Scroll to the end for the spoiler!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
A few days ago, you said:
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.
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?
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
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?
|
Yes. it’s because a witness has come forward. I think it’s entirely proper that they do investigate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
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.
|
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.