Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42
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
|
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.