Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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.

I think you are lacking in skills when it comes to the law and what can and cannot happen in an investigation - it can be reopened when new evidence comes to light and it has, first we had the LIES that Angela Rayner was not there but then she was, now we have details of about 30 people being there, all eating and drinking beer which they should not have been doing as it was against the rules - you being obtuse and pathetic about Starmer being cleared does not cut it, the event can be re-investigated any time.

The rules were explicit and obvious:

No meeting indoors of any kind, even during campaigning unless for working purposes, when Starmer is holding a beer and is seen in footage talking to several people in a room, he is not working, that is a social gathering.

No food to be shared amongst people, you are not households with. If you are having a takeaway with 30 people and drinking beer, it's a an egregious breach of the rules that were in place.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's theoretically hard for Opposition parties to capitalise on the government's mistakes if people can't recall that Covid rules changed over time, but the polls do seem to be showing that Opposition parties are being successful here. Despite the great efforts by the Mail to come to Johnson's rescue.

The mistake here is, you have not got a clue what you're talking about when it comes to breaches of the lockdown rules and are being very politically pathetic and one sided when it comes to who broke the rules and who didn't and who should and who should not be fined.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

Starmer questioned on Beergate on GMB, this morning as it is now revealed 30 people were at the event he was at when he was filmed last year drinking beer during lockdown rules.

Skip to 8:15 Minutes to get to Beergate questioning.

Thanks for posting. He didn't help himself in the Radio 4 interview but this is a robust denial.

---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

The mistake here is, you have not got a clue what your talking about when it comes to breaches of the lockdown rules and are being very politically pathetic and one sided when it comes to who broke the rules and who didn't and who should and who should not be fined.

I'll continue to cast my move freely at every election be it Conservative, Liberal Democrats, Labour, Greens...whoever, I've voted for all those parties. I'll take an evidence-based approach as oppose to believing disinformation from an overtly newspaper because that disinformation suits my political views and I want to believe it's true.

---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 14:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

I think you are lacking in skills when it comes to the law and what can and cannot happen in an investigation - it can be reopened when new evidence comes to light and it has, first we had the LIES that Angela Rayner was not there but then she was, now we have details of about 30 people being there, all eating and drinking beer which they should not have been doing as it was against the rules - you being obtuse and pathetic about Starmer being cleared does not cut it, the event can be re-investigated any time.

The rules were explicit and obvious:

No meeting indoors of any kind, even during campaigning unless for working purposes, when Starmer is holding a beer and is seen in footage talking to several people in a room, he is not working, that is a social gathering.

No food to be shared amongst people, you are not households with. If you are having a takeaway with 30 people and drinking beer, it's a an egregious breach of the rules that were in place.

I've got some sympathy with you here. You found a document on gov.uk and evaluated Starmer's takeaway meal against it and found him at fault. Why on earth is a fine not winging its way to him right now?

Trouble is, it's not that simple and guidance and interpretation changed after the date of that document. I admire your confidence in believing you're right and the former Director of Public Prosecutions is wrong and it's a lovely David and Goliath battle.

If it was as clear-cut as you present it, Starmer would not stand a chance. Instead, he would be accepting a fine and there would be talk of a leadership challenge.

The issue always has been if breaking from work to eat counts as 'necessary' or not. If it wasn't for the beer I think we would be 100% fine. If they could prove it was a social event he would be trouble, if the beer is seen as excessive with the food he could be trouble.

All of the developments haven't changed that core question. Rayner being there doesn't change the legality of it if it was work event, nor does ordering curry as we already knew it was a takeaway.

But having a beer isn't necessary for work. The curry IMO is fine.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I've got some sympathy with you here. You found a document on gov.uk and evaluated Starmer's takeaway meal against it and found him at fault. Why on earth is a fine not winging its way to him right now?

Probably because Durham constabulary is not as politically motivated, or dog whistled as easily as the Met is.

Originally Posted by Damien

The issue always has been if breaking from work to eat counts as 'necessary' or not. If it wasn't for the beer I think we would be 100% fine. If they could prove it was a social event he would be trouble, if the beer is seen as excessive with the food he could be trouble.

All of the developments haven't changed that core question. Rayner being there doesn't change the legality of it if it was work event, nor does ordering curry as we already knew it was a takeaway.

But having a beer isn't necessary for work. The curry IMO is fine.

No it is not, what part of the rule, you cannot share food with non-household members do you not understand?

Starmer did that and it is a very clear and obvious rule breach. There is no skirting around it, it is a rule breach, especially when there is 30 people in the same building, doing the same thing.

---------- Post added at 16:00 ---------- Previous post was at 15:56 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Thanks for posting. He didn't help himself in the Radio 4 interview but this is a robust denial.

---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:13 ----------


I'll continue to cast my move freely at every election be it Conservative, Liberal Democrats, Labour, Greens...whoever, I've voted for all those parties. I'll take an evidence-based approach as oppose to believing disinformation from an overtly newspaper because that disinformation suits my political views and I want to believe it's true.

---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 14:19 ----------


I've got some sympathy with you here. You found a document on gov.uk and evaluated Starmer's takeaway meal against it and found him at fault. Why on earth is a fine not winging its way to him right now?

Trouble is, it's not that simple and guidance and interpretation changed after the date of that document. I admire your confidence in believing you're right and the former Director of Public Prosecutions is wrong and it's a lovely David and Goliath battle.

If it was as clear-cut as you present it, Starmer would not stand a chance. Instead, he would be accepting a fine and there would be talk of a leadership challenge.

It is not disinformation in the slightest- the video evidence is there for all to see, Starmer doesn't deny the dates and bits of information about that evening are coming out about it all the time, the problem is, you're being very obtuse because you find it utterly impossible to lay blame at any other party other than the Tories, and this is very pathetic of you Andrew.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

It is not disinformation in the slightest- the video evidence is there for all to see, Starmer doesn't deny the dates and bits of information about that evening are coming out about it all the time, the problem is, you're being very obtuse because you find it utterly impossible to lay blame at any other party other than the Tories, and this is very pathetic of you Andrew.

No one has denied the video. The debate is does it break the law - the police say no. Why not take out a private prosecution and prove the police wrong?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

No one has denied the video. The debate is does it break the law - the police say no. Why not take out a private prosecution and prove the police wrong?

Because it is not my job - The police saying no, does not make it final. It is however, my right to highlight the pathetic hypocrisies emanating from the likes of you and others, Johnson broke his own rules, he's been found out and fined, may still have to step down as PM, but it now appears we have other rule breaching from the top of the Labour Party, consuming food and beer with 30 people, in an office, (not Starmers normal working office) during a period when rules were strict on meeting in doors and not sharing food with non-household members.

[Sephiroth]

Starmer is at the same stage now as Boris was when he said he’d broken no rules. And we all know where that led to …

Originally Posted by Mick

No it is not, what part of the rule, you cannot share food with non-household members do you not understand?

Well, presumably the same issue the police had is that it's unrealistic to assume that people who are eating at work are breaking the law. The question is if it's a social or work gathering.

There is a lawyer who explains what the defence might be, and where that defense might fail, here: https://twitter.com/adamwagner1/stat...53930904211458


So the gathering is exempt under 'work' purposes and 'necessary for campaigning'. People need to eat at work so that probably isn't enough to trigger a fine. It's just if the beer turned it into a social occasion.

The beer (to me) is similar to the cake in it makes it seem more social. For example, no one is saying No 10 should be fined if they had a normal lunch during the lockdown in the same building.

If Starmer broke the law he should be fined too, especially since he voted for this laws so he isn't some random person. I am just pointing out why the police may not have fined him.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Starmer is at the same stage now as Boris was when he said he’d broken no rules. And we all know where that led to …

Agreed.

Quote taken from New Statesman:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-over-beergate

Keir Starmer is starting to struggle over “Beergate”
The Labour leader looked oddly uncomfortable when interviewed on Good Morning Britain this morning.

<snip>

Why did Starmer look so worried on GMB this morning? Questioned on what is becoming known as Beergate – which is either a non-story manufactured by the Mail or an event that undermines Labour’s attacks on Partygate – Starmer looked oddly uncomfortable. “Let me take that head on,” he told Madeley when asked why a £200 takeaway had been ordered for him and others after a day of campaigning in Durham.

“People understand the work bit,” Susanna Reid interjected after Starmer focused on the day of campaigning rather than the evening of food and drink, “but you couldn’t socialise, so are you trying to say what you did was reasonable for work? You’ve already said your wife couldn’t go into her father’s flat to clean, so how come so many of you were in a room drinking beer and eating food?”

Starmer looked down at the desk, before replying uncertainly: “Let me just try and answer that, and give the detail.” A takeaway was ordered, he explained, after he had been doing “pieces to camera”, “clearing documents” and “preparing for the next day” of campaigning. He and others then picked up a plate of food from the kitchen and “got on with the work”. It would be wrong, in other words, to describe anything that happened as socialising.

Reid was unconvinced, comparing Starmer’s account to Johnson’s being presented with a birthday cake while supposedly working in Downing Street. In reality, Johnson presided over a months-long culture of rule-breaking in No 10 and has been fined by police; their positions are not comparable. But other journalists are also underwhelmed that Starmer has only now given more detail on the Durham event. In the end, the story may not matter much: polling shows that 70 per cent think Johnson didn’t follow lockdown rules, while only 28 per cent think that of Starmer. But by holding back information until reports have forced him to say more, Starmer appears to have needlessly put himself on the back foot.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Starmer is at the same stage now as Boris was when he said he’d broken no rules. And we all know where that led to …

Agreed, but...Johnson has form for lying and has lost jobs over it.

Not saying Starmer's an angel but his reputation in this respect is far stronger; he's never lost a job due to lying.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Agreed, but...Johnson has form for lying and has lost jobs over it.

Not saying Starmer's an angel but his reputation in this respect is far stronger; he's never lost a job due to lying.

Well, this obvious rule breaking in Durham, could be his first.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Agreed, but...Johnson has form for lying and has lost jobs over it.

Not saying Starmer's an angel but his reputation in this respect is far stronger; he's never lost a job due to lying.

As a defence goes it doesn’t get any thinner than that……..he’s got a better reputation.

He’s also a lawyer, so in essence a professional liar.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

As a defence goes it doesn’t get any thinner than that……..he’s got a better reputation.

He’s also a lawyer, so in essence a professional liar.

Not sure why someone who prosecuted terrorists and other law-breakers for the Crown is in essence a professional liar.

Damien provided a link to the defence.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Not sure why someone who prosecuted terrorists and other law-breakers for the Crown is in essence a professional liar.

Damien provided a link to the defence.

I was generalising, all lawyers (and politicians for that matter) are professional liars. So he’s doubly qualified.