chance of going with him especially Raynor
I think Raynor would have to given she was at the same event
-
Raynor would be a dreadful choice of Labour leader anyway, not tactful enough by half.
-
Raynor would be a dreadful choice of Labour leader anyway, not tactful enough by half.
I like straight talkers RD
-
That’s a smart move from Starmer, I’d say he’s been told he’s exonerated
Doubt it. They have a least 30 witnesses to interview (according to people here), plus the hotel, the restaurant that provided the take-away etc.
But it does put a lot more pressure on Durham Police tho, knowing what will happen if they do decide to fine him - having already said they dont issue retrospective fines to anyone why did they to Starmer when they wouldn't Cummings (who admitted he lied)? Big political decision for them.
-
Raynor would be a dreadful choice of Labour leader anyway, not tactful enough by half.
I like straight talkers RD
There's straight talkers and there's loud mouths. She'd soon have her foot in her mouth.
-
That’s a smart move from Starmer, I’d say he’s been told he’s exonerated
YOU would.
-
That’s a smart move from Starmer, I’d say he’s been told he’s exonerated
YOU would.
Not sure I follow the attempted dig mate
-
Ive got a feeling he's quite happy to fall on his sward as he's proved to be a very dour and uninspiring leader of the opposition. Or he could do the kamikaze thing, resign and try to bring Johnson down with him.
I'm hoping he does because if anything we need the shake up to happen right now, This government is dying on its feet and Labour don't have the personnel to pick up on it and run at them. Somebody like a Raynor or a Nandy would be the biggest own goal this opposition could ever grant the Tory's.
-
If Starmer were to resign, then Rayner would have to go with him surely? She was at the same do.
There is no way she could replace him.
-
Starmer has seen a exit door open where he can walk through it with perceived honour and dignity. This could be a good play by him. He is not the most inspiring person to lead the Labour Party into the next GE.
Step forward Diane Abbott. Lol.
-
A lie is a lie end of, Tory or Labour. You are excelling yourself at whataboutery on this thread lets go here then lets go there so by your anaysis you can't call someone a liar in case you might tell or have told a lie, classic BB
Now you're resorting to talking bullshit RR. To accuse ME of whataboutery when people whose side you're on use it by default in response to many a post, but you completely ignore, is....well....bullshit.
Whose side, as you put it, do you think I'm on? You will probably be badly mistaken.
But as you say and know very well if it looks like it and smells like it must be bullsh!t get the insults in early and it will all gloss over.
Classic BB, whataboutery, change the subject, don't answer the question if you can wriggle out of it bit like the PM you so blindly support.
If Starmer goes should the PM, of course not in your BBworld because a lie is not a lie if it comes from the mouth of the PM now who is the hypocrite
-
That’s a smart move from Starmer, I’d say he’s been told he’s exonerated
YOU would.
Not sure I follow the attempted dig mate
Because you don't believe that politicians have morals and courage. So you assume he is cheating and has been told he's going to be exonerated.
-
If Starmer were to resign, then Rayner would have to go with him surely? She was at the same do.
There is no way she could replace him.
But dont you see, this is the Labour narrative, they make great issue of how the Johnson is a cheat and a liar, (true) but they did the same in deciding not to make clear when they should of that Raynor was also present, if that was not being duplicitous and snide then i don't know what planet they believe the inhabit.
No better than the tories and in this case worse as they try to make out they are the honest ones in parliament.
-
That’s a smart move from Starmer, I’d say he’s been told he’s exonerated
YOU would.
Not sure I follow the attempted dig mate
Because you don't believe that politicians have morals and courage. So you assume he is cheating and has been told he's going to be exonerated.
Ah right, yes that’s correct
-
If Starmer were to resign, then Rayner would have to go with him surely? She was at the same do.
There is no way she could replace him.
But dont you see, this is the Labour narrative, they make great issue of how the Johnson is a cheat and a liar, (true) but they did the same in deciding not to make clear when they should of that Raynor was also present, if that was not being duplicitous and snide then i don't know what planet they believe the inhabit.
No better than the tories and in this case worse as they try to make out they are the honest ones in parliament.
Other than the Mail journalist who asked the question of a junior staffer back in January, literally no-one knew that anyone in the Labour party had said Rayner wasn't at that meeting until about ten days ago. Then when it suddenly blew up, Labour admitted there'd been a mistake.
That's been spun into "Starmer consistently denied Rayner was present". There was a Tory MP on R4 last night saying exactly that. When, as far as I can see, Starmer was never involved in the discussion.
There are low level questions and answers between journalist and junior press office staff of every party 50 times a day. Inevitably, some of those exchanges will be less than perfect. Calling that "duplicitous" is a ridiculous over-reaction. It is an abuse of language that means there's no space for properly criticising concerted, consistent, deliberate lying. Which, of course, is the whole point. Insist they are all the same then you don't have to do the hard stuff of identifying the really dangerous liars.
-
BST, do you not think its a smart play though to put pressure on the police, in effect playing chicken with them?
-
BST, could you tell me how many Labour Mp's have been investigated for fiddling their expenses in comparison with their Tory counterparts, or would that be a ridiculous overreaction meaning there's no space for criticising deliberate lying.
In my book if you fiddle the general public by lying or out of public funds then you are duplicitous and snide, because then we are comparing like for like.
-
DD.
Anyone who deliberately fiddles expenses is a t**t who should be held to account.
What the f**k has that got to do with what we are talking about?
-
This is quite clever of the Labour Party, even if it was the only good option open to them.
It takes the heat off Starmer and puts the spotlight back on Johnson.
It allows Starmer to occupy the moral high ground again whilst Johnson cannot call for Starmer to resign.
If Starmer is exonerated he comes out of it with his standing enhance and by contrast Johnsons diminished.
If he's forced to resign, the Labour Party are still seen to have done the right thing in stark contrast to Johnson and the Torys. The only draw back being losing the leader but then they might still find a more effective candidate.
-
Just to let it sink into your big swede, No party in parliament has a monopoly on the truth.
To hear you rant on we are governed by the devil incarnate and the opposition are all sweet angels.
-
Raynor would be a dreadful choice of Labour leader anyway, not tactful enough by half.
I like straight talkers RD
There's straight talkers and there's loud mouths. She'd soon have her foot in her mouth.
Let's hope when she does she's remembered to put her big granny drawers on!!
-
Raynor has taken the same stance as Starmer. It's likely if he goes she will too.
-
My understanding is that Durham Police do not issue fines, so that is an unlikely outcome.
Starmer can still be in breach of the regulations, so if that is the case will he stand down?
All this kerfuffle is about diverting the media from Johnson and Partygate, and it has worked.
Keith has shown great political naivety in allowing this line of scrutiny to open up.
It was perfectly obvious that the rules would be tested by the media seeking a story, so why give them an opening to exploit?
-
Statement from the Covid Families for Justice Group:
This is the right decision by Keir Starmer and in contrast to Boris Johnson, shows integrity, decency and respect to the bereaved.
At the end of the day the country can’t be led by someone who's been fined for breaking lockdown rules.
https://twitter.com/CovidJusticeUK/status/1523686342818902021
Massive problem for Tory MP's now when Johnson gets his next fine (up to 4 expected) if their constituents feel the same way.
-
Si thi Keith , mind your head on the way out .
-
Starmer knows whether or not he’s done wrong.If he is fined, he’ll resign. If he isn’t fined, he won’t.
I’m really struggling to see where the integrity is in all this.
-
Belton,
Durham Police do not fine, otherwise they would have to revisit earlier cases, including Dominic Cummings.
The issue of a fine is nothing to do with whether it is a breach, you can be found to have broken the rules even if no fine is made.
-
If he's found to have broken the rules but not issued with a fine, it looks like he will hang on as technically he's broken no law.
This is the worst possible outcome for him. He loses the halo of integrity and the narrative that they are all as bad as each other is confirmed.
For the sake of the party he really ought to stand down if there is any suggestion he broke the rules.
-
Interestingly the student who filmed the event was James Delinpoles son.
Perhaps no surprise he is prepared to make a statement saying the event he witnessed was a party.
-
Albie.
Ah, the Left line of criticism is now that he doesn't have a time machine to run back 12 months and do things differently.
I swear he could find the cure for cancer and bring peace to Palestine and the Corbynistas would still criticise him for not personally fixing global warming.
-
BST,
What are you on about now?
The rules in place at the time of Beergate meant that this event was risky in terms of the guidance.
It seems to me that if you can avoid a risk, then you do so.
Perfectly simple to have arranged the evening in such a way to preclude this line of criticism.
Not doing so speaks of a lack of political nous, not just by Keith but others at the event.
I am not clear who organised this shindig.
They carry more of a responsibility than Starmer....but then again they probably did not demand the resignation of Sunak for wandering in to a birthday cake do!
-
You and Raab, Albie. Nice couple.
-
I really couldn’t see Raynor in conference with world leaders
As bad as Corbyn in a different way for me.
If she was the leader it would set the Labour Party back to before these last elections.
-
What's needed is a leader of knowledge, thought, true depth and good old common sence,
Step forward Abacus Abbott.
-
BR.
You are quoting a journalist's summary of Starmer's words.
Starmer's ACTUAL words in the very link you posted are:
"at various points people went through to the kitchen, got a plate, had something to eat, and got on with their work."
Don't you think you have confirmation bias going on here?
The irony of being accused of confirmation bias by somebody choosing a quote open to interpretation: -
- went to kitchen, [then] got a plate, [then] had something to eat, and [then] got on with their work".
Whilst blissfully ignoring another direct quote from Starmer further down the same news article page www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61362474: -
- "I was working in the office. We stopped for something to eat."
Which is clear and umambiguous and ties in with the BBC reporting I quoted on what Starmer had said previously.
They stopped working to eat.
Still want to maintain it was a working dinner?!
No answer came the reply!
-
BB surely you have a comment on this latest development?
-
BR.
You've got what you wished for. If the police decide there was an offence, Starmer will be gone. We can all pipe down now and see what the police come up with.
I think the balance of probability is that the police will find this to be a working meal. You don't. One of us will be wrong and the matter will be put to rest.
-
I'm guessing BB is trying to figure out a position that allows him to decide that Starmer is wrong to do this.
Like this Tory peer, who, to be fair, has a long and distinguished track record of talking absolute cack.
https://mobile.twitter.com/djmgaffneyw4/status/1523700280990179329
-
My understanding is that Durham Police do not issue fines, so that is an unlikely outcome.
Starmer can still be in breach of the regulations, so if that is the case will he stand down?
All this kerfuffle is about diverting the media from Johnson and Partygate, and it has worked.
Keith has shown great political naivety in allowing this line of scrutiny to open up.
It was perfectly obvious that the rules would be tested by the media seeking a story, so why give them an opening to exploit?
Ah, so if Starmer knows that Durham police don’t issue fines so maybe that is why he is bold enough to say he will resign if he gets a fine.
Crafty sod.
-
If Starmer were to resign, then Rayner would have to go with him surely? She was at the same do.
There is no way she could replace him.
But dont you see, this is the Labour narrative, they make great issue of how the Johnson is a cheat and a liar, (true) but they did the same in deciding not to make clear when they should of that Raynor was also present, if that was not being duplicitous and snide then i don't know what planet they believe the inhabit.
No better than the tories and in this case worse as they try to make out they are the honest ones in parliament.
Other than the Mail journalist who asked the question of a junior staffer back in January, literally no-one knew that anyone in the Labour party had said Rayner wasn't at that meeting until about ten days ago. Then when it suddenly blew up, Labour admitted there'd been a mistake.
That's been spun into "Starmer consistently denied Rayner was present". There was a Tory MP on R4 last night saying exactly that. When, as far as I can see, Starmer was never involved in the discussion.
There are low level questions and answers between journalist and junior press office staff of every party 50 times a day. Inevitably, some of those exchanges will be less than perfect. Calling that "duplicitous" is a ridiculous over-reaction. It is an abuse of language that means there's no space for properly criticising concerted, consistent, deliberate lying. Which, of course, is the whole point. Insist they are all the same then you don't have to do the hard stuff of identifying the really dangerous liars.
BST, you say “ as far as I can see Starmer was never involved in the discussion”.
Is that the official Labour line or is it just another of your opinions that we are expected to accept as a fact.
Do you have enough insider friends in Parliament to make you so sure that you are right.
-
My understanding is that Durham Police do not issue fines, so that is an unlikely outcome.
Starmer can still be in breach of the regulations, so if that is the case will he stand down?
All this kerfuffle is about diverting the media from Johnson and Partygate, and it has worked.
Keith has shown great political naivety in allowing this line of scrutiny to open up.
It was perfectly obvious that the rules would be tested by the media seeking a story, so why give them an opening to exploit?
Your understanding is wrong by the way.
Page 22 here.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://cdn.prgloo.com/media/fefef3f0ea8241018b9bda2d33fa95be.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjJsPbaidP3AhVHgFwKHUTFA2IQFnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0mjpQbaJ3cbmEazHqd4-4p
-
Starmer has brought this on himself, after making Partygate his top priority at the expense of other, far more important and pressing issues. I believe there are a couple of scenarios that might have prompted him to declare his intention to resign if he is fined, or is found guilty but not fined.
1) He has been told he will be exonerated, so he is free to play his get out of jail free card and come over as all honourable and impeccable by declaring he'll resign if he's fined or found guilty, knowing already that he won't be.
2) He has put the police under enormous pressure by saying he'll resign, in which case they will be put under tremendous pressure to find him not guilty, otherwise, they will be responsible for changing the face of politics by finding him guilty.
-
The Labour team seem to have evidence they were working into the early hours that night.
They were editing videos and those are time stamped, they also have What's App discussions about the edits.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/labour-says-can-prove-starmer-team-worked-past-1am-beergate-night
-
Starmer has brought this on himself, after making Partygate his top priority at the expense of other, far more important and pressing issues. I believe there are a couple of scenarios that might have prompted him to declare his intention to resign if he is fined, or is found guilty but not fined.
1) He has been told he will be exonerated, so he is free to play his get out of jail free card and come over as all honourable and impeccable by declaring he'll resign if he's fined or found guilty, knowing already that he won't be.
2) He has put the police under enormous pressure by saying he'll resign, in which case they will be put under tremendous pressure to find him not guilty, otherwise, they will be responsible for changing the face of politics by finding him guilty.
Like I was saying...
-
The Labour team seem to have evidence they were working into the early hours that night.
They were editing videos and those are time stamped, they also have What's App discussions about the edits.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/labour-says-can-prove-starmer-team-worked-past-1am-beergate-night
The lack of such evidence being made available previously is what led me to assume the meal was at working day's end and hence the rules had been broken.
Living in a digital world there had to be evidence if work was carried out after the meal. Assuming this is true it clearly exonerates Starmer.
I'm baffled as to why Labour didn't investigate the digital record much sooner in order to find such evidence to kill this story.
-
Starmer has brought this on himself, after making Partygate his top priority at the expense of other, far more important and pressing issues. I believe there are a couple of scenarios that might have prompted him to declare his intention to resign if he is fined, or is found guilty but not fined.
1) He has been told he will be exonerated, so he is free to play his get out of jail free card and come over as all honourable and impeccable by declaring he'll resign if he's fined or found guilty, knowing already that he won't be.
2) He has put the police under enormous pressure by saying he'll resign, in which case they will be put under tremendous pressure to find him not guilty, otherwise, they will be responsible for changing the face of politics by finding him guilty.
So the right wing press put no pressure on Durham police to re-open this case?
As my old Maths teacher said "tries hard but has difficulties" 2/10 see me!
Very poor BB, but nothing less than expected
-
The Labour team seem to have evidence they were working into the early hours that night.
They were editing videos and those are time stamped, they also have What's App discussions about the edits.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/labour-says-can-prove-starmer-team-worked-past-1am-beergate-night
The lack of such evidence being made available much earlier is what led be to assume the meal was at working day's end and hence the rules had been broken.
Living in a digital world there had to be evidence if work was carried out after the meal. Assuming this is true it clearly exonerates Starmer.
I'm baffled as to why Labour didn't investigate the digital record much sooner in order to find such evidence to kill this story.
Was there ever a story, except in the Mail, to kill? Lets wait to see what Durham police have to say
-
The Labour team seem to have evidence they were working into the early hours that night.
They were editing videos and those are time stamped, they also have What's App discussions about the edits.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/labour-says-can-prove-starmer-team-worked-past-1am-beergate-night
The lack of such evidence being made available much earlier is what led be to assume the meal was at working day's end and hence the rules had been broken.
Living in a digital world there had to be evidence if work was carried out after the meal. Assuming this is true it clearly exonerates Starmer.
I'm baffled as to why Labour didn't investigate the digital record much sooner in order to find such evidence to kill this story.
Was there ever a story, except in the Mail, to kill? Lets wait to see what Durham police have to say
What?! Of course there was. Starmer had to give a statement today promising to quit if found guilty due to the press interest in the story. We're on to page 20 on this thread.
-
The Labour team seem to have evidence they were working into the early hours that night.
They were editing videos and those are time stamped, they also have What's App discussions about the edits.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/labour-says-can-prove-starmer-team-worked-past-1am-beergate-night
The lack of such evidence being made available previously is what led me to assume the meal was at working day's end and hence the rules had been broken.
Living in a digital world there had to be evidence if work was carried out after the meal. Assuming this is true it clearly exonerates Starmer.
I'm baffled as to why Labour didn't investigate the digital record much sooner in order to find such evidence to kill this story.
Well, up until 1 working day ago, there was a national election going on which might have been keeping folk busy?
Why not simply accept that the evidence you wanted does exist and not try to use that for yet another criticism?
-
I think he didn't take the story seriously for several days. He just seemed to be caught getting rather irritated about having his version of events questioned.
Then they probably had to go and find the lap tops and dig out all the old files they needed. It probably took some time.
They could have handled this better.
-
Starmer has brought this on himself, after making Partygate his top priority at the expense of other, far more important and pressing issues. I believe there are a couple of scenarios that might have prompted him to declare his intention to resign if he is fined, or is found guilty but not fined.
1) He has been told he will be exonerated, so he is free to play his get out of jail free card and come over as all honourable and impeccable by declaring he'll resign if he's fined or found guilty, knowing already that he won't be.
2) He has put the police under enormous pressure by saying he'll resign, in which case they will be put under tremendous pressure to find him not guilty, otherwise, they will be responsible for changing the face of politics by finding him guilty.
So the right wing press put no pressure on Durham police to re-open this case?
As my old Maths teacher said "tries hard but has difficulties" 2/10 see me!
Very poor BB, but nothing less than expected
He was right then and is still right now, eh!
-
Certainly is, were you one of his failing pupils as well I wonder?
-
Billy I don't get the reason for your aggressiveness. Do you work high up in the Labour party and I've offended you?
RD I think you're correct Labour didn't take this seriously enough and I'm sure checking through computer records would have taken some time.
However (1) the 'beer' video came to light in January and (2) they should have realised this could well come back to bite them given Starmer's necessary and quite correct attacks on Johnson and his behaviour.
Failing to handle this well has caused not just Starmer's reputation to be tarnished but also the Labour party's and politician's in general. It's also led to Johnson's reputation being scraped from off the floor in some people's eyes i.e. "well they're all as bad as each other."
So this does matter quite a lot and shouldn't be ignored.
Again all assuming the Guardian story is accurate.
-
Billy I don't get the reason for your aggressiveness. Do you work high up in the Labour party and I've offended you?
RD I think you're correct Labour didn't take this seriously enough and I'm sure checking through computer records would have taken some time.
However (1) the 'beer' video came to light in January and (2) they should have realised this could well come back to bite them given Starmer's necessary and quite correct attacks on Johnson and his behaviour.
Failing to handle this well has caused not just Starmer's reputation to be tarnished but also the Labour party's and politician's in general. It's also led to Johnson's reputation being scraped from off the floor in some people's eyes i.e. "well they're all as bad as each other."
So this does matter quite a lot and shouldn't be ignored.
Again all assuming the Guardian story is accurate.
No I don't work high up in the Labour party.
I just don't understand your approach.
You:
Refuse to accept the concept of a working dinner.
Obsess over minutiae of exactly what words were used in responses to interview questions.
Call for electronic proof that work went on after the meal, then, when that appears to be provided, you don't reflect on whether you might have been wrong all along, you immediately criticise them for not having provided that information sooner.
-
If Starmer is exonerated then I think his statement today might go down as one of his best. It was a passionate plea for integrity in politics. Putting his job on the line has made a direct comparison between his behaviour and Johnsons.
It might just turn out very well for him.
-
By all accounts, Starmer, for all the public image of him being a wet lettuce, is a bit feisty in private. Word is that he's got a short fuse and doesn't take kindly to being f**ked about.
That side of him was on show today. He looked genuinely angry to be having to deal with this.
If and when he is exonerated, it'd be handy to see that side of him in public a bit more often.
-
Billy still not sure why the aggressive attitude but I'll answer your points.
Refuse to accept the concept of a working dinner. - I understand the concept but this was never Starmer's defence only yours - he consistently said they stopped to eat then returned to work. Your argument on a working dinner didn't hold water as it contradicted what the man you were defending was saying.
Obsess over minutiae of exactly what words were used in responses to interview questions. - Eh? It was you who gave a quote open to misintepretation to prove your invalid working dinner theory I merely corrected you by pointing to a more unambiguous quote showing the opposite in the same article.
Call for electronic proof that work went on after the meal, then, when that appears to be provided, you don't reflect on whether you might have been wrong all along, you immediately criticise them for not having provided that information sooner. - I said "Assuming this is true it clearly exonerates Starmer." What more do you want me to say? When the facts change, I consider them, and then I may change my mind. My criticism is a valid and important one IMO. Do you not agree?
-
By all accounts, Starmer, for all the public image of him being a wet lettuce, is a bit feisty in private. Word is that he's got a short fuse and doesn't take kindly to being f**ked about.
That side of him was on show today. He looked genuinely angry to be having to deal with this.
If and when he is exonerated, it'd be handy to see that side of him in public a bit more often.
You mean he can be a bit of a rocket?
-
By all accounts, Starmer, for all the public image of him being a wet lettuce, is a bit feisty in private. Word is that he's got a short fuse and doesn't take kindly to being f**ked about.
That side of him was on show today. He looked genuinely angry to be having to deal with this.
If and when he is exonerated, it'd be handy to see that side of him in public a bit more often.
You mean he can be a bit of a rocket?
he's a very very nice man .......... hang on a minute ..... lest we forget ...
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jul/29/paul-chambers-twitter-joke-airport
"The CPS even sent Chambers and his solicitor, free-speech campaigner David Allen Green, papers stating that it now agreed that the case should end. However, at the last minute the DPP, former human rights lawyer Keir Starmer, overruled his subordinates, it is alleged.
In January 2010, Chambers had booked a flight from Robin Hood airport to see his girlfriend in Northern Ireland. Bad weather forced the airport to cancel flights and he tweeted to his 600 followers: "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I am blowing the airport sky high!!""
-
I'm guessing BB is trying to figure out a position that allows him to decide that Starmer is wrong to do this.
Like this Tory peer, who, to be fair, has a long and distinguished track record of talking absolute cack.
https://mobile.twitter.com/djmgaffneyw4/status/1523700280990179329
Authored by the 'lets get Starmer' committee on the off topic forum
-
large slice of humble pie for Owen Jones please ............... and make it snappy
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1523681158109687809
The sheer, shit-laden stink of this.
The Editor of an out of control rag like the Sun lecturing others about undermining legal process.
-
.......... and in
media offices rag recycling yards and various political forums up and down the country .................
Egg .............. ready for this?
Face ........... I think we've met before .................
-
The Labour team seem to have evidence they were working into the early hours that night.
They were editing videos and those are time stamped, they also have What's App discussions about the edits.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/labour-says-can-prove-starmer-team-worked-past-1am-beergate-night
The lack of such evidence being made available previously is what led me to assume the meal was at working day's end and hence the rules had been broken.
Living in a digital world there had to be evidence if work was carried out after the meal. Assuming this is true it clearly exonerates Starmer.
I'm baffled as to why Labour didn't investigate the digital record much sooner in order to find such evidence to kill this story.
Perhaps they did it to expose those with agendas making assumptions based on stuff written by others with agendas making assumptions in the hope that they can be proved right.
-
The Labour team seem to have evidence they were working into the early hours that night.
They were editing videos and those are time stamped, they also have What's App discussions about the edits.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/labour-says-can-prove-starmer-team-worked-past-1am-beergate-night (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/labour-says-can-prove-starmer-team-worked-past-1am-beergate-night)
The lack of such evidence being made available previously is what led me to assume the meal was at working day's end and hence the rules had been broken.
Living in a digital world there had to be evidence if work was carried out after the meal. Assuming this is true it clearly exonerates Starmer.
I'm baffled as to why Labour didn't investigate the digital record much sooner in order to find such evidence to kill this story.
Has it not occurred to you that they knew there would be those who would make the assumptions you have made and knew equally that the only way the story could be killed off would be for the police to open an investigation. If they had the evidence to prove their defence they played it exactly right to get the truth our and shut up the gobshites.
-
You can always tell when it hasn't worked out for the likes of the Mail and Sun.
The top stories always instantly switch from politics to celebrity and royalty stories.
In the now relegated Starmer story they claim in a poll 54% of Brits think he probably or definitely broke the rules. Which shows how effective their headlines have been.
They also claim they have a witness (Delingpoles son?) Who says they were definitely sozzled.
No mention of the new evidence of working late.
-
It’s strange that all these useful idiots were demanding Starmer resign for days, and when Starmer puts it out that he will resign if he gets a fine, the same useful idiots then go on to saying Starmer has put pressure on the Police!
-
Do you think that statement hasn’t put pressure on the police then Filo?
-
Do you think that statement hasn’t put pressure on the police then Filo?
Do you think that's why he made it?
-
It’s strange that all these useful idiots were demanding Starmer resign for days, and when Starmer puts it out that he will resign if he gets a fine, the same useful idiots then go on to saying Starmer has put pressure on the Police!
If Starmer had stood by his own principles he should have resigned as soon as the police said he was under investigation, because that is what he said was the Prime Ministers' moral duty to do when he was told he was under investigation.
Instead, after declaring a couple of days ago that he would lead the Labour Party into the next General Election, he now says he will resign if he is fined or found guilty.
Why, all of a sudden has he taken the moral high ground?
-
Do you think that statement hasn’t put pressure on the police then Filo?
It does but I think he's entitled to
It's nowhere near as much pressure as investigating a sitting Prime Minister.
-
Do you think that statement hasn’t put pressure on the police then Filo?
Do you think that's why he made it?
Yes very much so
-
Do you think that statement hasn’t put pressure on the police then Filo?
It does but I think he's entitled to
It's nowhere near as much pressure as investigating a sitting Prime Minister.
Yes, and they didn't succumb to that pressure, they found him guilty. However, that was the met police. Whether the Durham police, who perhaps have been more lenient in these sorts of offences in the past, will succumb to pressure is anyone's guess.
I guess they will.
-
Do you think that statement hasn’t put pressure on the police then Filo?
It does but I think he's entitled to
It's nowhere near as much pressure as investigating a sitting Prime Minister.
Yes, and they didn't succumb to that pressure, they found him guilty. However, that was the met police. Whether the Durham police, who perhaps have been more lenient in these sorts of offences in the past, will succumb to pressure is anyone's guess.
I guess they will.
It's a fair assumption the Durham police won't succumb to pressure either then, isn't it? Not when a direct comparison is being drawn with the Met.
-
No, that's the problem. It simply cannot be assumed that the pressure the Durham police are now under will not influence the verdict.
-
No, that's the problem. It simply cannot be assumed that the pressure the Durham police are now under will not influence the verdict.
Claiming it's not fair because Starmer has got the easy Police is a bit desperate.
-
Do you think that statement hasn’t put pressure on the police then Filo?
Probably yes it has, but the useful idiot’s can’t have it both ways
-
Do you think that statement hasn’t put pressure on the police then Filo?
Probably yes it has, but the useful idiot’s can’t have it both ways
Tactically he’s played a blinder and you have to applaud that
-
No, that's the problem. It simply cannot be assumed that the pressure the Durham police are now under will not influence the verdict.
Claiming it's not fair because Starmer has got the easy Police is a bit desperate.
Putting to one side that Starmer should be gone already if he stuck to his principles, I think his promise to resign if found guilty is the best next move.
I'm sure Starmer will have considered the same points that I make in reaching his decision.
-
No, that's the problem. It simply cannot be assumed that the pressure the Durham police are now under will not influence the verdict.
Claiming it's not fair because Starmer has got the easy Police is a bit desperate.
Putting to one side that Starmer should be gone already if he stuck to his principles, I think his promise to resign if found guilty is the best next move.
I'm sure Starmer will have considered the same points that I make in reaching his decision.
It's starting to look like a very good move don't you think?
Since it is starting to look very much like Starmers version of events will be found to be the truth.
-
It's a brilliant move, so brilliant, in fact, it's made me wonder who's idea it was.
Yes, I'll be very surprised if the Durham police decide to force the Leader of the Labour party to resign.
-
Let's just summarise what a few folk are contorting themselves into claiming.
Boris Johnson refuses to resign after breaking his own law and either lied about it or was too thick to realise that his wife and the designer of her gold wallpaper coming into his office to party meant he was breaking the law. And that's fine.
Keir Starmer says he will resign if it is found that he broke the law. And that is an affront to legal process and he's a devious, scheming Kitson.
I think that summarises where we have got to.
Anyone else worried about the future of democracy?
-
I see one of the Tory MPs , instrumental in getting the Durham police to re open Beergate, tweeted he was hinself sat down at a Curry lunch the very next day after Beergate with other MPs visiting the Ghurka Regiment but they only drank orange juice so that's alright then. Must be why The Mail didn't pick up on that one..... mmm it smells like it, looks like it ..... thoughts on that one BB?
-
That's your summary of it, and as per usual it's as bent and twisted as your usual summaries.
When someone only takes a view that one side can do no wrong and the other can do no right, it's very, VERY likely it will be a very, VERY biased and twisted summary.
-
It's a brilliant move, so brilliant, in fact, it's made me wonder who's idea it was.
Yes, I'll be very surprised if the Durham police decide to force the Leader of the Labour party to resign.
Particularly if he hasn't done anything wrong.
-
I'm just waiting for the useful idiots to start claiming that the only reason Boris refused to say he'd go was so to not pressure the Met. :silly:
-
Let's just summarise what a few folk are contorting themselves into claiming.
Boris Johnson refuses to resign after breaking his own law and either lied about it or was too thick to realise that his wife and the designer of her gold wallpaper coming into his office to party meant he was breaking the law. And that's fine.
Keir Starmer says he will resign if it is found that he broke the law. And that is an affront to legal process and he's a devious, scheming Kitson.
I think that summarises where we have got to.
Anyone else worried about the future of democracy?
No it’s not fine? Johnson should have already gone
-
That's your summary of it, and as per usual it's as bent and twisted as your usual summaries.
When someone only takes a view that one side can do no wrong and the other can do no right, it's very, VERY likely it will be a very, VERY biased and twisted summary.
Explain which part of my post you disagree with and we might be ge...
Sorry. How stupid of me to ignore a decade of BB dicking about like this. Of COURSE he's not going to explain which bit he disagrees with. Because he can't do that without looking an utter tit. So he plays the man, not the ball.
Over and over and over again.
-
I'm just waiting for the useful idiots to start claiming that the only reason Boris refused to say he'd go was so to not pressure the Met. :silly:
He’s just a corrupt coward Glyn
-
Let's just summarise what a few folk are contorting themselves into claiming.
Boris Johnson refuses to resign after breaking his own law and either lied about it or was too thick to realise that his wife and the designer of her gold wallpaper coming into his office to party meant he was breaking the law. And that's fine.
Keir Starmer says he will resign if it is found that he broke the law. And that is an affront to legal process and he's a devious, scheming Kitson.
I think that summarises where we have got to.
Anyone else worried about the future of democracy?
No it’s not fine? Johnson should have already gone
Well that puts you slightly ahead of BB.
So, if Johnson SHOULD have gone (and of course WILL be dispensed with by the Tories because of this, as soon as it's convenient) the Met clearly weren't concerned by the pressure that was implicitly on them. Indeed, EXPLICITLY on them, since one Cabinet Minister publicly said that they needed to apply a higher standard of proof because they were dealing with the future of the PM.
What evidence is there that the Durham Police won't be equally robust?
-
I'm just waiting for the useful idiots to start claiming that the only reason Boris refused to say he'd go was so to not pressure the Met. :silly:
He’s just a corrupt coward Glyn
I know that, you know that, but I'm sure the useful idiots will try make out his cravenness is actually an indicator of his integrity! :silly:
-
Let's just summarise what a few folk are contorting themselves into claiming.
Boris Johnson refuses to resign after breaking his own law and either lied about it or was too thick to realise that his wife and the designer of her gold wallpaper coming into his office to party meant he was breaking the law. And that's fine.
Keir Starmer says he will resign if it is found that he broke the law. And that is an affront to legal process and he's a devious, scheming Kitson.
I think that summarises where we have got to.
Anyone else worried about the future of democracy?
No it’s not fine? Johnson should have already gone
Well that puts you slightly ahead of BB.
So, if Johnson SHOULD have gone (and of course WILL be dispensed with by the Tories because of this, as soon as it's convenient) the Met clearly weren't concerned by the pressure that was implicitly on them. Indeed, EXPLICITLY on them, since one Cabinet Minister publicly said that they needed to apply a higher standard of proof because they were dealing with the future of the PM.
What evidence is there that the Durham Police won't be equally robust?
None, but that’s irrelevant to him putting out that statement, it’s an absolutely fantastic tactic and I have to applaud. If (and likely when) he is exonerated he can say how honourable he is whilst subtly increasing the pressure on the police with brinksmanship over resigning. Sometimes you just have to salute across the ideological divide.
And just cos I can say it again, Boris must go
-
Ldr.
Why is it a brilliant tactic? Folk in here, and Tory ministers are already preparing the ground for rejecting an acquittal, on the grounds that Starmer put pressure on the police. Those who are convinced Starmer is guilty won't be any less convinced that he's guilty if he's found not to be guilty.
This is the world we now live in. Choose your alternative truth.
-
I never said flawless, but it’s brilliant for him staying in post. People will generally think what they have always thought. Human nature, not many of us can shift positions massively. Makes me think of an in game advert in GTA V for their parody for Fox News (weasel news) where the tagline is “confirming your prejudices”
-
I'm not sure it was a brilliant tactic. It was the only option left open to him to close down the negative headlines and get back on the front foot. He's a cautious sort of bloke, so he won't have taken a gamble like this lightly.
-
It's a brilliant move, so brilliant, in fact, it's made me wonder who's idea it was.
Yes, I'll be very surprised if the Durham police decide to force the Leader of the Labour party to resign.
Particularly if he hasn't done anything wrong.
Why would they do that?
-
By the way. Anyone heard of Hikegate yet? Apparently Ed Davey drove 75 miles to go hiking during the first lockdown. Absolutely disgusting and he should resign immediately.
In a poll this week, 20% of people said they'd heard a lot about it in the media.
Except...the pollsters made it up. As a check to see how people would respond. I think we've just seen the future. Anyone who believes in lies can be filtered out and excluded from the Electoral Roll.
-
How many Coppers vote Labour do you think? especially in the top jobs.
And it is a right chance to make a right name for themselves, showing that whoever you are, if you break the law you will be held to account. Also a great chance to enhance their after dinner speeches when in retirement, How I brought down the opposition.
You would wouldn't you.
-
Highlights a major flaw in society Billy, the media has pretty much been omnipresent in peoples lives that a majority believe without question. 1984 is here
-
That's your summary of it, and as per usual it's as bent and twisted as your usual summaries.
When someone only takes a view that one side can do no wrong and the other can do no right, it's very, VERY likely it will be a very, VERY biased and twisted summary.
Explain which part of my post you disagree with and we might be ge...
Sorry. How stupid of me to ignore a decade of BB dicking about like this. Of COURSE he's not going to explain which bit he disagrees with. Because he can't do that without looking an utter tit. So he plays the man, not the ball.
Over and over and over again.
OK, let's see if we can get you to change the habit of a lifetime and actually explain which part of MY post you disagree with, instead of just blurting out your usual shit.
-
I see one of the Tory MPs , instrumental in getting the Durham police to re open Beergate, tweeted he was hinself sat down at a Curry lunch the very next day after Beergate with other MPs visiting the Ghurka Regiment but they only drank orange juice so that's alright then. Must be why The Mail didn't pick up on that one..... mmm it smells like it, looks like it ..... thoughts on that one BB?
I don't read the Mail so I'll have to take your word for that.
My thoughts? I think whether he was drinking alcohol or not is trivial. I think the whole episodes of Partygate and Beergate should never have been exploited for political gain or points scoring. I think people in working environments were eating and drinking together all over the country.
-
As I said, on his own twitter account not picked up by The Mail , fancy that.
So why should Starmer resign then in a working environment meal?
-
I see one of the Tory MPs , instrumental in getting the Durham police to re open Beergate, tweeted he was hinself sat down at a Curry lunch the very next day after Beergate with other MPs visiting the Ghurka Regiment but they only drank orange juice so that's alright then. Must be why The Mail didn't pick up on that one..... mmm it smells like it, looks like it ..... thoughts on that one BB?
I don't read the Mail so I'll have to take your word for that.
My thoughts? I think whether he was drinking alcohol or not is trivial. I think the whole episodes of Partygate and Beergate should never have been exploited for political gain or points scoring. I think people in working environments were eating and drinking together all over the country.
I'll translate.
"I don't think politicians should ever be held to account for wilfully breaking rules. I'm going to stick to the Tory line that the events at No10 were only ever "working environment" food an drink. I'm going to ignore the fact that Johnson's wife and interior decorator were fined for their presence at one event (because, hey! Obviously a designer of gold wallpaper being present in the Cabinet Office is essential for work purposes). I'm going to ignore the hire of a karaoke machine for another No10 event, (because, hey! Who didn't have karaoke parties at work during lockdown?) I'm going to ignore that fact that for one event, 100 people who weren't working at No10 were invited to No10 for a party with the advice that they BYOB. (Because, hey! Who didn't take a four pack to someone else's office for a piss up during lockdown?). And by ignoring all this, I can let Johnson off the hook by convincing myself that what happened at No10 was no different to what was happening up and down the country. And I'll top it off by saying that Starmer is a hypocrite. Because that's what I do."
-
I see one of the Tory MPs , instrumental in getting the Durham police to re open Beergate, tweeted he was hinself sat down at a Curry lunch the very next day after Beergate with other MPs visiting the Ghurka Regiment but they only drank orange juice so that's alright then. Must be why The Mail didn't pick up on that one..... mmm it smells like it, looks like it ..... thoughts on that one BB?
I don't read the Mail so I'll have to take your word for that.
My thoughts? I think whether he was drinking alcohol or not is trivial. I think the whole episodes of Partygate and Beergate should never have been exploited for political gain or points scoring. I think people in working environments were eating and drinking together all over the country.
You should, in fact with your logic and blind loyalty to the tory party you could write copy for them.
-
As I said, on his own twitter account not picked up by The Mail , fancy that.
So why should Starmer resign then in a working environment meal?
I'm a bit of a 'face' on Facebook. Are you considered similarly on Twitter?
I never said Starmer should resign for Beergate. If he were to resign it should be for being a hypocrite.
-
But he isn't a hypocrite.
-
I see one of the Tory MPs , instrumental in getting the Durham police to re open Beergate, tweeted he was hinself sat down at a Curry lunch the very next day after Beergate with other MPs visiting the Ghurka Regiment but they only drank orange juice so that's alright then. Must be why The Mail didn't pick up on that one..... mmm it smells like it, looks like it ..... thoughts on that one BB?
I don't read the Mail so I'll have to take your word for that.
My thoughts? I think whether he was drinking alcohol or not is trivial. I think the whole episodes of Partygate and Beergate should never have been exploited for political gain or points scoring. I think people in working environments were eating and drinking together all over the country.
I'll translate.
"I don't think politicians should ever be held to account for wilfully breaking rules. I'm going to stick to the Tory line that the events at No10 were only ever "working environment" food an drink. I'm going to ignore the fact that Johnson's wife and interior decorator were fined for their presence at one event (because, hey! Obviously a designer of gold wallpaper being present in the Cabinet Office is essential for work purposes). I'm going to ignore the hire of a karaoke machine for another No10 event, (because, hey! Who didn't have karaoke parties at work during lockdown?) I'm going to ignore that fact that for one event, 100 people who weren't working at No10 were invited to No10 for a party with the advice that they BYOB. (Because, hey! Who didn't take a four pack to someone else's office for a piss up during lockdown?). And by ignoring all this, I can let Johnson off the hook by convincing myself that what happened at No10 was no different to what was happening up and down the country. And I'll top it off by saying that Starmer is a hypocrite. Because that's what I do."
BsT you forgot always take your carryouts in a suitcase
-
As I said, on his own twitter account not picked up by The Mail , fancy that.
So why should Starmer resign then in a working environment meal?
I'm a bit of a 'face' on Facebook. Are you considered similarly on Twitter?
I never said Starmer should resign for Beergate. If he were to resign it should be for being a hypocrite.
But a hypocrite over what? He said Johnson should resign for misleading the house .
But I suppose we are back to your interpretation of the English language again
-
But he isn't a hypocrite.
Oh, he is Billy lad, he most certainly is. But don't just take my word for it, ask some other honest and principled people what they think, if you know any.
-
There's BB in action again. When logical argument fails, resort to the ad hominem.
-
There's BB inaction again. When logical argument fails, resort to the ad hominem.
Fixed for you. :lol:
-
There's BB in action again. When logical argument fails, resort to the ad hominem.
Well, stop being the cause of its failure then! :facepalm:
-
There's BB inaction again. When logical argument fails, resort to the ad hominem.
Fixed for you. :lol:
Ooh, the sophistication! Another superb example of woeful wiggerlyism!
-
There's BB in action again. When logical argument fails, resort to the ad hominem.
However hypocritical (very) Starmer is, it will never come close to the hypocrisy of Billy regularly accusing people of ‘resorting to the ad hominem’.
-
BST,
Your Google link P.22 seems to be about fixed penalty notices imposed at the time of a breach of rules.
That is not what we are discussing here.
We are talking about the approach of Durham Police to retrospective review of minor breaches.
The Independent says that:
"The force has previously taken the position that it does not issue retrospective fines for Covid breaches.
When former Number 10 adviser Dominic Cummings was accused of breaking lockdown rules by travelling to County Durham in 2020, the constabulary said it had a “general approach” not “to take retrospective action” regarding Covid fines, “since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/angela-rayner-durham-constabulary-jacob-reesmogg-prime-minister-conservatives-b2074963.html
So how can they take action in this case without re-opening other earlier cases to ensure parity?
Starmer refused to commit to resigning if Durham police say he broke lockdown rules but do not issue a fine, when questioned by Beth Rigby of Sky.
This is not a hypothetical, because this is what Durham police did in relation to Dominic Cummings.
The bigger question would be, if fined by Durham Constabulary, is why they would chose the leader of the opposition to be the first person in the country to receive a retrospective FPN from Durham police?
-
There's BB in action again. When logical argument fails, resort to the ad hominem.
However hypocritical (very) Starmer is, it will never come close to the hypocrisy of Billy regularly accusing people of ‘resorting to the ad hominem’.
I always have to laugh when his little ankle biting Lap dog jumps in to comment on behalf of his master. He must spend his entire sad little life responding to anti- Billy posts!
-
BST,
Your Google link P.22 seems to be about fixed penalty notices imposed at the time of a breach of rules.
That is not what we are discussing here.
We are talking about the approach of Durham Police to retrospective review of minor breaches.
The Independent says that:
"The force has previously taken the position that it does not issue retrospective fines for Covid breaches.
When former Number 10 adviser Dominic Cummings was accused of breaking lockdown rules by travelling to County Durham in 2020, the constabulary said it had a “general approach” not “to take retrospective action” regarding Covid fines, “since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/angela-rayner-durham-constabulary-jacob-reesmogg-prime-minister-conservatives-b2074963.html
So how can they take action in this case without re-opening other earlier cases to ensure parity?
Starmer refused to commit to resigning if Durham police say he broke lockdown rules but do not issue a fine, when questioned by Beth Rigby of Sky.
This is not a hypothetical, because this is what Durham police did in relation to Dominic Cummings.
The bigger question would be, if fined by Durham Constabulary, is why they would chose the leader of the opposition to be the first person in the country to receive a retrospective FPN from Durham police?
Albie.
Your exact words were: "My understanding is that Durham Police do not issue fines, so that is an unlikely outcome." You didn't say anything about retrospective fines. Hence my response.
Happy to address your clarified point.
Durham Police have, to the best of my knowledge, only once publicly commented on their policy. That was in 2020, in the Cummings case. They concluded that Cummings hadn't committed any offence that would have required them to take action. They said "In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public." That was an odd conclusion, in as much as they had already concluded that Cummings hadn't committed an offence that justified a fine. But no matter. That was what they stated to be their approach.
You may recall last December, the Met pointed out that their approach was not to even investigate alleged breaches of COVID regulations retrospectively, let alone impose fines retrospectively. They then changed that policy when they investigated the No10 events. That sets a clear precedent that a police force doesn't have to be tied down by previous policy. In light of the fact that the Met changed its policy to both investigated AND apply fines retrospectively, it would be a curious decision of the Durham Constabulary to investigate retrospectively but insist on not imposing a fine because of previous policy.
Finally, in the Cummings case, the Durham Constabulary gave a clear statement both of their assessment of whether Cummings had broken the law, and of their decision not to fine him. If they issue a similarly detailed report on Starmer, concluding that he DID break they law but won't be fined because of the retrospective nature of the offence, Starmer's position would be totally untenable. He couldn't possibly argue that his stance was vindicated. (Well, of course he COULD if he was Johnson and he had supporters like BB, but you get my point - he would go.)
My expectation, in light of everything, is that the Durham Constabulary will conclude that Starmer did break the regulations and that they will impose a fine: or they will conclude that he didn't and they won't impose a fine. And either way, they will explain the decision clearly. The only possible way that what you're implying could be argued to occur (that Starmer survives despite being guilty) is if the police just say they are not applying a fine and say nothing else. That is a very, very unlikely outcome.
-
BST,
We are talking about the Starmer issue, which is clearly a retrospective matter.
It did not need spelling out in fine grain.
What you describe could happen, but it was not what Starmer said to Beth Rigby when questioned.
He said that if he was found in breach, then a fine would be imposed. This he said, was a matter of law.
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1523696066759176192/pu/vid/1238x692/wQzWUiTmcaUPgnMW.mp4?tag=12
What you think is a "very unlikely outcome", is what I think is probable but not certain.
It remains to be seen how the repercussions of that will play out.
Let's see, eh!
-
How do you NOT investigate something retrospectively?
-
I'm just waiting for the useful idiots to start claiming that the only reason Boris refused to say he'd go was so to not pressure the Met. :silly:
He’s just a corrupt coward Glyn
I know that, you know that, but I'm sure the useful idiots will try make out his cravenness is actually an indicator of his integrity! :silly:
Glyn, you know it, ldr knows it and so do I.
In fact I bet thousands of people know it.
Someone on the thread suggests that the Tories will get rid of Boris when it suits them to do it.
I said the same thing some weeks ago.
None of the Party’s are stupid and they will make the move that suits them best when the time comes.
No player is bigger than the team.
-
Ldr,
They mean after an extended period of time, when gathering evidence is much more difficult.
-
BST,
Your Google link P.22 seems to be about fixed penalty notices imposed at the time of a breach of rules.
That is not what we are discussing here.
We are talking about the approach of Durham Police to retrospective review of minor breaches.
The Independent says that:
"The force has previously taken the position that it does not issue retrospective fines for Covid breaches.
When former Number 10 adviser Dominic Cummings was accused of breaking lockdown rules by travelling to County Durham in 2020, the constabulary said it had a “general approach” not “to take retrospective action” regarding Covid fines, “since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/angela-rayner-durham-constabulary-jacob-reesmogg-prime-minister-conservatives-b2074963.html
So how can they take action in this case without re-opening other earlier cases to ensure parity?
Starmer refused to commit to resigning if Durham police say he broke lockdown rules but do not issue a fine, when questioned by Beth Rigby of Sky.
This is not a hypothetical, because this is what Durham police did in relation to Dominic Cummings.
The bigger question would be, if fined by Durham Constabulary, is why they would chose the leader of the opposition to be the first person in the country to receive a retrospective FPN from Durham police?
I suggested this a day or two back albie.
9
Off Topic / Re: Should Starmer Resign?
« on: May 09, 2022, 07:40:30 pm »
Quote from: albie on May 09, 2022, 06:16:28 pm
My understanding is that Durham Police do not issue fines, so that is an unlikely outcome.
Starmer can still be in breach of the regulations, so if that is the case will he stand down?
All this kerfuffle is about diverting the media from Johnson and Partygate, and it has worked.
Keith has shown great political naivety in allowing this line of scrutiny to open up.
It was perfectly obvious that the rules would be tested by the media seeking a story, so why give them an opening to exploit?
———————————————————
Ah, so if Starmer knows that Durham police don’t issue fines so maybe that is why he is bold enough to say he will resign if he gets a fine.
Crafty sod.
——————————————————-
He is being very crafty in this situation and choosing his words carefully.
-
Personally I think they probably found all the evidence they required to prove work continued long after eating before taking this step. It's probably why he took so long to decide to go ahead.
Only then with that knowledge could Starmer make his statement about resigning if fined, safe in the knowledge that the odds of him being found to have broken the rules have shifted significantly in his favour.
Starmer made his statement. A few hours later Labour released details of their evidence to the Guardian.
-
And that's politics RD.
The other side chose to sling shite at him. He has a perfect right to turn that to his advantage.
Johnson could have done the same. If it wasn't for the fact that in his case, the other side was bang on the money and he didn't have leg to stand on.
-
That photo today of the two of them both smiling, Johnson reportedly saying "Did you enjoy your weekend?
I suspect Starmer is smiling because he actually did. I wonder if Johnson is aware of it?
-
Personally I think they probably found all the evidence they required to prove work continued long after eating before taking this step. It's probably why he took so long to decide to go ahead.
Only then with that knowledge could Starmer make his statement about resigning if fined, safe in the knowledge that the odds of him being found to have broken the rules have shifted significantly in his favour.
Starmer made his statement. A few hours later Labour released details of their evidence to the Guardian.
I would suggest Starmer knew this right from the off, he was in the room after all and having worked as a barrister he would see the situation a mile off and not react in a knee jerk fashion.
-
Politico is reporting a possible further breach of he rules by Labour:
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-labour-meeting-coronavirus-lockdown-restrictions/
I don't know if this story has legs, but you have to marvel at the lack of intelligence at work here, to chance it when there is every possibility of media scrutiny.
-
Noone is above the law Albie
-
A senior Labour official said the event had not broken any laws and all appropriate mitigation measures had been taken.
The above statement is from that politico article Syd.
Now I recall that you ridiculed Johnson for saying the same thing a while back and yet you say Starmer hasn’t broken any laws.
:byebye:
-
A senior Labour official said the event had not broken any laws and all appropriate mitigation measures had been taken.
The above statement is from that politico article Syd.
Now I recall that you ridiculed Johnson for saying the same thing a while back and yet you say Starmer hasn’t broken any laws.
:byebye:
Two things -
1. Starmer wasn't at that meeting, so what laws has he broken?
2. What laws did those who were at the meeting break?
:ermm:
-
This story should be assessed by someone who is neutral, impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced.
Let's wait for BST to comment.
-
This story should be assessed by someone who is neutral, impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced.
Let's wait for BST to comment.
Good to see you don't include yourself in the neutral, impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced group.
:silly:
-
Did anyone really think that the Labour Party hadn’t also held meetings
I’d be surprised if the Lib Dems also had meetings and other political parties
It’s quite naive to think otherwise
Totally wrong. If the story Allie has put the link to is true it will just be the Labour Party reaping their rewards for not living up to the standards they have made such a large issue about.
Shouldn’t throw stones and live in a glass house.
Not excusing the tories what they did was wrong. But if this story is right and Starmer gets fined along with Raynor how ridiculously pompous does Starmer look
-
and if-if-if atm phil, that's all it is
-
If Starmer and Raynor get fined then they resign. Simple.
They know their position would be unacceptable.
If those at the meeting were breaking the rules then they should be fined.
-
If Starmer and Raynor get fined then they resign. Simple.
They know their position would be unacceptable.
If those at the meeting were breaking the rules then they should be fined.
There have been 100 fpn issued so far, how many affected is unknown as we don't know if any have doubled up, but these are the politicians and clingons we should be discussing, that and when they will resign is the important bit.
-
This story should be assessed by someone who is neutral, impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced.
Let's wait for BST to comment.
Good to see you don't include yourself in the neutral, impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced group.
:silly:
Mr Wiggerly, I'm a self-appointed advocate of fair, unbiased discussion. A sort of referee if you like, making sure one side isn't monopolising prejudiced opinion. a sort of "levelling up" process if you like.
If that means I have to be biased and prejudiced the other way in order to level things up I will be.
That's the type of guy I am!
-
If Starmer and Raynor get fined then they resign. Simple.
They know their position would be unacceptable.
If those at the meeting were breaking the rules then they should be fined.
Their position would be unacceptable because of their demands for Johnson to resign, resulting in if they didn't (resign), they would be hypocrites.
-
If Starmer and Raynor get fined then they resign. Simple.
They know their position would be unacceptable.
If those at the meeting were breaking the rules then they should be fined.
Their position would be unacceptable because of their demands for Johnson to resign, resulting in if they didn't (resign), they would be hypocrites.
Eh?
-
If Starmer and Raynor get fined then they resign. Simple.
They know their position would be unacceptable.
If those at the meeting were breaking the rules then they should be fined.
Their position would be unacceptable because of their demands for Johnson to resign, resulting in if they didn't (resign), they would be hypocrites.
Yes, and haven't they said as much RD? why do we need to go over and over what those accepting responsibility for there actions have already said they will do? shouldn't we be discussing how the criminal that misled parliament is shown the door?
-
If Starmer and Raynor get fined then they resign. Simple.
They know their position would be unacceptable.
If those at the meeting were breaking the rules then they should be fined.
Their position would be unacceptable because of their demands for Johnson to resign, resulting in if they didn't (resign), they would be hypocrites.
Yes, and haven't they said as much RD? why do we need to go over and over what those accepting responsibility for there actions have already said they will do? shouldn't we be discussing how the criminal that misled parliament is shown the door?
Well yes but whenever it comes up it's worth reiterating that the Labour leadership are prepared to accept responsibility if they are found to have done wrong...
Where as Boris Johnson still hasn't done that yet, despite having transgressed.
-
Yes he has! He's apologised, which is more than Starmer has done.
-
Yes he has! He's apologised, which is more than Starmer has done.
Hooray, when's the party?
-
This story should be assessed by someone who is neutral, impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced.
Let's wait for BST to comment.
Good to see you don't include yourself in the neutral, impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced group.
:silly:
Mr Wiggerly, I'm a self-appointed advocate of fair, unbiased discussion. A sort of referee if you like, making sure one side isn't monopolising prejudiced opinion. a sort of "levelling up" process if you like.
If that means I have to be biased and prejudiced the other way in order to level things up I will be.
That's the type of guy I am!
It's always been perfectly clear what kind of guy you are.
-
Yes he has! He's apologised, which is more than Starmer has done.
You and johnson have a lot in common, except he has your money and is laughing.
-
This story should be assessed by someone who is neutral, impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced.
Let's wait for BST to comment.
Good to see you don't include yourself in the neutral, impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced group.
:silly:
Mr Wiggerly, I'm a self-appointed advocate of fair, unbiased discussion. A sort of referee if you like, making sure one side isn't monopolising prejudiced opinion. a sort of "levelling up" process if you like.
If that means I have to be biased and prejudiced the other way in order to level things up I will be.
That's the type of guy I am!
It's always been perfectly clear what kind of guy you are.
Why thanks BST. How nice of you to say!
-
If Starmer and Raynor get fined then they resign. Simple.
They know their position would be unacceptable.
If those at the meeting were breaking the rules then they should be fined.
What were the rules at the time of the meeting?
-
What about the other concern. If Starmer goes who’s going to lead the opposition that won’t play straight into the Tories hands
They could well elect another unelectable Corbyn type
-
Starmer's not going to resign because he didn't break any rules.
Johnson's not going to resign because he DID break the law, and lied about it, but he's a moral vacuum.
Why are we still talking about this?
-
BST, where did you get the information that Starmer didn't break any rules from?
I trust it's from a neutral, impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced source?
-
Of course it is, it is from that bastion of cover ups The Labour Party.
-
It's my opinion based on a grown up assessment of the facts in the public domain. I expect you two to struggle with that concept. Bye.
-
Would that include the facts the Labour Party covered up Billy, or the few they made public at the beginning of the saga?
-
BST, where did you get the information that Starmer didn't break any rules from?
I trust it's from a neutral, impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced source?
Because in this country you are innocent until proven guilty? Unless you are unimpartial, biased and prejudiced I suspect.
-
i think your being to kind to starmer bst, he might well have not broke the law, but you of all people who at that time were shielding one of your work colleagues should see that having curry and beers at a time you were advised to work from home is not a good idea,maybe they could have just got a meal deal or took sandwiches like most other people had to do, it must of been quite obvious to him that drinking beer will have been seen as a social event
-
BST, where did you get the information that Starmer didn't break any rules from?
I trust it's from a neutral, impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced source?
Because in this country you are innocent until proven guilty? Unless you are unimpartial, biased and prejudiced I suspect.
Ah! Does that include Conservatives or just Labour MP's?
PS. Not sure what unimpartial means.
-
Bpool.
You were advised to work from home WHERE POSSIBLE.
Election campaigning was specifically excluded from that requirement. Starmer had spent the day campaigning in Hull, 150 miles from home, and spent the evening in meetings in Hartlepool, 250 miles from home, catching up with colleagues and planning the next day's campaigning. During that, he had food and a can of beer.
What rules did he break?
-
*BB ignores dictionary definition yet again shocker*
-
Bpool.
You were advised to work from home WHERE POSSIBLE.
Election campaigning was specifically excluded from that requirement. Starmer had spent the day campaigning in Hull, 150 miles from home, and spent the evening in meetings in Hartlepool, 250 miles from home, catching up with colleagues and planning the next day's campaigning. During that, he had food and a can of beer.
What rules did he break?
i'm surprised at you, all thru this pandemic you have said about your poorly work colleague and have stood the moral high ground, how do you think drinking beer and having a curry is acceptable at work when you couldn't even see loved ones? i said he might well not have broke the law but that said it's not setting a good example is it? and we don't no if he has broke rules yet as there still investigating as far as i know
-
if i went to your work place and brought a curry and a beer and sat with your work colleagues would you have allowed it?
-
if i went to your work place and brought a curry and a beer and sat with your work colleagues would you have allowed it?
If you'd just done a 16 hour days and we're still working late on Friday night, should you starve yourself?
-
if i went to your work place and brought a curry and a beer and sat with your work colleagues would you have allowed it?
If you'd just done a 16 hour days and we're still working late on Friday night, should you starve yourself?
do you need to have beers when you eat? i have a friend that owns a nightclub, himself the other owner and some other staff met to discuss work at the nightclub had a couple of beers while working and got fined, they were told that was due basically because they were having alcohol, it depends on what you class as becoming a social event, if it was someone you didn't like you would say it's wrong but because labour you just won't have it lol
-
Bpool.
Remember that picture of the people eating and drinking in the garden in the sunshine at Downing St? Loads of people drinking wine?
The Met Police decided that wasn't even going to be investigated because it was clear no law had been broken. I accept that. I don't know what makes you choose to believe that I'd treat the two sides differently. Maybe you could explain?
-
because you have found starmer innocent already and you have no idea what has gone on, i have never said he has broke the law either but it's not the cleverest thing to do either is it?
-
to me having beer and curry has nothing to do with work but maybe that's just me i see that as socialising
-
So what should he have done when he'd been on the go all day and his team was still working at gone 10pm? Are you saying they shouldn't have eaten until they'd finished and gone back to their individual rooms? And if that was necessary for Starmer's team, surely it would have been necessary in Downing St? But we've had it established by the Met that eating and drinking alcohol while working was not a breach of the law. So once again, what do you think Starmer has done wrong?
-
BST. What is the 'significant' new information the Durham police has?
-
I suspect it's the agenda. Unless the Tory press have been sending stuff to the police and not telling us.
I also suspect that since it became such a huge story, the Durham Police felt it in the public interest to err on the side of investigating rather than ignoring.
But I'm sure you'll disagree so I don't know why you ask.
-
Ah, you mean it's a complete reconstruction of how events developed in the Partygate affair, as to why the police got involved.
But with Beergate you know Starmers innocent despite not knowing what the significant new evidence is!
I see!
-
What if some ate a porkpie instead, not everyone likes curry. And then there's the strength of the beer, was it real ale or larger? the proof meisters at the mail on sunday should have another steaming pile in the morning.
-
I'll remember that the next time we are away from home at a conference, de-briefing from the day's events and preparing the following days agenda and rota over the evening meal.
Sorry boss, I am not allowed to eat and drink for three days because someone on the internet said so.
-
I'll remember that the next time we are away from home at a conference, de-briefing from the day's events and preparing the following days agenda and rota over the evening meal.
Sorry boss, I am not allowed to eat and drink for three days because someone on the internet said so.
You only need worry about doing that wilts if there is some kind of rule in place due to a pandemic. ;-)
-
So what should he have done when he'd been on the go all day and his team was still working at gone 10pm? Are you saying they shouldn't have eaten until they'd finished and gone back to their individual rooms? And if that was necessary for Starmer's team, surely it would have been necessary in Downing St? But we've had it established by the Met that eating and drinking alcohol while working was not a breach of the law. So once again, what do you think Starmer has done wrong?
let's see what the investigation brings out, as i said you slagged boris off for riding his push bike but of course it's different,in fact i will go as far as saying you and glyn both said when boris went to far on his bike ride he should be fined, what is worse a bike ride or curry and a beer?
-
There were plenty on here bagging corbyn without an investigation now they use weasel words like alleged or are not game to mention it at all, but if his team decides to poke around it's not hard to find? I hope you weren't one of them bp"
Tory councillor pays Jeremy Corbyn damages for fake Liverpool terror tweet
East Ridings’ Paul Nickerson admits posting defamatory fake image of Corbyn laying wreath by burning taxi
-
There were plenty on here bagging corbyn without an investigation now they use weasel words like alleged or are not game to mention it at all, but if his team decides to poke around it's not hard to find? I hope you weren't one of them bp"
Tory councillor pays Jeremy Corbyn damages for fake Liverpool terror tweet
East Ridings’ Paul Nickerson admits posting defamatory fake image of Corbyn laying wreath by burning taxi
maybe so, my view is boris and any others that went to them parties should resign simple as, i won't vote for the tories unless he does, what gets on my nerves is bst ripped into nudge and colin douglas because they would not wear a mask ect would not get the vaccine, at the same time starmer is having curry and beer and it's fine, it is hypocritical at the very least, but he is not man enough to admit it
-
But you were happy to support him after the total b*llocks of a response to covid, proroguing parliament, trying to f**k with the GFA, PPE contracts to his cronies, lying to the queen, etc etc? and now your are saying you won't vote for all those tories that are keeping him in power .... if?
They will still be the same party just without johnson the same party the same MPs that agreed and allowed him to do all this so I'm not sure you are standing on particularly high ground yourself, with respect bp
-
That "h" word gets thrown about here a lot by folk who are desperate to convince themselves that nobody has any morals. And it is rarely backed up by any evidence by some folk. Maybe we should all be a bit more circumspect and look at what people say and do, rather than what we would like them to.
Bpool, you've still not said what you think Starmer's team was supposed to do while apparently still working at 10pm after a 14 hour day. And you seem determined not to see the differencr between eating and drinking while working and people not working together invited to bring your own booze and karaoke parties.
For my part, I stick to what I've said all along. I've seen no evidence that Starmer broke any rules. But if it turns out he did, I'd want him gone within the hour. Calling that hypocritical is a stretch of the word, no?