Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Ah, yes. Labour’s obsession with cakes!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I know what it was, but it was still a social event that went on the the wee small hours, and some were worse for wear when they departed. There was no falsehood in my post.

I don’t see how any of you can view that as not being worse than Boris receiving a cake just as he was assembling for a pre-planned meeting.

But there you go…

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But it was the cake what clinched it.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Boris should have eaten all the cake instead of leaving it behind as evidence.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Are you sure about that, Dave? There are a lot of people who think that eating cake or drinking alcohol are proof of a party.

Clearly, that is not the case, but it appears to have swayed the Met. If there hadn’t been cake, Boris would not have been fined. Ridiculous, I know, but true.

It’s also true that Kier attended a function with curry and alcohol at a party member’s house. Police reaction? Move on, nothing to see here….

The ONLY difference apart from the fact that Kier was at a social event and Boris was at a work event was that Boris had cake.

Think about it. If it wasn’t so glaringly obvious and tragic, it would make a hilarious comedy. How to make something out of nothing, and do it so inconsistently, citing cake as the final arbiter when cake isn’t even mentioned in the rules. Yet a social event is OK, when it really isn’t!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Thank you, Hugh. Glad I nailed that one first.

It’s the logical conclusion. If there hadn’t been cake, Boris would not have been fined. Why else was he fined?