Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

Originally Posted by Mick

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

Going a bit off-topic but my point is that lying to police in itself is not a crime unless it does escalate to the point of perverting the course of justice. I think one example is providing a false alibi for someone else or intentionally fabricating an accusation to get someone else arrested.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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.

What does it for me with Starmer isn't so much that he called for Boris Johnson to go - I think he was right to do that - it's that he voted for the laws too. It's same as Boris Johnson in that respect. You can't demand ordinary people obey these restrictions which were extremely hard on everyone and then not do so yourself.

It's why I don't think it's hypocritical if some normal person on the street calls for them to go when that person also may have broken the rules at some point. Politicians should be held to a higher standard, they have the power and we don't.

Put it this way if Starmer had voted against the lockdown rules, called for Johnson to go for breaking them and then was found to have broken them then that would be different to me.

[papa smurf]

Leaked memo demolishes Labour leader's Beergate story showing curry WAS pre-planned and Angela Rayner was ALWAYS on guestlist - before whistleblower from bash reveals he will tell police NO work was done after and guests were 'p***ed'

Referencing the meet-up with Durham MP Mary Foy and her staff, the source told the times the group 'were not working and I have not got a problem telling that to the police.

'They were just getting p****d. They were just there for a jolly. It's not something that I am prepared to defend.'

Jolly
nounINFORMAL•BRITISH
a party or celebration.
"these events were jollies"

The revelations are understood to have further piqued the interest of the force, with a police source adding: 'It raises the question about what else we might not have been told the entire truth about.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bour-memo.html

[heero_yuy]

Looks like Captain Hindsight has got a promotion to Major Hypocrite.

Originally Posted by Damien

Going a bit off-topic but my point is that lying to police in itself is not a crime unless it does escalate to the point of perverting the course of justice. I think one example is providing a false alibi for someone else or intentionally fabricating an accusation to get someone else arrested.

Hence why I said “in certain situations”, if they are conducting an investigation and you lie to them, you’re hindering, delaying their pursuit for justice, which is obstruction and it is a crime.

Giving a false alibi or giving false statements, is perverting the course of justice and is also a crime.

Obstruction is a USA thing isn’t it? We just have perverting the course of justice which as you say is a higher standard.

[papa smurf]

According to GBNews a 6 person police team with a major incident room will be involved in investigating curry gate for 6 weeks.


what happens if you lie to the police https://www.wainwrightcummins.co.uk/...-friends-crime

[1andrew1]

Firstly, it should go without saying that if Starmer broke the rules he voted in favour of and called others out on, he should resign. He may not take Johnson down with him as Starmer seems to being held to a higher level of accountability than Johnson (may be due to his previous role as Head of DPP?) but I'm sure the Sue Gray report will bury Johnson's leadership.

As an aside, some of the figures that seem to be banded around as gospel - 30 people and a takeaway bill of £200 for curry and beer are contradictory - you would be looking at about £15 per head for that minimum which equates to about 13 people.

In terms of it being a party, we seem to have the word of one person against the word of many people. It's a risk for that one person to stick their neck out with a jail term attached for giving false information so the investigation will be interesting if that witness does follow through and speak to the police. If they don't then I can't see their investigation result changing.

I do think people have got excited about some details eg initially advising Rayner not being there. This to me looks like poor administration as the presence of the Deputy Leader would actually be stronger evidence that it was a work event. The question that surely should be asked is "Does it materially affect the evidence?".

I don't see this error as falling under the headings of "perverting the course of justice" or "giving false information to the police". Incidentally, Starmer will be very familiar with these laws as the consent of the the Director of Public Prosecutions is required before someone can be prosecuted.

The political winners in this situation, whether or not Johnson or Starmer remain in power, are probably the Liberal Democrats.

Originally Posted by Damien

Obstruction is a USA thing isn’t it? We just have perverting the course of justice which as you say is a higher standard.

Obstruction of justice is a UK thing too, it is covered in UK law:

From Wiki:

Doing an act tending and intending to pervert the course of public justice[3] is an offence under the common law of England and Wales.

Perverting the course of justice can be any of three acts:

• Fabricating or disposing of evidence
• Intimidating or threatening a witness or juror
• Intimidating or threatening a judge
• Also criminal are:

conspiring with another to pervert the course of justice, and
intending to pervert the course of justice
This offence, and the subject matter of the related forms of criminal conspiracy, have been referred to as:

• Perverting the course of justice
• Interfering with the administration of justice
• Obstructing the administration of justice
• Obstructing the course of justice
• Defeating the due course of justice
• Defeating the ends of justice
• Effecting a public mischief

Perverting the course of justice carries maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Firstly, it should go without saying that if Starmer broke the rules he voted in favour of and called others out on, he should resign. He may not take Johnson down with him as Starmer seems to being held to a higher level of accountability than Johnson (may be due to his previous role as Head of DPP?) but I'm sure the Sue Gray report will bury Johnson's leadership.

As an aside, some of the figures that seem to be banded around as gospel - 30 people and a takeaway bill of £200 for curry and beer are contradictory - you would be looking at about £15 per head for that minimum which equates to about 13 people.

In terms of it being a party, we seem to have the word of one person against the word of many people. It's a risk for that one person to stick their neck out with a jail term attached for giving false information so the investigation will be interesting if that witness does follow through and speak to the police. If they don't then I can't see their investigation result changing.

I do think people have got excited about some details eg initially advising Rayner not being there. This to me looks like poor administration as the presence of the Deputy Leader would actually be stronger evidence that it was a work event. The question that surely should be asked is "Does it materially affect the evidence?".

I don't see this error as falling under the headings of "perverting the course of justice" or "giving false information to the police". Incidentally, Starmer will be very familiar with these laws as the consent of the the Director of Public Prosecutions is required before someone can be prosecuted.

The political winners in this situation, whether or not Johnson or Starmer remain in power, are probably the Liberal Democrats.

More bullshit. You’re struggling to see the wood for the trees take your venomous tinted glasses for Johnson off, FFS.

Labour have LIED, several times here, it’s not excitement it’s the hypocrisy.

Rayner not being there, then she was, is a blatant lie. also a lie is Starmer saying the curry was a spare of the moment, spontaneous decision, yet the Op Note/memo says Curry was planned. Witness testimony of someone there who says Foy and others are not working at all, just socialising. Video footage of zero social distancing, no face masks (again memo says face masks must be worn at all times)

Starmer had lied that food wasn’t available anywhere else, which is simply not true, when the hotel Starmer was at, was even serving food.

But the most blatant breach was eating and sharing food with people not household members with.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Firstly, it should go without saying that if Starmer broke the rules he voted in favour of and called others out on, he should resign. He may not take Johnson down with him as Starmer seems to being held to a higher level of accountability than Johnson (may be due to his previous role as Head of DPP?) but I'm sure the Sue Gray report will bury Johnson's leadership.

As an aside, some of the figures that seem to be banded around as gospel - 30 people and a takeaway bill of £200 for curry and beer are contradictory - you would be looking at about £15 per head for that minimum which equates to about 13 people.

In terms of it being a party, we seem to have the word of one person against the word of many people. It's a risk for that one person to stick their neck out with a jail term attached for giving false information so the investigation will be interesting if that witness does follow through and speak to the police. If they don't then I can't see their investigation result changing.

I do think people have got excited about some details eg initially advising Rayner not being there. This to me looks like poor administration as the presence of the Deputy Leader would actually be stronger evidence that it was a work event. The question that surely should be asked is "Does it materially affect the evidence?".

I don't see this error as falling under the headings of "perverting the course of justice" or "giving false information to the police". Incidentally, Starmer will be very familiar with these laws as the consent of the the Director of Public Prosecutions is required before someone can be prosecuted.

The political winners in this situation, whether or not Johnson or Starmer remain in power, are probably the Liberal Democrats.

You wouldn't be presenting all these contorted arguments if it was a Johnson curry, methinks.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

Rayner not being there, then she was, is a blatant lie. also a lie is Starmer saying the curry was a spare of the moment, spontaneous decision, yet the Op Note/memo says Curry was planned.

To be a lie, you need to prove intent, ie that they knew this information to be incorrect when they provided it with the intent to deceive. Ironically, the new information is actually better for Starmer than the original information! Old-fashioned logic suggests it was more cock-up than conspiracy. Both Rayner attending and the Labour memo showing the curry ably demonstrate to most people that it was a work event. And as Damien has pointed out, Rayner would be the last person Starmer would invite to a social event!

Nonetheless, it is not a good look for someone hoping to present himself as a future competent leader of the. How good would the Labour Party be at running the country if they can’t get a simple statement right?

Originally Posted by Mick

Witness testimony of someone there who says Foy and others are not working at all, just socialising.

I hope they follow through and provide this testimony to the police. At the moment all we have is the words of one unnamed witness against the words of other named individuals who were there.

Originally Posted by Mick

Video footage of zero social distancing, no face masks (again memo says face masks must be worn at all times)

Those weren’t requirements for working meals nor would they have been practical.

Originally Posted by Mick

Starmer had lied that food wasn’t available anywhere else, which is simply not true, when the hotel Starmer was at, was even serving food.

As Damien has said, the hotel wasn’t serving food at the time they needed it. Whilst it was far from being the most helpful of statements, it was technically correct.

Originally Posted by Mick

But the most blatant breach was eating and sharing food with people not household members with.

There was an exemption for work meetings which is why some in the media will try and prove it was a social event and not a work meal.

Indeed, back in October 2020 the hospitality trade was making a virtue of the exemption

However, the government guidelines also state that there is "no limit" on the number of people from different households that can meet indoors in high and very high risk areas, as long as it's for work purposes. This means theoretically that groups of up to 30 people could meet up at the pub if it was for a work meeting.

https://www.squaremeal.co.uk/restaur...486484ec2675be

If the witness does not come forward, then I suspect the Labour Party may be criticised over some minor errors in its original statements, but nothing more. If the witness comes forward and is found to be credible then we have an altogether different ball game. I believe Starmer’s future hinges on this one witness!

More bollocks from you. You would make a lousy detective Andrew.

This goes to show how terrible you are at your "Starmer is innocent", narrative.

A few days ago, you said:

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.

An investigation is now taking police, you can wipe that egg off your face now.

If by your own words, police didn't think there was any "meat" on this *beergate* bone, why have they had to re-open an investigation?

If you go off your narrative that it's just one witness against a whole group of lockdown rule breakers, which is what they are, then why have they decided to re-investigate this?

It's because it is so obvious.

The sheer amount of lies told to cover this up by Labour and Starmer.

Key issues which you seem to want to rubbish but do actually matter.

Initially they said Rayner was not there, but then they said she was and that not admitting to this previously was a honest mistake. It also shows on the memo that AR was included/invited in on this event. (This is a Labour LIE)

Starmer said there was no food available anywhere when in fact his own hotel and other restaurants and cafes were open and providing takeway services only. That they stopped to eat was a "spontaneous" decision made when they realised they were all hungry. (Another LIE) and its a lie because the Memo shows the the curry was a planned event.

Starmer's claim that they were working, stopped to eat and then went back to work, doesn't hold water, he is seen in leaked footage, holding a beer, with several other people in shot, no social distancing and no mask wearing. You are not working when you're in a group of people drinking beer, I do not give a shit what anyone else says.

This witness says there were many there not working at all and were there just to socialise, if this is the case, Starmer had a responsibility to interject and ask people to leave who were not working at all as they could be in breach of lockdown rules he himself voted for in Parliament.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

'Very worried' Keir Starmer 'tells colleagues he will have to QUIT if he gets Covid fine and asks Lord Falconer to put together Beergate legal defence team'


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ovid-fine.html



Why would an innocent man need a legal defence team

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

Now Boris lawyers up: PM 'will hire private legal expert in case police quiz him over Partygate' as Met asks more than 50 others about lockdown bashes

[1andrew1]

Scroll to the end for the spoiler!

Originally Posted by Mick

More bollocks from you. You would make a lousy detective Andrew.
This goes to show how terrible you are at your "Starmer is innocent", narrative.

Alternatively, if you think I’m terrible at presenting a "Starmer is innocent" narrative, then it may be because I am not trying to present such a narrative.

Originally Posted by Mick

A few days ago, you said:
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.
An investigation is now taking police, you can wipe that egg off your face now.
If by your own words, police didn't think there was any "meat" on this *beergate* bone, why have they had to re-open an investigation?

That information was not in the public domain when I posted before the election so I could not have been expected to know it. The theory is still valid – if there was nothing to investigate, there would have been no investigation. And if there was something worth investigating then it would be. As we learnt after my post.

Originally Posted by Mick

If you go off your narrative that it's just one witness against a whole group of lockdown rule breakers, which is what they are, then why have they decided to re-investigate this?

Yes. it’s because a witness has come forward. I think it’s entirely proper that they do investigate it.

Originally Posted by Mick

It's because it is so obvious.
The sheer amount of lies told to cover this up by Labour and Starmer.
Key issues which you seem to want to rubbish but do actually matter.
Initially they said Rayner was not there, but then they said she was and that not admitting to this previously was a honest mistake. It also shows on the memo that AR was included/invited in on this event. (This is a Labour LIE)
Starmer said there was no food available anywhere when in fact his own hotel and other restaurants and cafes were open and providing takeway services only. That they stopped to eat was a "spontaneous" decision made when they realised they were all hungry. (Another LIE) and its a lie because the Memo shows the the curry was a planned event.
Starmer's claim that they were working, stopped to eat and then went back to work, doesn't hold water, he is seen in leaked footage, holding a beer, with several other people in shot, no social distancing and no mask wearing. You are not working when you're in a group of people drinking beer, I do not give a shit what anyone else says.

As I said before, you need to prove intent if it’s a lie and none of what I’ve heard so far proves intent, just incompetence. In fact, if Labour’s original statements had said Rayner was there then it would have counted in their favour. And whether you or me deem people eating and drinking together as work is irrelevant in the eyes of the law, it’s whether the law views it as a social or work gathering.

Originally Posted by Mick

This witness says there were many there not working at all and were there just to socialise, if this is the case, Starmer had a responsibility to interject and ask people to leave who were not working at all as they could be in breach of lockdown rules he himself voted for in Parliament.

Hold your drink – I totally agree! As I said before, if Starmer was fined for breaking the lock down laws he voted for (and called Johnson and others out on) he should resign. As I think Johnson should have already done too following his receipt of that fixed penalty notice.