Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I have been told for years on here that I'm naive to expect politicians not to lie, not to cheat and wrong to generally expect them be held to a higher standard than the rest of us and everybody knows that, well this is the result and tbh we deserve it, we've put up with it and excused it because they're on our side in a particular argument so we get the politicians we deserve



It matters to them apparently, they can lie to us without consequence but apparently lying in the chamber is frowned upon, personally I'd like to see all the liars and cheats led out in handcuffs but that's just me being naive again

It is, in fact, naive, so don't question it. The politicians are a reflection of ourselves, spread over all our MPs.

No matter how much we deny it, we all lie for various reasons. Some are worse than others and some lie with the best of intentions.

BREAKING: Leaked Memo obtained by Mail on Sunday debunks Labour leaders claim “Beergate” gathering wasn’t pre-planned.

Labour has tried to draw a distinction between ‘Beergate’ and ‘Partygate’ on the grounds that Sir Keir’s event was not premeditated: when Sir Keir’s transport spokeswoman Louise Haigh was asked by the BBC’s Fiona Bruce on Thursday how the beer and curry evening was different to a gathering in Downing Street, she said: ‘There was a big difference... he [Keir] broke to eat, and then carried on working afterwards.

‘The various parties in Downing Street were pre-arranged, social events.’
But the note – a forward-planning logistics document which is referred to as an ‘op note’ – makes clear the beer and curries had been planned in advance.

https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/n...ared_link&s=08

The initials AR in the To section of the Memo note, is Angela Rayner and Keir Starmer.

Does it make a difference if it was planned? His claim isn't that he was surprised by a takeaway but they had one when working. The fact it's part of an official campaigning schedule adds more weight to the idea it was working and not a party.

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:09 ----------

Also doesn't this suggest it would have been tight to get to the hotel in time to eat? The Mail said the hotel was serving food until 9am and this shows a call finishing at 8:40 with a 15 min walk to the hotel?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

Does it make a difference if it was planned? His claim isn't that he was surprised by a takeaway but they had one when working. The fact it's part of an official campaigning schedule adds more weight to the idea it was working and not a party.

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:09 ----------

Also doesn't this suggest it would have been tight to get to the hotel in time to eat? The Mail said the hotel was serving food until 9am and this shows a call finishing at 8:40 with a 15 min walk to the hotel?

I don’t think the prior planning is in any way relevant. Either the event breached the rules, or it didn’t.

It might be relevant here perhaps to remind ourselves that Boris Johnson had not pre-planned the birthday cake surprise!

Originally Posted by Damien

Does it make a difference if it was planned? His claim isn't that he was surprised by a takeaway but they had one when working. The fact it's part of an official campaigning schedule adds more weight to the idea it was working and not a party.

Yes it does, because it catches Labour in yet another lie, they said the curry wasn’t planned. Also Damien, you’re missing the massive rule breaking. You couldn’t eat or share food with people you were not household members with.

You’re not working when your drinking beer. None of them are wearing masks in the footage or social distancing.

Anyway Sunday Times has come out with their own story:

The Sunday Times has a Labour source present at the Durham party who confirms NO work was done after the curry and beer, as per Mail on Sunday's leaked op note.:

Crucially, the source said Starmer did not go back to work after eating his curry and being filmed drinking beer. “There was no work done after the curry,” they said. “It has been claimed that Starmer worked during the curry and then after the curry. None of those two things happened. He did not go back to work to the best of my knowledge.”

They also accused some attendees, including Foy and her staff, of not working at all and only being there to socialise.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/w...laim-6pc05gnn2

Dan Hodges: “As we also reported. Keir Starmer's position is becoming increasingly untenable this evening.”

Originally Posted by Mick

Yes it does, because it catches Labour in yet another lie, they said the curry wasn’t planned. Also Damien, you’re missing the massive rule breaking. You couldn’t eat or share food with people you were not household members with.

You’re not working when your drinking beer. None of them are wearing masks in the footage or social distancing.

All of this is the same argument as before though.

Either the police find this was exempt under the necessary or work/campaigning or they don't. That it was preplanned doesn't change the legality of that defence.

Anyway Sunday Times has come out with their own story:

The Sunday Times has a Labour source present at the Durham party who confirms NO work was done after the curry and beer, as per Mail on Sunday's leaked op note.:



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/w...laim-6pc05gnn2

Dan Hodges: “As we also reported. Keir Starmer's position is becoming increasingly untenable this evening.”

I think it'll come down to 1) can they prove they were working during/after the meal 2) there was no realistic prospect of eating outside of the end of the work day. You can bet Labour HQ is desperately trying to find a call or e-mail then went out after the time of that takeaway delivery.

I honestly don't know what the police will do. It's 50/50. If he is fined he should - and sounds like he will - resign.

The only good thing out of all of this is that the Daily Mail - haven't said that Johnson's multiple parties weren't a big deal - have finally decided actually we should hold politicians to account.

Originally Posted by Damien

All of this is the same argument as before though.

Either the police find this was exempt under the necessary or work/campaigning or they don't. That it was preplanned doesn't change the legality of that defence.



I think it'll come down to 1) can they prove they were working during/after the meal 2) there was no realistic prospect of eating outside of the end of the work day. You can bet Labour HQ is desperately trying to find a call or e-mail then went out after the time of that takeaway delivery.

I honestly don't know what the police will do. It's 50/50. If he is fined he should - and sounds like he will - resign.

The only good thing out of all of this is that the Daily Mail - haven't said that Johnson's multiple parties weren't a big deal - have finally decided actually we should hold politicians to account.

No, they are pointing out Labour’s rank hypocrisy. Johnson is still not 100% safe, he could still be ousted if further fines come his way, but equally, Starmer has to fall own his own sword, calling on Johnson to resign back in January because he was under criminal investigation, Starmer is now too, only differences is, Johnson hasn’t said he’ll go any time soon or promised to resign regardless if he’s fined. So Starmer has set his own precedent, that can now unpick his leadership.

Also there is no 50/50 about it, Starmer broke the rules. The amount of lies he and Labour have told over this, and now been found out, it’s like Nixon saga all over again, it’s not the crime itself that could undo him but the coverups and lying, that may do.

Well we'll see if he resigns or not when fined.

If he does I will be interested in how they pivot into why Starmer had to resign but Johnson doesn't. The lying isn't an excuse because Johnson lied as well, only to Parliament.

Originally Posted by Damien

Well we'll see if he resigns or not when fined.

If he does I will be interested in how they pivot into why Starmer had to resign but Johnson doesn't. The lying isn't an excuse because Johnson lied as well, only to Parliament.

I’ve already said he can still be ousted but Starmer can’t preach to him about him lying anymore because we’ve now got someone from inside the building saying Starmer didn’t go back to work after his beer and curry, after he himself said he had. Another lie.

Originally Posted by Mick

I’ve already said he can still be ousted but Starmer can’t preach to him about him lying anymore because we’ve now got someone from inside the building saying Starmer didn’t go back to work after his beer and curry, after he himself said he had. Another lie.

Well no, Starmer has to go if he is fined as I said.

Johnson won't go because of the fines, he has survived one and multiple other reports of parties. He'll go if the Government look to lose the election.

But as I said I don't want the Tories or Johnson to be the standard. Otherwise, it becomes normalised. At least if Starmer goes we can say this is what was meant to happen when a leader of a party breaks the law.

[papa smurf]

with this amount of lying isn't the charge perverting the course of justice rather than the FPN- just asking for a friend

Originally Posted by papa smurf

with this amount of lying isn't the charge perverting the course of justice rather than the FPN- just asking for a friend

Nah.

Although this did make me wonder if there is any circumstance in the UK in which lying to the police is a crime like it is to the FBI in America? I know perverting the course of justice can apply if you intentionally go out to mislead an investigation but I don't think that applies to lying to get yourself out of trouble, I think it's more making up evidence or giving a false alibi for someone else?

Originally Posted by Damien

Nah.

Although this did make me wonder if there is any circumstance in the UK in which lying to the police is a crime like it is to the FBI in America? I know perverting the course of justice can apply if you intentionally go out to mislead an investigation but I don't think that applies to lying to get yourself out of trouble, I think it's more making up evidence or giving a false alibi for someone else?

Lying to the police in UK, in certain situations is called obstruction of justice and yes, it’s a crime.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It is, in fact, naive, so don't question it. The politicians are a reflection of ourselves, spread over all our MPs.

No matter how much we deny it, we all lie for various reasons. Some are worse than others and some lie with the best of intentions.

Lying might be part of your everyday life but it isn't part of mine or anyone I'm close to so don't judge me by your own gutter standards and rather than dishonesty being a reflection of us I'd say apathy is the true reflection of most of us so all that leaves are the sycophants and extremists who don't mind being lied to and worse are happy to repeat those lies providing its their own particular party doing the lying.

[Sephiroth]

It’s going a bit far to ascribe “gutter standards” to OB. It reminds me of Rayner’s “****” description of Tories.

What we have here is an amusing situation where Starmer is now shit scared that he might have to fall on his sword. Less amusing is Boris’ ability to survive.