[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Mick

Witness testimony of someone there who says Foy and others are not working at all, just socialising.

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.

Originally Posted by Mick

Video footage of zero social distancing, no face masks (again memo says face masks must be worn at all times)

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

Originally Posted by Mick

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mick

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

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

However, the government guidelines also state that there is "no limit" on the number of people from different households that can meet indoors in high and very high risk areas, as long as it's for work purposes. This means theoretically that groups of up to 30 people could meet up at the pub if it was for a work meeting.

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!