Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Indeed, it's whataboutery. It's also - at this stage - a hypothetical. Unlike with Johnson who has been fined.

So, if (and I know it’s an if, might even be a when) Starmer does get fined, then it’s no longer whataboutery - it is indeed hypothetical.

But when Johnson was only being investigated, and his fine was hypothetical, Starmer called for his resignation.

By Starmers own self standard, he should resign.

He won’t, I don’t think he should, but by his own standard…..his….no one else’s…..his own demands…..he should have already gone.

Originally Posted by Pierre

So, if (and I know it’s an if, might even be a when) Starmer does get fined, then it’s no longer whataboutery - it is indeed hypothetical.

But when Johnson was only being investigated, and his fine was hypothetical, Starmer called for his resignation.

By Starmers own self standard, he should resign.

He won’t, I don’t think he should, but by his own standard…..his….no one else’s…..his own demands…..he should have already gone.

Spot on. (He shouldn’t go, but he set the precedent).

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Pierre

So, if (and I know it’s an if, might even be a when) Starmer does get fined, then it’s no longer whataboutery - it is indeed hypothetical.

But when Johnson was only being investigated, and his fine was hypothetical, Starmer called for his resignation.

By Starmers own self standard, he should resign.

He won’t, I don’t think he should, but by his own standard…..his….no one else’s…..his own demands…..he should have already gone.

A few important words

If, might, when, should, think

Only kidding!

Originally Posted by Mick

Spot on. (He shouldn’t go, but he set the precedent).

Reminder, this was from back in Jan… Johnson, not been fined yet…. Johnson was exactly where Starmer is now, under criminal investigation, why doesn’t the month of May Starmer, take heed of his own advice from January Starmer?…..

[jfman]

So nobody thinks Starmer should resign?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

So nobody thinks Starmer should resign?

Actually, no.

Because it’s stupid.

But Starmer wanted Johnson to resign over it, equally as stupid.

The only point being being made, is that by his ( and no one else’s) standard, he should resign.

Hope that helps.

[jfman]

That’s a relief I almost thought him having a beer and a curry was almost equivalent to Johnson being a liar and a criminal.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

That’s a relief I almost thought him having a beer and a curry was almost equivalent to Johnson being a liar and a criminal.

Liar……….probably

Criminal……..nope.

Equivalence…………time dependant.

Starmer May walk away unimpeached, he may not.

If he doesn’t your recent comments won’t age well.

Originally Posted by jfman

That’s a relief I almost thought him having a beer and a curry was almost equivalent to Johnson being a liar and a criminal.

More bullshit you speak. You’re no better than any liar, the only part you got right about Johnson.

If someone doesn’t have a criminal record, can they be labelled a criminal?

Absolutely not, a Fixed penalty notice does not constitute a criminal conviction.

For the umpteenth time, a FPN removes any criminal liabilities, once paid. I’d be careful, you could be sued for libel & defamation of character, labelling someone a criminal, when they aren’t & have no official record of being such.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Liar……….probably

Criminal……..nope.

Equivalence…………time dependant.

Starmer May walk away unimpeached, he may not.

If he doesn’t your recent comments won’t age well.

And “if” he does walk away unimpeached they will age well, leaving Johnson supporters with nothing to accuse him of bar (ironically) political opportunism.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jfman

And “if” he does walk away unimpeached they will age well, leaving Johnson supporters with nothing to accuse him of bar (ironically) political opportunism.

If he does then the people will know that it's ok to break the law because sir beer has led the way, it's ok to lead the police to believe certain people weren't involved and conveniently blur the facts about food and drink ........

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

If he does then the people will know that it's ok to break the law because sir beer has led the way, it's ok to lead the police to believe certain people weren't involved and conveniently blur the facts about food and drink ........

My best wishes to career criminals who lead off their police interviews with “ah but Starmer!!!”.

Originally Posted by jfman

My best wishes to career criminals who lead off their police interviews with “ah but Starmer!!!”.

Far fetched rubbish. Breaches of the Coronavirus restrictions, doesn’t equate to being arrested and interviewed by Police, breachers get sent questionnaires, and it’s taken from there as to any decision to issue a fine. You really do need to get this out of your head, breaking Covid laws, doesn’t constitute criminality, they’re not “career criminals” either.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

Far fetched rubbish. Breaches of the Coronavirus restrictions, doesn’t equate to being arrested and interviewed by Police, breachers get sent questionnaires, and it’s taken from there as to any decision to issue a fine. You really do need to get this out of your head, breaking Covid laws, doesn’t constitute criminality, they’re not “career criminals” either.

I think when jfman is talking about career criminals here, he's referencing those members of society who make their day-to-day living from crime. Not those politicians and civil servants in receipt of one or more FPNs from breaking Covid regulations.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think when jfman is talking about career criminals here, he's referencing those members of society who make their day-to-day living from crime. Not those politicians and civil servants in receipt of one or more FPNs from breaking Covid regulations.

They can get a qualified beerister like sir beer to defend them.