Should Starmer Resign?

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[River Don]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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. 

[Branton Red]

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?

[Bentley Bullet]

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?

[Colemans Left Hook]

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!!""

[SydneyRover]

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

[SydneyRover]

large slice of humble pie for Owen Jones please ............... and make it snappy

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[SydneyRover]

.......... 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 .................

[i_ateallthepies]

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.

[i_ateallthepies]

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.

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.

[River Don]

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.

[Filo]

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!

[Ldr]

Do you think that statement hasn’t put pressure on the police then Filo?

[SydneyRover]

Do you think that statement hasn’t put pressure on the police then Filo?

Do you think that's why he made it?

[Bentley Bullet]

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?

[River Don]

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.

[Ldr]

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

[Bentley Bullet]

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.

[River Don]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

No, that's the problem. It simply cannot be assumed that the pressure the Durham police are now under will not influence the verdict.

[River Don]

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.

[Filo]

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

[Ldr]

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

[Bentley Bullet]

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.

[River Don]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

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. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[ravenrover]

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?