Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Why not ask a woman? Rather than speaking on their behalf, as a man. Which seems to happen a lot.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

When did I say I'm speaking on behalf of anyone specific or in general?

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Well, seeing as it’s very unlikely that Angela Rayner is a member of CF, so her awareness or lack of awareness and any unposited need or lack of need are purely hypothetical, and considering BenMcr didn’t actually offer her his support, and as your attempts at casuistry are resulting in word salad dressed in vinaigrette gibberish, your point (for lack of a better word) is moot…

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

hope that helps

Re: All those No.10 lockdown partiesyiur
 

You didn’t, but by your actions you are.

---------- Post added at 22:53 ---------- Previous post was at 22:39 ----------

agreed

agreed


Well no, he chastised me for using the phrase “give it a rest woman” against her. Which I thought was pretty innocuous. But he went on the offensive………..not me.

Well, the vinaigrette word salad as you put it, was clearly propositioned by yourself. I just responded in kind to the absurdity of your post……..hope that helps. …….would you like me to find a suitable GIF for you?

---------- Post added at 22:57 ---------- Previous post was at 22:53 ----------

You didn’t, but why feel the need to chastise me for a phrase if you have no reason too?

If you don’t care………..then don’t care.


Do you care? If you do care then explain why you do.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

I would still say that minor fines for attending a party really is a bit like minor traffic offences, pay the fine and let it go. Ignorance isn't an excuse same as any other offence.


Organising a party with a bigger fine would be different, so those claiming unfairness because they were caught doing that and fined £1,000 and politco's only fined £50 is a non-starter.


What does need sorting is did any of them deliberately and intentionally lie. There is a difference between unintentionally telling a porky you believed to be true and misleading parliament or the nation.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

If you made the laws in the first place and communicated them to the nation via TV broadcasts, you'd be hard-pressed to come to any conclusion other than the one Seph has arrived at.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

You are assuming that the police have interpreted the law correctly.

You can surely see why Boris and in fact all his advisors believed this to be a work event. He had just been to one meeting and was about to commence another when someone arrived with a cake. Nine minutes later, he commenced the scheduled meeting.

You call that a party?

Yet Boris haters on here think that Sir Kier was not breaking the law when he had a beer and food with his mates after campaigning. He didn’t have to do that. The hotel he was staying in served food, which initially he denied. He’s lucky not to have had cake as a dessert then…

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

I will just say that there were no additional risks of spreading Covid with the birthday cake incident. All present were colleagues that they associated with all the time - it was not a social event. They were at work!

I don’t think Boris or Sir Kier broke the rules. But if one is fined, so should the other be. At least that would be consistent, even if equally incorrect judgements.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Be careful Old Boy, you'll have someone's eye out with your dummy at this rate!

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

OLD BOY accidentally overlooks the fact that the incidents under discussion took place at different times under different rules/guidelines…


https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...8&d=1651605351

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Lying to Parliament :rolleyes:

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

I take it that you've discarded your own advice to wait until the Sue Gray Report until passing judgment? Or should that waiting advice only be heeded
by people like Seph and me who feel that the evidence more than adequately shows the fined Johnson to be guilty of breaking his own rules?

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

I am commenting on the issuing of a fine to one and not the other. We know enough now about the presentation of a birthday cake to comment, but we still need further information about the others.

And the birthday cake incident was not primarily a social event. Boris was attending meetings - that was the primary event.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

I think it's clear he did, but I also think it's clear Starmer did too. So a curse on all your houses.

As the reports are being drip fed out, it's looking like Beer & Curry gate was a bigger gathering than Birthday cake gate (but not Downing Street Garden Gate).

Starmer who has been laying into Johnson thickly now for over 4 months, is just looking like a massive hypocrite, coupled with Rayner who is outraged by a misogynistic story, she actually started herself. Labour are a useless opposition who can't make any capital on a barely functioning, incompetent government.

Our political system is at rock bottom at the moment.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Starmer questioned on Beergate on GMB, this morning as it is now revealed 30 people were at the event he was at when he was filmed last year drinking beer during lockdown rules.

Skip to 8:15 Minutes to get to Beergate questioning.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Rayner did not start the story. I provided a link before that showed this. She merely laughed off a story from January in the Mail.

Starmer's meal and beer took place at a different time and different set of rules than Johnson and he has been cleared. If there was any meat on the bones of this story, an investigation would be taking place.

It's theoretically hard for Opposition parties to capitalise on the government's mistakes if people can't recall that Covid rules changed over time, but the polls do seem to be showing that Opposition parties are being successful here. Despite the great efforts by the Mail to come to Johnson's rescue.

If you believe Nadine Dorries, you would think Starmer had a curry in 2021 with Frank Dobson who died in 2019! She has responsibility for media in the UK as she is head of DCMS, yet posts such misleading information. This is a good indicator of the poor health of our political system which I agree with you on.

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.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

That has nothing to do with it. A lie is a lie, even if it was uttered by Starmer, who also said that Angela Rayner wasn't present. A second lie on the same issue. He also said that no food was available at his hotel - that's a third.

I mean, can you really believe that he 'forgot' that Angela and her legs were there? Doesn't sound credible! :D

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

At last - we’ve found who *leaked the story to the Daily Mail… ;)

*made up

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Starmer will be reinvestigated by Durham police. Looks like they might have waited until after the locals to avoid the politics of it.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

If he got a FPN, that would be the funniest thing ever.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Think he should resign if he does, not really tenable otherwise.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

If Kier is found to have broken the rules I hope and expect he does the honourable thing and resigns as leader of the Labour party, anything else will be a cop-out. If he doesn't then it'll be another nail in the coffin of the respect I have for politicians in this country and I'll have to seriously reconsider any allegiance I have to the party under his leadership. As I told my boss a few weeks ago - credibility is like virginity, once it's lost it's lost.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

I think he should resign for sure. People are saying because he said Johnson should, which is true, but he also voted for it. I think MPs should obey the law irrespective, obviously, but you can't vote for restrictions on overs and then break those restrictions yourself!

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

it would be the only option for him. He, and Labour, could not keep on calling for Johnson to go if he didn't.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Totally agree.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

just like Johnson not knowing he was at a party that you keep defending if Stamer is proving guilty he should resign but you never say that about Johnson even when he been proven guilty

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Really, funniest thing ever, well maybe if you haven't got much going on or are quite dull...

Be hard to argue otherwise

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

It would certainly more entertaining than you, which doesn't set a very high bar.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

I wonder if the local police will investigate this (a week after the Starmer incident)

https://www.hospitalityandcateringne...ts-with-mates/

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Good one, hope that helps...

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Would you like an amusing GIF?

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

You have misinterpreted my position on this. I say that the Starmer and Johnson situations are extremely similar when comparing the PM's cake ambush and so-called 'beergate'. Both were work related. Starmer was in the middle of canvassing and stopped to get some food and a drink. Johnson was between meetings when the cake came in - something he wasn't expecting. In both situations, they were mixing with colleagues, not other members of the public.

I would not have said, on the face of it, that either of them broke the rules over these two incidents because both had to be at work. However, given that Starmer has been making a huge meal out of BJ's behaviour during lockdown, he has no business complaining that the focus is now on him, and he needs to face up to the fact that his position is extremely similar to Johnson's.

Much as I think that neither man has broken the rules in the cases before us, if one does get fined (and of course the PM has), so should the other.

Some will point to reports that BJ was also involved in other 'parties', but the result of that police investigation has not yet emerged, and is irrelevant to this specific case.

It is absolutely amazing that Starmer called for Johnson's resignation just because he was being investigated, but can't see that his determination to carry on as Leader of the Opposition while himself under investigation flies in the face of his previous position.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Oh, I think the police have something else that suggests this was a party and not a work event. Remember they've already investigated it when we had the picture of him with the beer and knew it was a takeaway curry. So that can't be it alone. We know now there were quite a few curries and Rayner was there but to me that doesn't change it (Rayner and Starmer hate each other so that suggests work event even more!).

The police must have something that suggests it was fun and not work.

Durham police can't be blind to the storm that would come if they reopened an investigation and issued a fine without that new evidence after a newspaper campaign. They will have a reason to have reopened it.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

'Very worried' Keir Starmer 'tells colleagues he will have to QUIT if he gets Covid fine and asks Lord Falconer to put together Beergate legal defence team'


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ovid-fine.html



Why would an innocent man need a legal defence team :shrug:

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

I hope it’s true he’ll quit if he gets a fine. He should say that publicly to avoid it being the topic of every interview.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Or he should say he'll quit if bozo does!! Has Starmer stood before parliament and lied about this stuff? Bit of a difference if he hasn't I'd say

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

I don’t think Johnson should be the example. He may be a waste of space but he should continue to expect more of other politicians and make sure Johnson is an aberration and not someone who set the bar even lower for everyone else

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

does it matter where they lie from, if Starmer has knowingly lied about breaking the law and has given the police false information/missed out the relevant facts about the rave he attended with his deputy leader then he is in deep doo doo.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

I have been told for years on here that I'm naive to expect politicians not to lie, not to cheat and wrong to generally expect them be held to a higher standard than the rest of us and everybody knows that, well this is the result and tbh we deserve it, we've put up with it and excused it because they're on our side in a particular argument so we get the politicians we deserve

It matters to them apparently, they can lie to us without consequence but apparently lying in the chamber is frowned upon, personally I'd like to see all the liars and cheats led out in handcuffs but that's just me being naive again

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

The main problem is the police are prosecution, defence, judge and jury . So it comes down to a few peoples opinion . Clearly I feel party choices / political leanings of those judging with have a great influence on the outcome.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

A complete over-reaction. Neither should resign over such a minor matter.

---------- Post added at 18:16 ---------- Previous post was at 18:10 ----------

The question is whether lies have been told. If both honestly believed, with credibility, that they had not broken the rules, then they haven't lied.

Although a bit nit-picking, Starmer has lied about the unavailability of food at his hotel and the presence of legs-swinging Angela Rayner with her Kenny Everett speciality turn. But frankly, I'm not concerned about that, although I do wonder if there's more to this than meets the eye.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

True, but Starmer has hammered Boris over a slice of cake for weeks now, constantly demanding his resignation, I don't see how he could justify not resigning.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

BJ could appeal, but it simply drags this on and he needs to concentrate on governing the country.

Those who are concentrating on cake rather than the extraordinary problems we face at present are clearly easily distracted.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

You don't just place a last minute order for curry for 30 people, it takes about 1 1/2 hours to get four ruddy pizzas delivered around here, if you wanted a large curry order you would have to pre-book it, ie plan it in advance.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

It is, in fact, naive, so don't question it. The politicians are a reflection of ourselves, spread over all our MPs.

No matter how much we deny it, we all lie for various reasons. Some are worse than others and some lie with the best of intentions.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

BREAKING: Leaked Memo obtained by Mail on Sunday debunks Labour leaders claim “Beergate” gathering wasn’t pre-planned.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1651945541

https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/n...ared_link&s=08

The initials AR in the To section of the Memo note, is Angela Rayner and Keir Starmer.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Does it make a difference if it was planned? His claim isn't that he was surprised by a takeaway but they had one when working. The fact it's part of an official campaigning schedule adds more weight to the idea it was working and not a party.

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:09 ----------

Also doesn't this suggest it would have been tight to get to the hotel in time to eat? The Mail said the hotel was serving food until 9am and this shows a call finishing at 8:40 with a 15 min walk to the hotel?

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

I don’t think the prior planning is in any way relevant. Either the event breached the rules, or it didn’t.

It might be relevant here perhaps to remind ourselves that Boris Johnson had not pre-planned the birthday cake surprise!

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Yes it does, because it catches Labour in yet another lie, they said the curry wasn’t planned. Also Damien, you’re missing the massive rule breaking. You couldn’t eat or share food with people you were not household members with.

You’re not working when your drinking beer. None of them are wearing masks in the footage or social distancing.

Anyway Sunday Times has come out with their own story:

The Sunday Times has a Labour source present at the Durham party who confirms NO work was done after the curry and beer, as per Mail on Sunday's leaked op note.:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/w...laim-6pc05gnn2

Dan Hodges: “As we also reported. Keir Starmer's position is becoming increasingly untenable this evening.”

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

All of this is the same argument as before though.

Either the police find this was exempt under the necessary or work/campaigning or they don't. That it was preplanned doesn't change the legality of that defence.

I think it'll come down to 1) can they prove they were working during/after the meal 2) there was no realistic prospect of eating outside of the end of the work day. You can bet Labour HQ is desperately trying to find a call or e-mail then went out after the time of that takeaway delivery.

I honestly don't know what the police will do. It's 50/50. If he is fined he should - and sounds like he will - resign.

The only good thing out of all of this is that the Daily Mail - haven't said that Johnson's multiple parties weren't a big deal - have finally decided actually we should hold politicians to account.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

No, they are pointing out Labour’s rank hypocrisy. Johnson is still not 100% safe, he could still be ousted if further fines come his way, but equally, Starmer has to fall own his own sword, calling on Johnson to resign back in January because he was under criminal investigation, Starmer is now too, only differences is, Johnson hasn’t said he’ll go any time soon or promised to resign regardless if he’s fined. So Starmer has set his own precedent, that can now unpick his leadership.

Also there is no 50/50 about it, Starmer broke the rules. The amount of lies he and Labour have told over this, and now been found out, it’s like Nixon saga all over again, it’s not the crime itself that could undo him but the coverups and lying, that may do.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Well we'll see if he resigns or not when fined.

If he does I will be interested in how they pivot into why Starmer had to resign but Johnson doesn't. The lying isn't an excuse because Johnson lied as well, only to Parliament.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

I’ve already said he can still be ousted but Starmer can’t preach to him about him lying anymore because we’ve now got someone from inside the building saying Starmer didn’t go back to work after his beer and curry, after he himself said he had. Another lie.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Well no, Starmer has to go if he is fined as I said.

Johnson won't go because of the fines, he has survived one and multiple other reports of parties. He'll go if the Government look to lose the election.

But as I said I don't want the Tories or Johnson to be the standard. Otherwise, it becomes normalised. At least if Starmer goes we can say this is what was meant to happen when a leader of a party breaks the law.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

with this amount of lying isn't the charge perverting the course of justice rather than the FPN- just asking for a friend;)

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Nah.

Although this did make me wonder if there is any circumstance in the UK in which lying to the police is a crime like it is to the FBI in America? I know perverting the course of justice can apply if you intentionally go out to mislead an investigation but I don't think that applies to lying to get yourself out of trouble, I think it's more making up evidence or giving a false alibi for someone else?

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Lying to the police in UK, in certain situations is called obstruction of justice and yes, it’s a crime.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Lying might be part of your everyday life but it isn't part of mine or anyone I'm close to so don't judge me by your own gutter standards and rather than dishonesty being a reflection of us I'd say apathy is the true reflection of most of us so all that leaves are the sycophants and extremists who don't mind being lied to and worse are happy to repeat those lies providing its their own particular party doing the lying.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Going a bit off-topic but my point is that lying to police in itself is not a crime unless it does escalate to the point of perverting the course of justice. I think one example is providing a false alibi for someone else or intentionally fabricating an accusation to get someone else arrested.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

:tu:

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

What does it for me with Starmer isn't so much that he called for Boris Johnson to go - I think he was right to do that - it's that he voted for the laws too. It's same as Boris Johnson in that respect. You can't demand ordinary people obey these restrictions which were extremely hard on everyone and then not do so yourself.

It's why I don't think it's hypocritical if some normal person on the street calls for them to go when that person also may have broken the rules at some point. Politicians should be held to a higher standard, they have the power and we don't.

Put it this way if Starmer had voted against the lockdown rules, called for Johnson to go for breaking them and then was found to have broken them then that would be different to me.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Leaked memo demolishes Labour leader's Beergate story showing curry WAS pre-planned and Angela Rayner was ALWAYS on guestlist - before whistleblower from bash reveals he will tell police NO work was done after and guests were 'p***ed'

Referencing the meet-up with Durham MP Mary Foy and her staff, the source told the times the group 'were not working and I have not got a problem telling that to the police.

'They were just getting p****d. They were just there for a jolly. It's not something that I am prepared to defend.'

Jolly
nounINFORMAL•BRITISH
a party or celebration.
"these events were jollies"

The revelations are understood to have further piqued the interest of the force, with a police source adding: 'It raises the question about what else we might not have been told the entire truth about.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bour-memo.html

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Looks like Captain Hindsight has got a promotion to Major Hypocrite. :D

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Hence why I said “in certain situations”, if they are conducting an investigation and you lie to them, you’re hindering, delaying their pursuit for justice, which is obstruction and it is a crime.

Giving a false alibi or giving false statements, is perverting the course of justice and is also a crime.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Obstruction is a USA thing isn’t it? We just have perverting the course of justice which as you say is a higher standard.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

According to GBNews a 6 person police team with a major incident room will be involved in investigating curry gate for 6 weeks.


what happens if you lie to the police https://www.wainwrightcummins.co.uk/...-friends-crime

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Firstly, it should go without saying that if Starmer broke the rules he voted in favour of and called others out on, he should resign. He may not take Johnson down with him as Starmer seems to being held to a higher level of accountability than Johnson (may be due to his previous role as Head of DPP?) but I'm sure the Sue Gray report will bury Johnson's leadership.

As an aside, some of the figures that seem to be banded around as gospel - 30 people and a takeaway bill of £200 for curry and beer are contradictory - you would be looking at about £15 per head for that minimum which equates to about 13 people.

In terms of it being a party, we seem to have the word of one person against the word of many people. It's a risk for that one person to stick their neck out with a jail term attached for giving false information so the investigation will be interesting if that witness does follow through and speak to the police. If they don't then I can't see their investigation result changing.

I do think people have got excited about some details eg initially advising Rayner not being there. This to me looks like poor administration as the presence of the Deputy Leader would actually be stronger evidence that it was a work event. The question that surely should be asked is "Does it materially affect the evidence?".

I don't see this error as falling under the headings of "perverting the course of justice" or "giving false information to the police". Incidentally, Starmer will be very familiar with these laws as the consent of the the Director of Public Prosecutions is required before someone can be prosecuted.

The political winners in this situation, whether or not Johnson or Starmer remain in power, are probably the Liberal Democrats.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Obstruction of justice is a UK thing too, it is covered in UK law:

From Wiki:

Perverting the course of justice carries maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 ----------

More bullshit. You’re struggling to see the wood for the trees take your venomous tinted glasses for Johnson off, FFS.

Labour have LIED, several times here, it’s not excitement it’s the hypocrisy.

Rayner not being there, then she was, is a blatant lie. also a lie is Starmer saying the curry was a spare of the moment, spontaneous decision, yet the Op Note/memo says Curry was planned. Witness testimony of someone there who says Foy and others are not working at all, just socialising. Video footage of zero social distancing, no face masks (again memo says face masks must be worn at all times)

Starmer had lied that food wasn’t available anywhere else, which is simply not true, when the hotel Starmer was at, was even serving food.

But the most blatant breach was eating and sharing food with people not household members with.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

You wouldn't be presenting all these contorted arguments if it was a Johnson curry, methinks.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

To be a lie, you need to prove intent, ie that they knew this information to be incorrect when they provided it with the intent to deceive. Ironically, the new information is actually better for Starmer than the original information! Old-fashioned logic suggests it was more cock-up than conspiracy. Both Rayner attending and the Labour memo showing the curry ably demonstrate to most people that it was a work event. And as Damien has pointed out, Rayner would be the last person Starmer would invite to a social event! :)

Nonetheless, it is not a good look for someone hoping to present himself as a future competent leader of the. How good would the Labour Party be at running the country if they can’t get a simple statement right?

I hope they follow through and provide this testimony to the police. At the moment all we have is the words of one unnamed witness against the words of other named individuals who were there.

Those weren’t requirements for working meals nor would they have been practical.

As Damien has said, the hotel wasn’t serving food at the time they needed it. Whilst it was far from being the most helpful of statements, it was technically correct.

There was an exemption for work meetings which is why some in the media will try and prove it was a social event and not a work meal.

Indeed, back in October 2020 the hospitality trade was making a virtue of the exemption
https://www.squaremeal.co.uk/restaur...486484ec2675be

If the witness does not come forward, then I suspect the Labour Party may be criticised over some minor errors in its original statements, but nothing more. If the witness comes forward and is found to be credible then we have an altogether different ball game. I believe Starmer’s future hinges on this one witness!

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

More bollocks from you. You would make a lousy detective Andrew.

This goes to show how terrible you are at your "Starmer is innocent", narrative.

A few days ago, you said:

An investigation is now taking police, you can wipe that egg off your face now.

If by your own words, police didn't think there was any "meat" on this *beergate* bone, why have they had to re-open an investigation?

If you go off your narrative that it's just one witness against a whole group of lockdown rule breakers, which is what they are, then why have they decided to re-investigate this?

It's because it is so obvious.

The sheer amount of lies told to cover this up by Labour and Starmer.

Key issues which you seem to want to rubbish but do actually matter.

Initially they said Rayner was not there, but then they said she was and that not admitting to this previously was a honest mistake. It also shows on the memo that AR was included/invited in on this event. (This is a Labour LIE)

Starmer said there was no food available anywhere when in fact his own hotel and other restaurants and cafes were open and providing takeway services only. That they stopped to eat was a "spontaneous" decision made when they realised they were all hungry. (Another LIE) and its a lie because the Memo shows the the curry was a planned event.

Starmer's claim that they were working, stopped to eat and then went back to work, doesn't hold water, he is seen in leaked footage, holding a beer, with several other people in shot, no social distancing and no mask wearing. You are not working when you're in a group of people drinking beer, I do not give a shit what anyone else says.

This witness says there were many there not working at all and were there just to socialise, if this is the case, Starmer had a responsibility to interject and ask people to leave who were not working at all as they could be in breach of lockdown rules he himself voted for in Parliament.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Partygate.html

:shrug:

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Scroll to the end for the spoiler!

Alternatively, if you think I’m terrible at presenting a "Starmer is innocent" narrative, then it may be because I am not trying to present such a narrative.

That information was not in the public domain when I posted before the election so I could not have been expected to know it. The theory is still valid – if there was nothing to investigate, there would have been no investigation. And if there was something worth investigating then it would be. As we learnt after my post.
Yes. it’s because a witness has come forward. I think it’s entirely proper that they do investigate it.
As I said before, you need to prove intent if it’s a lie and none of what I’ve heard so far proves intent, just incompetence. In fact, if Labour’s original statements had said Rayner was there then it would have counted in their favour. And whether you or me deem people eating and drinking together as work is irrelevant in the eyes of the law, it’s whether the law views it as a social or work gathering.

Hold your drink – I totally agree! As I said before, if Starmer was fined for breaking the lock down laws he voted for (and called Johnson and others out on) he should resign. As I think Johnson should have already done too following his receipt of that fixed penalty notice.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

It’s funny that you are going on about ‘proving intent’. You didn’t make that point when criticising the PM when, according to you, he lied to parliament.

Neither should be resigning over the trivial event of receiving a fine. We’ve got everything way out of proportion here.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

The Tories are now trying to calm things down hoping Starmer doesn't resign: https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/...50692345245696

Be interesting to see if the Daily Mail also tries to pull back a bit. The rumour that Starmer will resign if fined has spooked them.

But Starmer 100% should resign if fined. I hope he doesn't take this as an excuse to stay on.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

BREAKING: Keir Starmer cancels public engagement speaking event due tomorrow, he was due to speak at an event hosted by the billionaire-funded think-tank the Institute for Government. His speech was due to be followed by a Q&A session. - Guido Fawkes.

https://order-order.com/2022/05/08/b...ng-engagement/

Not the so confident leader any more, if he’s now trying to hide.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Maybe he knows he's going to be looking for a new job by the time he was due at tomorrow's event.

Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
 

Possibly. But optics matter, running away from the press or questions is usually a Boris thing.

Link for the event shows cancelled: https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...armer-briefing