Partygate

Live by the cake,Die by the Curry.

 

Pardon my ignorance here but what is it Starmer is alleged to have done?

 

What..? apart from advocating that Corbyn should have been Prime minister and voting against Brexit, well not much I guess..

 

had a bear and a curry after campaigning in Durham during election during lockdown.

was it a break in work or socialising as it was alleged that there was an online quiz and social later

 

Ha now I get what the fuss is about.

 

Nothing irks me more than hearing or reading something I like or agree with, only for them to use the word comrade at the end. That shit needs to stop, it puts people off, me included.

 

I said to her did they call everyone comrade and she laughed and 'Yeah how do you know?'
Just a hunch I guess.
On the other side she said she was moved to years about the discussion regarding the Orgreave miners case. She'd never heard of it before and she's started to read up on what went on the 80s regarding the miners.

 

If the cake episode that you seem totally obsessed about, was the only lockdown incident in and around No10 then I would agree that it would have been a disproportionate use of police time to have investigated it. But it wasn't. It came to light as part of an investigation into systematic lockdown breaches at the heart of government. The cake incident on its own would never have been investigated by the Met - it was a relatively minor part of a much broader investigation. It has received headlines beyond its significance mainly because it involved Carrie, who the papers love to bash, and because it was the first to receive fixed penalty notices. There will doubtless be more fines for more serious breaches fairly soon, now that the local elections are over.

We know from the outline Sue Grey report and numerous other evidence that there was a prolonged culture of simply ignoring the rules that they imposed on the rest of us. That's very different from an isolated incident on a working trip, even if that does turn out to be a technical rule breach, which I don't think it will. It's a question of intent and degree

 

If Starmer is investigated and found to have broken no rules but further fines are passed Boris's way where does that leave him?

If Starmer was to be found guilty and then resigns where does that leave Boris?

Anyhow if the Tories wanted to know if this Partygate was cutting through, losing near on 500 councillors yesterday should tell them all they need to know.

 

I don't know how many of the other instances involve Sunak and I don't particularly care. Why are you so obsessed with Sunak?
Sunak is probably unfortunate in getting caught up in an incident that he had no part of organising. But he still stayed there, instead of leaving. He must have known about all the other breaches that were going on around No 10, but did he do anything to try to stop them? Given the obvious briefings against him from Johnson's cronies in recent weeks, to damage him as a leadership rival, I'm sure that Sunak's allies would have publicised any attempts he made to stop the frequent breaches.

The bit you don't seem to get - or possibly don't want to, because you didn't like the rules in the first place - is that the police aren't investigating 'anyone'. They are investigating the very people who made the draconian rules that the vast majority of people obeyed to the letter for the vast majority of the time that they were applicable. Governments have to be held to a high standard. You simply cannot make exceedingly onorous laws (however necessary and justified they may be) for the population and then totally ignore those rules yourself.

 

The hypocrisy shown by Starmer and the horrendous Rayner is quite staggering. Should they be found guilty of breaching Covid rules, it will be interesting to see whether they do what they have been obsessively shouting at Boris to do, and resign.

 

Lets be clear, Starmer has not called for Boris to resign because he attended parties against the rules, He has called for Boris to resign for lying about it and for misleading parliament that he had not attended any,

Starmer has not attempted to lie or deny it he claims it was within the rules, More worrying is who filmed through a private window and supplied the footage to the police and Tory party, Were they hired to follow him and if so by who?

 

This is something Blair and Brown should have made a public enquiry of during their 13 years in power or did they not want to drag Thatchers name through the mud, her still being alive.

 

If so, why has Starmer not resigned for lying about Chavvy Rayner being there then.

 

And saying the hotel restaurant was closed that day,it wasn’t plus how many attended his own get together.

 

Because a) he wasn't asked about it in parliament, so there is no question of deliberately misleading parliament (as Johnson has quite clearly done on several occasions) which is a resigning issue according to the Ministerial Code.

And b) it wasn't Starmer who told the Daily Mail that Rayner wasn't present. It was a junior staffer in Labour's press office who misunderstood the diary records and told the Mail she wasn't there. Then when the question was re-asked the mistake was corrected.

Chavvy Rayner? FFS. What has her dress sense got to do with anything?

 

Shocking, if that's the case. All those years we were led to believe that the miners charged the police. And then it emerged that the footage had been doctored and it was actually the police, on horseback, who, unprovoked, baton charged the miners.