Should Starmer Resign?

[belton rover]

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’.

[albie]

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?

[Bentley Bullet]

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!

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[albie]

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!

[Ldr]

How do you NOT investigate something retrospectively?

[drfchound]

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.

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!

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.

[albie]

Ldr,

They mean after an extended period of time, when gathering evidence is much more difficult.

[drfchound]

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.

[River Don]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[River Don]

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?

[SydneyRover]

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.

[albie]

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.

[SydneyRover]

Noone is above the law Albie

[drfchound]

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.

 

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

 

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?

 

[Bentley Bullet]

This story should be assessed by someone who is neutral, impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced.

Let's wait for BST to comment.

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

[phil old leake]

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

[SydneyRover]

and if-if-if atm phil, that's all it is

[River Don]

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.

[SydneyRover]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

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.

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!

[Bentley Bullet]

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.

[River Don]

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?

[SydneyRover]

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?

[River Don]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

Yes he has! He's apologised, which is more than Starmer has done.

[SydneyRover]

Yes he has! He's apologised, which is more than Starmer has done.

Hooray, when's the party?