Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

I think you are lacking in skills when it comes to the law and what can and cannot happen in an investigation - it can be reopened when new evidence comes to light and it has, first we had the LIES that Angela Rayner was not there but then she was, now we have details of about 30 people being there, all eating and drinking beer which they should not have been doing as it was against the rules - you being obtuse and pathetic about Starmer being cleared does not cut it, the event can be re-investigated any time.

The rules were explicit and obvious:

No meeting indoors of any kind, even during campaigning unless for working purposes, when Starmer is holding a beer and is seen in footage talking to several people in a room, he is not working, that is a social gathering.

No food to be shared amongst people, you are not households with. If you are having a takeaway with 30 people and drinking beer, it's a an egregious breach of the rules that were in place.

The mistake here is, you have not got a clue what you're talking about when it comes to breaches of the lockdown rules and are being very politically pathetic and one sided when it comes to who broke the rules and who didn't and who should and who should not be fined.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Thanks for posting. He didn't help himself in the Radio 4 interview but this is a robust denial.

---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:13 ----------

I'll continue to cast my move freely at every election be it Conservative, Liberal Democrats, Labour, Greens...whoever, I've voted for all those parties. I'll take an evidence-based approach as oppose to believing disinformation from an overtly newspaper because that disinformation suits my political views and I want to believe it's true.

---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 14:19 ----------

I've got some sympathy with you here. You found a document on gov.uk and evaluated Starmer's takeaway meal against it and found him at fault. Why on earth is a fine not winging its way to him right now?

Trouble is, it's not that simple and guidance and interpretation changed after the date of that document. I admire your confidence in believing you're right and the former Director of Public Prosecutions is wrong and it's a lovely David and Goliath battle.

If it was as clear-cut as you present it, Starmer would not stand a chance. Instead, he would be accepting a fine and there would be talk of a leadership challenge.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

The issue always has been if breaking from work to eat counts as 'necessary' or not. If it wasn't for the beer I think we would be 100% fine. If they could prove it was a social event he would be trouble, if the beer is seen as excessive with the food he could be trouble.

All of the developments haven't changed that core question. Rayner being there doesn't change the legality of it if it was work event, nor does ordering curry as we already knew it was a takeaway.

But having a beer isn't necessary for work. The curry IMO is fine.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Probably because Durham constabulary is not as politically motivated, or dog whistled as easily as the Met is.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

No it is not, what part of the rule, you cannot share food with non-household members do you not understand?

Starmer did that and it is a very clear and obvious rule breach. There is no skirting around it, it is a rule breach, especially when there is 30 people in the same building, doing the same thing.

---------- Post added at 16:00 ---------- Previous post was at 15:56 ----------

It is not disinformation in the slightest- the video evidence is there for all to see, Starmer doesn't deny the dates and bits of information about that evening are coming out about it all the time, the problem is, you're being very obtuse because you find it utterly impossible to lay blame at any other party other than the Tories, and this is very pathetic of you Andrew.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

No one has denied the video. The debate is does it break the law - the police say no. Why not take out a private prosecution and prove the police wrong?

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Because it is not my job - The police saying no, does not make it final. It is however, my right to highlight the pathetic hypocrisies emanating from the likes of you and others, Johnson broke his own rules, he's been found out and fined, may still have to step down as PM, but it now appears we have other rule breaching from the top of the Labour Party, consuming food and beer with 30 people, in an office, (not Starmers normal working office) during a period when rules were strict on meeting in doors and not sharing food with non-household members.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Well, presumably the same issue the police had is that it's unrealistic to assume that people who are eating at work are breaking the law. The question is if it's a social or work gathering.

There is a lawyer who explains what the defence might be, and where that defense might fail, here: https://twitter.com/adamwagner1/stat...53930904211458


So the gathering is exempt under 'work' purposes and 'necessary for campaigning'. People need to eat at work so that probably isn't enough to trigger a fine. It's just if the beer turned it into a social occasion.

The beer (to me) is similar to the cake in it makes it seem more social. For example, no one is saying No 10 should be fined if they had a normal lunch during the lockdown in the same building.

If Starmer broke the law he should be fined too, especially since he voted for this laws so he isn't some random person. I am just pointing out why the police may not have fined him.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Agreed.

Quote taken from New Statesman:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-over-beergate

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Agreed, but...Johnson has form for lying and has lost jobs over it.

Not saying Starmer's an angel but his reputation in this respect is far stronger; he's never lost a job due to lying.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Well, this obvious rule breaking in Durham, could be his first.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

As a defence goes it doesn’t get any thinner than that……..he’s got a better reputation.

He’s also a lawyer, so in essence a professional liar.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Not sure why someone who prosecuted terrorists and other law-breakers for the Crown is in essence a professional liar. :confused:

Damien provided a link to the defence.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

I was generalising, all lawyers (and politicians for that matter) are professional liars. So he’s doubly qualified.