Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

[Sephiroth]

What a hoot if real.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

This is keeping twitter busy today.

https://twitter.com/jayrayner1/statu...17632029679618

https://twitter.com/jayrayner1/statu...C-5av7j6oqAAAA

The Conservatives have been in touch to say that Dowden didn't write the caption, that the charity did, and he was very angry about it. Curiously, according to those who were in the room, the lot was greeted with hilarity and at no point did Mr Dowden intervene. Happy to clarify.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

https://twitter.com/jayrayner1/statu...C-5av7j6oqAAAA

Another ambush that someone is incredulous about, they really think the public will fall for anything

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Agreed. If anyone breaks the law and gets caught then they should suffer the appropriate penalty. I still think he should have offered to step aside while being investigated.

No, Grim. To comply with Mr Hindsight's own rules, he should have resigned when the police started their investigation. Standing aside just doesn't cut it!

---------- Post added at 17:29 ---------- Previous post was at 17:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

I think that Times article could add pressure on Durham Police to find Keir Starmer guilty & fine him, because if a woman who had organised a balloon release event for her father who had passed way, which in the eyes of the people, would see as a more valid excuse & yet it can be fined the most colossal penalty, then they should & they can fine a group of people holding a beer and curry night at Miners Hall, in Durham.

What this says to me as the Durham Police and the Met Police don't have a clue. They are stabbing in the dark to try to look good in the eyes of a section of the public.

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:29 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Does it matter if work carried on back at the hotel instead of at the Miners Hall? I think it would be impossible to prove that they weren't discussing work matters over a beer and curry and this seems to have been the approach adopted by the Met towards the No 10 cheese and wine party.

What's a reasonable amount of alcohol to be able to continue work? I would probably cap it at two beers but if it turned out to be three beers each would the police start to get that judgmental? It's a hard call!

It's not a hard call at all. The hard call is trying to justify why Boris got a fine and Sir Kier didn't.

I wouldn't like to be the one explaining that one, because it's just so obviously wrong.

---------- Post added at 17:35 ---------- Previous post was at 17:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Many times did I work late, and the company bought in food, but most importantly no booze was supplied, only soft or tea/coffee.

The booze is not the prime consideration - it's whether it was a social event. However, if they got hammered, clearly it wasn't a work event.

[papa smurf]

'Treat us all the same': Woman, 35, who held a lockdown-busting memorial in November 2020 before being retrospectively fined £10,000 by Durham police demands Keir Starmer faces punishment over 'Beergate'

A woman given a retrospective £10,000 fine by Durham police for organising a balloon-releasing memorial during the pandemic says Sir Keir Starmer should also be hit with a financial penalty if he is found to have broken Covid rules.

Vicki Hutchinson voiced fury at photographs of the Labour leader swigging beer and chatting to party officials during a visit to Durham last April and urged police to 'treat us all the same'.

The 35-year-old, from Peterlee in County Durham, organised her event in a field in November 2020 as a tribute to her father-in-law Ian Stephenson, a former miner who died from Covid-19.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...unishment.html

[richard-john56]

The DailyMail reports that Boris Johnson did not lie to Parliament after all.

[Admin Edit: Refer to news sources by the proper name]

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by richard-john56

The DailyMail reports that Boris Johnson did not lie to Parliament after all.

That’s not really news. This has been obvious from the start and I have been drawing attention to that for months now.

Here is a useful explanation from a barrister, writing in The Spectator.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...ead-parliament

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That’s not really news. This has been obvious from the start and I have been drawing attention to that for months now.

Here is a useful explanation from a barrister, writing in The Spectator.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...ead-parliament

At most he was confused on the law

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That’s not really news. This has been obvious from the start and I have been drawing attention to that for months now.

Here is a useful explanation from a barrister, writing in The Spectator.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...ead-parliament

I've been saying for months now he's either too untruthful or too incompetent to be PM. This does not alter the analysis.

Doesn't matter.The fact that so many of the public FOLLOWED the rules and were asked not to do certain things like hold funerals or say goodbye to dying family members will rankle for generations. Those that got fined unnecessarily will be annoyed and remember for a very long time how those who made the rules apparently had trouble in applying them to their own circumstances.

They were the ones who made the laws so it should have been made much clearer what was and what was not allowed.

[Hom3r]

Trouble is, many didn't give a damn about this "Flu".


A gym near me refused to shut even when a dozen cop cars turned up and knicked her and every on inside

[1andrew1]

If you don't understand your own rules then being Prime Minister is probably not the best job for you.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If you don't understand your own rules then being Prime Minister is probably not the best job for you.

It's not like he's a top barrister is it, if he was then he would know what a party was in the eyes of the law.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

It's not like he's a top barrister is it, if he was then he would know what a party was in the eyes of the law.

Innocent until fined.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I've been saying for months now he's either too untruthful or too incompetent to be PM. This does not alter the analysis.

I think the PM had some serious stuff to deal with and was unaware of what was going on behind his back.

Thus far, he has received a fine because a cake arrived in the room where he had arrived for a meeting. Let’s see what else transpires before we start judging him against Cummings’ allegations.

---------- Post added at 10:12 ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy

Doesn't matter.The fact that so many of the public FOLLOWED the rules and were asked not to do certain things like hold funerals or say goodbye to dying family members will rankle for generations. Those that got fined unnecessarily will be annoyed and remember for a very long time how those who made the rules apparently had trouble in applying them to their own circumstances.

They were the ones who made the laws so it should have been made much clearer what was and what was not allowed.

I don’t think that the rule makers ever thought that a cake on its own represented a social event. The Met have got it wrong.

---------- Post added at 10:17 ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Innocent until fined.

You must have a lot of faith in the police to say that. A court is the judge of whether or not you are innocent and I have no doubt they would come to a different conclusion on the cake incident.

BJ may still be found to have breached the law in relation to other incidents still to be judged, but it would be jumping the gun to accuse him of blatantly and deliberately breaking the rules as some have claimed.