Partygate

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10467293/What-TRUTH-PMs-Jimmy-Savile-smear-Keir-Starmer.html

 

This is hilarious "You cant win, the forum is full of right wingers" voted Labour all my life, the Labour party made it difficult for me to vote for them when their manifesto said with regards Brexit they would go back to the EU and agree a different deal then ask the electorate to vote against to stay in the EU how could I trust that sort of shenanigans.
Their leader Jeremy Corbyn who the whole of his back bench career said that the Common Market later the EU was corrupt as the very people who ran the show were not democratically elected, and when asked his opinion on the referendum vote he tells us he's "Brexit Neutral" do me a favour Jeremy.
As poor as the Tories have been and they haven't covered themselves in glory during the pandemic and it's aftermath, if the local elections mirrored the next general election Labour would still not get into power the political pundits were saying now that tells you a lot.

 

It's the labour party who left me is how the saying goes.

 

Oh, so the internal memo from Johnson's chief of staff inviting people to bring their own booze to a party at no 10 was an illusion was it? Or the suitcase full of wine? Or the DJ in the basement? Or perhaps you think this stuff was going on without Johnson knowing about it
Come off it. The evidence of the law-breaking culture around No10 is legion. The Sue Gray summary report said as much.

 

Nonsense. It's all part of the same culture of law-breaking that was going on in and around No 10. Whether he was physically at all the parties, or merely allowed them to continue amongst his close coterie, is irrelevant. The fact is that he set the rules for the rest of us and yet allowed those working at the heart of his government to persistently ignore them when he should have been nipping any law-breaking in the bud from the first sign of it happening. Had it been Thatcher, Major or May in No 10 it wouldn't have been allowed. But Johnson thinks that he, and those around him, work to different rules from us plebs.

 

They are reckon Durham Police could take 8 weeks to decide if the meal and drinks were needed for work or not. Everyone has admitted they were there and food and drink was involved, that it was planned in advance. Not sure what there is to actually investigate.

 

There were a whole bunch of original stories. Some involved parties that Johnson attended and some involved piss-ups in and around No.10. It's all part of the same thing. Splitting hairs about who attended which event is neither here nor there. It's all about the persistent law breaking at the heart of government and Johnson's persistent lying about it.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/labour-says-can-prove-starmer-team-worked-past-1am-beergate-night?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

I think it's a bit weird they're investigating starmer, when they said their policy was not to investigate/fine/whatever people retrospectively (cummings got away with it for this reason). I think once again a lot of the issues here are caused by our frankly fecking horrendous media outlets.

for what its worth im not a starmer fan at all, but I think out of him and Johnson it's a no contest in terms of who's the more honest person. He has also actually done a proper job in his lifetime as opposed to just being a journalist or in politics, so probably understands the meaning of the words professional standards a touch more. I don't agree that its impossible for a beer and a curry to be part of a working day, I'm allowed to have a drink on shift where I work now (although it is a bar), and several times in my time at Volkswagen pizza was ordered into the office for people who were on over time or particularly during the emissions scandal (which was also great for over time). I didn't see a DJ or anything like that in the starmer vids, as much as they've completely fudged their explanation for it and absolutely made things worse for themselves.

 

I think Durham were put in the position of having to retrospectively look into it by the decision of the Met to do the same for Downing Street. So far there has only been two retrospective investigations, and so far only one set of retrospective fines issued, for Covid breaches. Plus this is at the same time as courts are throwing out fines and appeals for those previous convicted of breaches

 

Whats your definition of a proper job?

You say Starmer has had one because of his legal career, yet Johnson hasn't because he was a journalist. That's a pretty disrespectful slur against all the hardworking journalists out there

 

Labour coverup of beergate would make Richard Nixon proud.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10798349/DAN-WOOTTON-Beergate-final-nail-coffin-pretence-Starmer-honourable-politician.html

 

Any I’ve missed ?

 

I think it is splitting hairs. For me it's always been about the culture, rather than individual instances of who was at which event. It's about the fact that those in and around No 10 were allowed (and in the case of 'bring your own booze', encouraged) by senior figures in the government to believe that the draconian rules imposed on the general population didn't apply to them. Johnson oversaw that culture and, in some instances, joined in.
Johnson should have resigned before the police investigation because a) he presided over the law breaking culture that Sue Gray explicitly highlighted - ie it didn't need a subsequent police investigation to prove what was already known and b) he lied to parliament about there being no rule breaking around No 10 (irrespective of whether he was personally involved)

There's a big difference between a one-off order of beer with a working meal and inviting people to bring their own booze to a party (which didn't event pretend to be a work event) or filling suitcases full of wine for a piss up. Surely even you, with your extreme stance on viewing every breach of the rules as the same, regardless of frequency or magnitude, can see that? You accuse me of bias, but your dislike of the restrictions - "it's all a fuss over nothing" - leads you to gloss over and minimise the significance of what was going going on. Eg, on its own, the birthday cake celebration wouldn't have been such a big deal. But as one piece of a much bigger jigsaw of routine lawbreaking around No 10, it has a significance that does not apply to the one-off beergate, even if that were to be found to have broken the rules, which I'm confident it won't be.

 

As has already been explained to you, it wasn't Starmer who said that Rayner wasn't there, it was a junior staff member in the Labour press office.

It's very clear that this was a work event and that the Starmer team were working well beyond the meal break, into the early hours, as is common amongst all political parties involved in campaign events:

BBC News - Labour: We can prove Starmer broke no Covid lockdown rules
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61389100