On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
The presence of the word "apparently" means you don't know the truth of the matter?
I do not know the truth of the matter not do I say I do, indeed nobody knows the truth of this story.
Hence why Durham Police need to do a MET style investigation and resolve the issue
A Met-style investigation. Of a legal event.
To establish it was legal which is being questioned
Backing calls for "Met style investigations" at the behest of the Mail "to establish it was legal" doesn't seem to be a very conservative thing to do, Big_G.
Fairness is a virtue and to be honest the event is now being widely questioned
What you suggest is a pretty skewed idea of fair. You're saying that police re-investigations (not even investigations) should be at the behest of those with a political motive to call for them ? That is quite extraordinary.
I would suggest that is what happened in regards to the Met, and the police should act on evidence which is now big offered by 2 students who took their own video of the event
I would also suggest that the Met got involved with Partygate (after originally refusing) because the Sue Grey enquiry was getting close to report and the Boris Protection Squad started their "kick it down the road" strategy.
The choice of local council election candidates in my ward was underwhelming from the established parties, so I decided to have a look at the independents to see what they stood for etc.
For one of them, the only information I could find other than his name was (genuinely) that his favourite biscuit was a Jaffa cake.
Not sure whether or where to rank him in my voting on the basis of this information.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
There is no dispute about the equivalence between this event and multiple Downing Street ones for which Boris should resign
However, if covid regulations were breached it would be an offence that many thousand committed during that period
The argument is that the drinking and food took place at 10.00pm after the meeting, and this was against the regulations applying at the time
I have no idea who is telling the truth but it is not a conspiracy for the event to be investigated further especially as 2 students want to come forward with their video of the event
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
The presence of the word "apparently" means you don't know the truth of the matter?
I do not know the truth of the matter not do I say I do, indeed nobody knows the truth of this story.
Hence why Durham Police need to do a MET style investigation and resolve the issue
A Met-style investigation. Of a legal event.
To establish it was legal which is being questioned
Backing calls for "Met style investigations" at the behest of the Mail "to establish it was legal" doesn't seem to be a very conservative thing to do, Big_G.
Fairness is a virtue and to be honest the event is now being widely questioned
What you suggest is a pretty skewed idea of fair. You're saying that police re-investigations (not even investigations) should be at the behest of those with a political motive to call for them ? That is quite extraordinary.
I would suggest that is what happened in regards to the Met, and the police should act on evidence which is now big offered by 2 students who took their own video of the event
Either it is legal to have a campaign event or it is not. The video is hardly new - stills from it were used as the "LOOK AT THIS" splash originally. So its reasonable to assume the police have already reviewed the video. Certainly they aren't now saying "ooh is there a video?" they're saying "we've already investigated this".
Would be fascinating to hear what evidence these (Tory or Corbynite, same thing) students want to offer. If its like on Twitter it will be laughable.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
The presence of the word "apparently" means you don't know the truth of the matter?
I do not know the truth of the matter not do I say I do, indeed nobody knows the truth of this story.
Hence why Durham Police need to do a MET style investigation and resolve the issue
A Met-style investigation. Of a legal event.
To establish it was legal which is being questioned
Backing calls for "Met style investigations" at the behest of the Mail "to establish it was legal" doesn't seem to be a very conservative thing to do, Big_G.
Fairness is a virtue and to be honest the event is now being widely questioned
What you suggest is a pretty skewed idea of fair. You're saying that police re-investigations (not even investigations) should be at the behest of those with a political motive to call for them ? That is quite extraordinary.
I would suggest that is what happened in regards to the Met, and the police should act on evidence which is now big offered by 2 students who took their own video of the event
I would also suggest that the Met got involved with Partygate (after originally refusing) because the Sue Grey enquiry was getting close to report and the Boris Protection Squad started their "kick it down the road" strategy.
I have no issue with the MET or their findings and Boris should go
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
The presence of the word "apparently" means you don't know the truth of the matter?
I do not know the truth of the matter not do I say I do, indeed nobody knows the truth of this story.
Hence why Durham Police need to do a MET style investigation and resolve the issue
A Met-style investigation. Of a legal event.
To establish it was legal which is being questioned
Backing calls for "Met style investigations" at the behest of the Mail "to establish it was legal" doesn't seem to be a very conservative thing to do, Big_G.
Fairness is a virtue and to be honest the event is now being widely questioned
What you suggest is a pretty skewed idea of fair. You're saying that police re-investigations (not even investigations) should be at the behest of those with a political motive to call for them ? That is quite extraordinary.
I would suggest that is what happened in regards to the Met, and the police should act on evidence which is now big offered by 2 students who took their own video of the event
And you would be wrong. The Met enquiry was a direct result of detailed information provided by the Cabinet Office. As Dick plainly stated: “As a result, firstly, of the information provided by the Cabinet Office inquiry team, and, secondly, my own officers’ assessment, I can confirm that the Met is now investigating a number of events that took place at Downing Street and Whitehall in the last two years in relation to potential breaches of Covid-19 regulations.”
The choice of local council election candidates in my ward was underwhelming from the established parties, so I decided to have a look at the independents to see what they stood for etc.
For one of them, the only information I could find other than his name was (genuinely) that his favourite biscuit was a Jaffa cake.
Not sure whether or where to rank him in my voting on the basis of this information.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
The presence of the word "apparently" means you don't know the truth of the matter?
I do not know the truth of the matter not do I say I do, indeed nobody knows the truth of this story.
Hence why Durham Police need to do a MET style investigation and resolve the issue
A Met-style investigation. Of a legal event.
To establish it was legal which is being questioned
Backing calls for "Met style investigations" at the behest of the Mail "to establish it was legal" doesn't seem to be a very conservative thing to do, Big_G.
Fairness is a virtue and to be honest the event is now being widely questioned
What you suggest is a pretty skewed idea of fair. You're saying that police re-investigations (not even investigations) should be at the behest of those with a political motive to call for them ? That is quite extraordinary.
I would suggest that is what happened in regards to the Met, and the police should act on evidence which is now big offered by 2 students who took their own video of the event
Either it is legal to have a campaign event or it is not. The video is hardly new - stills from it were used as the "LOOK AT THIS" splash originally. So its reasonable to assume the police have already reviewed the video. Certainly they aren't now saying "ooh is there a video?" they're saying "we've already investigated this".
Would be fascinating to hear what evidence these (Tory or Corbynite, same thing) students want to offer. If its like on Twitter it will be laughable.
Why not keep an open mind
It is clear it is a controversial event and Durham Police will need to be more open in their response
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
The presence of the word "apparently" means you don't know the truth of the matter?
I do not know the truth of the matter not do I say I do, indeed nobody knows the truth of this story.
Hence why Durham Police need to do a MET style investigation and resolve the issue
A Met-style investigation. Of a legal event.
To establish it was legal which is being questioned
Backing calls for "Met style investigations" at the behest of the Mail "to establish it was legal" doesn't seem to be a very conservative thing to do, Big_G.
Fairness is a virtue and to be honest the event is now being widely questioned
What you suggest is a pretty skewed idea of fair. You're saying that police re-investigations (not even investigations) should be at the behest of those with a political motive to call for them ? That is quite extraordinary.
I would suggest that is what happened in regards to the Met, and the police should act on evidence which is now big offered by 2 students who took their own video of the event
What law do you think had been broken and what evidence is there? This is nonsense Big G.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
Again. They viewed the footage taken by the Tory students. Said "this is legal" and told the students to go away. I bet the students want to talk to Durham police, they think it grossly unfair that the labour leader acted legally and got away with it.
Apparently it is the two students who are alleging Starmer of breaking covid regulations
Apparently the students don't understand the law. Whether by accident or on purpose is yet to be known.
For someone with no axe to grind/skin in the game you aren't half making a meal of this. How many times do you want to be told that the police HAVE NOT STATED A VIEW on whether it was legal, they have said that it would be contrary to their practice, therefore unfair, to investigate its legality?
Because its bollocks. Here is the police statement: "Durham Police's statement said: “Earlier this year, Durham Constabulary undertook a review of video footage recorded in Durham on April 30, 2021. We stated that we did not believe an offence has been established in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken and would therefore take no further action in relation to the matter." https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/durham-police-insists-not-investigating-23820912
"We do not believe an offence has been established. They looked it it, concluded it was legal "in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken", and said nothing to investigate
"did not believe an offence has been established" is not a statement of a view on whether the thing was legal, any more than saying I do not believe that it has been established that there is life on any of the planets in the Trappist 1 star system equates to I do not believe there is life on any of the planets in the Trappist 1 star system.
This is a meta argument. nobody believes or gives a toss about twhether the law was broken or not, it's about Lab ineptitude in dealing with the question, and a blow to those of us who were looking to them for a bit of quiet competence.
Your analogy fails because the police say they conducted a review: they examined the evidence and formed a judgement. In your analogy, that would be like you looking at some video shot on a planet in the Trappist 1 star system that someone else had claimed proved life was there.
That's dead wrong. They very carefully do not say they formed a judgment on the substantive question.
The quote in the Chronicle Live article given above shows they did.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
The presence of the word "apparently" means you don't know the truth of the matter?
I do not know the truth of the matter not do I say I do, indeed nobody knows the truth of this story.
Hence why Durham Police need to do a MET style investigation and resolve the issue
A Met-style investigation. Of a legal event.
To establish it was legal which is being questioned
Backing calls for "Met style investigations" at the behest of the Mail "to establish it was legal" doesn't seem to be a very conservative thing to do, Big_G.
Fairness is a virtue and to be honest the event is now being widely questioned
What you suggest is a pretty skewed idea of fair. You're saying that police re-investigations (not even investigations) should be at the behest of those with a political motive to call for them ? That is quite extraordinary.
Quite cynical, quite disappointing, quite unnecessary, but not extraordinary.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
The presence of the word "apparently" means you don't know the truth of the matter?
I do not know the truth of the matter not do I say I do, indeed nobody knows the truth of this story.
Hence why Durham Police need to do a MET style investigation and resolve the issue
A Met-style investigation. Of a legal event.
To establish it was legal which is being questioned
Backing calls for "Met style investigations" at the behest of the Mail "to establish it was legal" doesn't seem to be a very conservative thing to do, Big_G.
Fairness is a virtue and to be honest the event is now being widely questioned
What you suggest is a pretty skewed idea of fair. You're saying that police re-investigations (not even investigations) should be at the behest of those with a political motive to call for them ? That is quite extraordinary.
I would suggest that is what happened in regards to the Met, and the police should act on evidence which is now big offered by 2 students who took their own video of the event
What law do you think had been broken and what evidence is there? This is nonsense Big G.
I do not know what evidence these students have but they were there and did a video and want to speak to Durham Police
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
The presence of the word "apparently" means you don't know the truth of the matter?
I do not know the truth of the matter not do I say I do, indeed nobody knows the truth of this story.
Hence why Durham Police need to do a MET style investigation and resolve the issue
A Met-style investigation. Of a legal event.
To establish it was legal which is being questioned
Backing calls for "Met style investigations" at the behest of the Mail "to establish it was legal" doesn't seem to be a very conservative thing to do, Big_G.
Fairness is a virtue and to be honest the event is now being widely questioned
What you suggest is a pretty skewed idea of fair. You're saying that police re-investigations (not even investigations) should be at the behest of those with a political motive to call for them ? That is quite extraordinary.
I would suggest that is what happened in regards to the Met, and the police should act on evidence which is now big offered by 2 students who took their own video of the event
Either it is legal to have a campaign event or it is not. The video is hardly new - stills from it were used as the "LOOK AT THIS" splash originally. So its reasonable to assume the police have already reviewed the video. Certainly they aren't now saying "ooh is there a video?" they're saying "we've already investigated this".
Would be fascinating to hear what evidence these (Tory or Corbynite, same thing) students want to offer. If its like on Twitter it will be laughable.
Why not keep an open mind
It is clear it is a controversial event and Durham Police will need to be more open in their response
Honestly chuckling a little.
It is not a controversial event no matter how much the Tories want it to be. The need for an open mind was before the police investigated it. We don't need to consider if the law was broken because the police have investigated and concluded it wasn't.
Its that simple. Tories about to get a kicking on Thursday. Tory MPs have sent post-dated no confidence letters. So must do anything to try and save Tory councillors and thus the boss. So attack Rayner for having a vagina to mesmerise Tory ministers with. Attack Rayner for legally attending a campaign event- THEY LIED about if she was there because they had no concept anyone would care. Don't mention the High Court ruling that the government killed your granny or that a Tory MP wanks off to tractors. Vote Conservative.
I assume its muscle memory. There is Good News my friend! Having left the party and voted against their criminality you don't have to defend them any more. So relax!
Higher the affluence, the more likely people seem to be pissed off and staying at home.
Which is a big problem for the Tories. As that is how Labour won so decisively in 1997.
That was exactly my thought. New Labour was a very middle class thing.
Yes, though CHB is saying something slightly different here - not that the middle classes flocked to New Labour but that many Tories stayed at home. That was certainly our impression in 1997 in Broxtowe - we had very extensive canvass data and full telling at polling stations, and we were really struck by the low turnout in the traditional Tory villages and small towns there. It wasn't our impression that masses of Tories were embracing us - rather that they felt their party needed a time out of office to sort themselves out, and Blair didn't seem threatening enough to make it important to stop him.
That's undoubtedly the Starmer strategy. He thinks that the mood is "time for a change, so long as it's not very risky". People like me are restive as we didn't join Labour merely to be the we-aren't-too-bad party, but he's probably reading the national mood correctly.
The thing so many people don't seem to comprehend about elections is that it isn't just your own voter that matters, its your opponent. You can win by standing still if your opponent loses a stack of voters to apathy.
As for the mood of the country, is it that much of a surprise that people want a period of calm competence?
You and I are at on with your last sentence, if it can be found !!
I offer the good people of Macduff, Gardenstown and Rosehearty an extended period of calm if they elect me to Aberdeenshire council...
My advice, based on getting elected to the parish council on a platform of Eco-anarchism deep in a tory oblast, is to make your wife the centre of the campaign. I'm pretty sure some of the braindead old fuckers thought they were voting for her rather than me.
You're a parish councillor? I'd love to watch one of your meetings, it must be fun.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
The Lie/dishonesty about Rayner is not a good look here and is helping the story keep going. In reality there is nothing to see here. But labour have handled it poorly.
If the activity was allowed under law and therefore not illegal who gives a fig whether she was there or not.
Plenty of people it would seem as the story is still dragging on and on. I’d rather my local constabulary would simply just get on with the job and not waste time and resource on this.
The only people dragging this on are Big Dogs supporters, and tory journalists who are trying to whitewash Boris and the tories. The BBC and Sky seem to be running their news progs from some of the newspapers. I'd like to know why it's gone so quiet on PPE and lady mone (a tory), and the high Court condemning the government for spreading covid into the nursing homes
Interesting that the High Court's decision on care homes as it applies equally to Scotland and Wales first ministers
Indeed. So, we either have 3 administrations (I suspect NI will be the same) semi independently making the same mistake on the information that they had before them at the time or the court is being utterly ridiculous in retrospectively determining that the law was broken when Ministers decided to clear the wards of bed blockers for an incoming tsunami of Covid victims without all of the checks being made on those being transferred.
This is the sort of thing that gives lawyers a bad name. There were no good choices here, only the less bad and the decision was entirely rational and reasonable in that context.
I’m old enough to remember when the PB consensus was that the SG’s attitude to COVID and care homes was uniquely awful, a view expressed repetitively and loudly.
Anas very much in agreement. At this rate Labour might also want C4 gutted and neutralised.
I don't remember any consensus although some did point out the awful consequences of the decisions made. But for me all of the administrations, whether led by the SNP, the Tories or Labour faced almost impossible choices. Did we want covid victims dying in corridors on trollies in the way we saw in northern Italy or did we prioritise the available beds by removing some of the bureaucratic impediments to the discharge of patient who in most cases should not have been in hospital in the first place but were stuck there because acceptable care plans had not been put in place?
With hindsight we can say that the waves on hospital admissions did not prove as high as the worst case scenarios anticipated but that is only hindsight. The decisions made were, in my view, rational and involved a weighing of harms and potential harms to get the best outcome. If we had known at the time that asymptomatic carriers could infect others then that balance may well have been different but we didn't.
However they should have been moved to the Nightingale hospitals that had fortunes spent on them.
They were for dealing with thousands of terminal patients. An eventuality we should be very thankful did not happen.
One of the worst lessons that could be "learned" from this is that we don't need to set up Nightingales in the next pandemic.
The choice of local council election candidates in my ward was underwhelming from the established parties, so I decided to have a look at the independents to see what they stood for etc.
For one of them, the only information I could find other than his name was (genuinely) that his favourite biscuit was a Jaffa cake.
Not sure whether or where to rank him in my voting on the basis of this information.
'his favourite biscuit was a Jaffa cake'
A superb body swerve of the cake or biscuit dispute. The boy will go far.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
The Lie/dishonesty about Rayner is not a good look here and is helping the story keep going. In reality there is nothing to see here. But labour have handled it poorly.
If the activity was allowed under law and therefore not illegal who gives a fig whether she was there or not.
Plenty of people it would seem as the story is still dragging on and on. I’d rather my local constabulary would simply just get on with the job and not waste time and resource on this.
The only people dragging this on are Big Dogs supporters, and tory journalists who are trying to whitewash Boris and the tories. The BBC and Sky seem to be running their news progs from some of the newspapers. I'd like to know why it's gone so quiet on PPE and lady mone (a tory), and the high Court condemning the government for spreading covid into the nursing homes
Interesting that the High Court's decision on care homes as it applies equally to Scotland and Wales first ministers
Indeed. So, we either have 3 administrations (I suspect NI will be the same) semi independently making the same mistake on the information that they had before them at the time or the court is being utterly ridiculous in retrospectively determining that the law was broken when Ministers decided to clear the wards of bed blockers for an incoming tsunami of Covid victims without all of the checks being made on those being transferred.
This is the sort of thing that gives lawyers a bad name. There were no good choices here, only the less bad and the decision was entirely rational and reasonable in that context.
I’m old enough to remember when the PB consensus was that the SG’s attitude to COVID and care homes was uniquely awful, a view expressed repetitively and loudly.
Anas very much in agreement. At this rate Labour might also want C4 gutted and neutralised.
I don't remember any consensus although some did point out the awful consequences of the decisions made. But for me all of the administrations, whether led by the SNP, the Tories or Labour faced almost impossible choices. Did we want covid victims dying in corridors on trollies in the way we saw in northern Italy or did we prioritise the available beds by removing some of the bureaucratic impediments to the discharge of patient who in most cases should not have been in hospital in the first place but were stuck there because acceptable care plans had not been put in place?
With hindsight we can say that the waves on hospital admissions did not prove as high as the worst case scenarios anticipated but that is only hindsight. The decisions made were, in my view, rational and involved a weighing of harms and potential harms to get the best outcome. If we had known at the time that asymptomatic carriers could infect others then that balance may well have been different but we didn't.
However they should have been moved to the Nightingale hospitals that had fortunes spent on them.
They were for dealing with thousands of terminal patients. An eventuality we should be very thankful did not happen.
One of the worst lessons that could be "learned" from this is that we don't need to set up Nightingales in the next pandemic.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
The Lie/dishonesty about Rayner is not a good look here and is helping the story keep going. In reality there is nothing to see here. But labour have handled it poorly.
If the activity was allowed under law and therefore not illegal who gives a fig whether she was there or not.
Plenty of people it would seem as the story is still dragging on and on. I’d rather my local constabulary would simply just get on with the job and not waste time and resource on this.
The only people dragging this on are Big Dogs supporters, and tory journalists who are trying to whitewash Boris and the tories. The BBC and Sky seem to be running their news progs from some of the newspapers. I'd like to know why it's gone so quiet on PPE and lady mone (a tory), and the high Court condemning the government for spreading covid into the nursing homes
Interesting that the High Court's decision on care homes as it applies equally to Scotland and Wales first ministers
Indeed. So, we either have 3 administrations (I suspect NI will be the same) semi independently making the same mistake on the information that they had before them at the time or the court is being utterly ridiculous in retrospectively determining that the law was broken when Ministers decided to clear the wards of bed blockers for an incoming tsunami of Covid victims without all of the checks being made on those being transferred.
This is the sort of thing that gives lawyers a bad name. There were no good choices here, only the less bad and the decision was entirely rational and reasonable in that context.
I’m old enough to remember when the PB consensus was that the SG’s attitude to COVID and care homes was uniquely awful, a view expressed repetitively and loudly.
Anas very much in agreement. At this rate Labour might also want C4 gutted and neutralised.
I don't remember any consensus although some did point out the awful consequences of the decisions made. But for me all of the administrations, whether led by the SNP, the Tories or Labour faced almost impossible choices. Did we want covid victims dying in corridors on trollies in the way we saw in northern Italy or did we prioritise the available beds by removing some of the bureaucratic impediments to the discharge of patient who in most cases should not have been in hospital in the first place but were stuck there because acceptable care plans had not been put in place?
With hindsight we can say that the waves on hospital admissions did not prove as high as the worst case scenarios anticipated but that is only hindsight. The decisions made were, in my view, rational and involved a weighing of harms and potential harms to get the best outcome. If we had known at the time that asymptomatic carriers could infect others then that balance may well have been different but we didn't.
However they should have been moved to the Nightingale hospitals that had fortunes spent on them.
They were for dealing with thousands of terminal patients. An eventuality we should be very thankful did not happen.
One of the worst lessons that could be "learned" from this is that we don't need to set up Nightingales in the next pandemic.
They could have used as a halfway house
The decision was made very early on. Did they know with confidence they wouldn’t be needed for their original purpose at that point?
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
The Lie/dishonesty about Rayner is not a good look here and is helping the story keep going. In reality there is nothing to see here. But labour have handled it poorly.
If the activity was allowed under law and therefore not illegal who gives a fig whether she was there or not.
Plenty of people it would seem as the story is still dragging on and on. I’d rather my local constabulary would simply just get on with the job and not waste time and resource on this.
The only people dragging this on are Big Dogs supporters, and tory journalists who are trying to whitewash Boris and the tories. The BBC and Sky seem to be running their news progs from some of the newspapers. I'd like to know why it's gone so quiet on PPE and lady mone (a tory), and the high Court condemning the government for spreading covid into the nursing homes
Interesting that the High Court's decision on care homes as it applies equally to Scotland and Wales first ministers
Indeed. So, we either have 3 administrations (I suspect NI will be the same) semi independently making the same mistake on the information that they had before them at the time or the court is being utterly ridiculous in retrospectively determining that the law was broken when Ministers decided to clear the wards of bed blockers for an incoming tsunami of Covid victims without all of the checks being made on those being transferred.
This is the sort of thing that gives lawyers a bad name. There were no good choices here, only the less bad and the decision was entirely rational and reasonable in that context.
I’m old enough to remember when the PB consensus was that the SG’s attitude to COVID and care homes was uniquely awful, a view expressed repetitively and loudly.
Anas very much in agreement. At this rate Labour might also want C4 gutted and neutralised.
I don't remember any consensus although some did point out the awful consequences of the decisions made. But for me all of the administrations, whether led by the SNP, the Tories or Labour faced almost impossible choices. Did we want covid victims dying in corridors on trollies in the way we saw in northern Italy or did we prioritise the available beds by removing some of the bureaucratic impediments to the discharge of patient who in most cases should not have been in hospital in the first place but were stuck there because acceptable care plans had not been put in place?
With hindsight we can say that the waves on hospital admissions did not prove as high as the worst case scenarios anticipated but that is only hindsight. The decisions made were, in my view, rational and involved a weighing of harms and potential harms to get the best outcome. If we had known at the time that asymptomatic carriers could infect others then that balance may well have been different but we didn't.
However they should have been moved to the Nightingale hospitals that had fortunes spent on them.
They were for dealing with thousands of terminal patients. An eventuality we should be very thankful did not happen.
One of the worst lessons that could be "learned" from this is that we don't need to set up Nightingales in the next pandemic.
Not necessarily terminal, either. The point was to have what are essentially isolation hospitals for the infected. Had they been available early, many of the care home deaths resulting from discharged infected patients might have been avoided.
Having some isolation capacity maintained on an ongoing basis ought to be costed and studied.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
How many times do we have to go over these stupid Partygate apologias? Carrie lives in a flat above No. 11. The Cabinet do not meet in her living room. She does not live in the Cabinet Office meeting rooms.
Everyone present was choosing to be at an event that was not a work event, so presumably that is why they all got fined.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
Yebbut... as Carrie was there it clearly wasn't a work meeting.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
How many times do we have to go over these stupid Partygate apologias? Carrie lives in a flat above No. 11. The Cabinet do not meet in her living room. She does not live in the Cabinet Office meeting rooms.
Everyone present was choosing to be at an event that was not a work event, so presumably that is why they all got fined.
Carries status is beside the point, since the vast majority of those with FPNs are not Carrie.
Your last statement could equally be applied to the gathering with Starmer et al, couldn’t it? A group of people having a few minutes of food and drink between work meetings.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
I'd assume the difference is that people working in different offices were called together to celebrate with the cake. It might be a pretty low bar, but if Carrie (and the interior designer), and Boris and a few others were told to come to a room together to celebrate, then that could be where it passes the test.
It's reported that up to 30 people attended - and that large group of people wouldn't have gathered together otherwise.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
The presence of the word "apparently" means you don't know the truth of the matter?
I do not know the truth of the matter not do I say I do, indeed nobody knows the truth of this story.
Hence why Durham Police need to do a MET style investigation and resolve the issue
A Met-style investigation. Of a legal event.
To establish it was legal which is being questioned
Backing calls for "Met style investigations" at the behest of the Mail "to establish it was legal" doesn't seem to be a very conservative thing to do, Big_G.
Fairness is a virtue and to be honest the event is now being widely questioned
What you suggest is a pretty skewed idea of fair. You're saying that police re-investigations (not even investigations) should be at the behest of those with a political motive to call for them ? That is quite extraordinary.
I would suggest that is what happened in regards to the Met, and the police should act on evidence which is now big offered by 2 students who took their own video of the event
What law do you think had been broken and what evidence is there? This is nonsense Big G.
I do not know what evidence these students have but they were there and did a video and want to speak to Durham Police
Big G I didn't break any law yesterday and there is no evidence I did, but maybe Surrey Police should carry out an investigation in case I did. That is the level we are at.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
Again. They viewed the footage taken by the Tory students. Said "this is legal" and told the students to go away. I bet the students want to talk to Durham police, they think it grossly unfair that the labour leader acted legally and got away with it.
Apparently it is the two students who are alleging Starmer of breaking covid regulations
Apparently the students don't understand the law. Whether by accident or on purpose is yet to be known.
For someone with no axe to grind/skin in the game you aren't half making a meal of this. How many times do you want to be told that the police HAVE NOT STATED A VIEW on whether it was legal, they have said that it would be contrary to their practice, therefore unfair, to investigate its legality?
Because its bollocks. Here is the police statement: "Durham Police's statement said: “Earlier this year, Durham Constabulary undertook a review of video footage recorded in Durham on April 30, 2021. We stated that we did not believe an offence has been established in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken and would therefore take no further action in relation to the matter." https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/durham-police-insists-not-investigating-23820912
"We do not believe an offence has been established. They looked it it, concluded it was legal "in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken", and said nothing to investigate
"did not believe an offence has been established" is not a statement of a view on whether the thing was legal, any more than saying I do not believe that it has been established that there is life on any of the planets in the Trappist 1 star system equates to I do not believe there is life on any of the planets in the Trappist 1 star system.
This is a meta argument. nobody believes or gives a toss about twhether the law was broken or not, it's about Lab ineptitude in dealing with the question, and a blow to those of us who were looking to them for a bit of quiet competence.
Your analogy fails because the police say they conducted a review: they examined the evidence and formed a judgement. In your analogy, that would be like you looking at some video shot on a planet in the Trappist 1 star system that someone else had claimed proved life was there.
That's dead wrong. They very carefully do not say they formed a judgment on the substantive question.
The quote in the Chronicle Live article given above shows they did.
Can you honestly not distinguish we did not believe an offence has been established from we did not believe an offence has been committed? You think that X has not been established materially implies not-X?
Having a chilled weekend after a demanding and hugely stressful week away. Mrs RP took me out for Tapas dinner last night in Aberdeen. A lazy morning and now watching 1981 Grand Prix highlights.
As well as debating with your good selves I am also browsing IKEA for office furniture ideas for the small business centre I am going to set up next door in my old bank, and debating whether I put the Tesla model Y I have reserved through the business or not.
^is this my version of a "chilled weekend"? Good grief...
Interesting Scottish poll. Feels realistic to me and I will stick with my assumption that the Tories will hold up much better than expected in the Scottish local elections and get at least 20-23% at the local elections even if they suffer large middle class defections in Edinburgh to the LDs.
Still a good poll for the SNP and is why I would still struggle to see them drop below 40% at the next GE (at the moment) as SLab is not really winning over SNP/Greens directly.
The changes above are presumably compared with the last poll. Compared with Scotland's 2019 results they are SNP -3.0, Lab +5.4, Con -4.1, LD -2.5. Kirkcaldy, Glasgow NE and Coatbridge look winnable for Labour on those figures.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
The presence of the word "apparently" means you don't know the truth of the matter?
I do not know the truth of the matter not do I say I do, indeed nobody knows the truth of this story.
Hence why Durham Police need to do a MET style investigation and resolve the issue
A Met-style investigation. Of a legal event.
To establish it was legal which is being questioned
Backing calls for "Met style investigations" at the behest of the Mail "to establish it was legal" doesn't seem to be a very conservative thing to do, Big_G.
Doesn't matter. He's not a conservative he's a Johnson fanboi.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
There is no dispute about the equivalence between this event and multiple Downing Street ones for which Boris should resign
However, if covid regulations were breached it would be an offence that many thousand committed during that period
The argument is that the drinking and food took place at 10.00pm after the meeting, and this was against the regulations applying at the time
I have no idea who is telling the truth but it is not a conspiracy for the event to be investigated further especially as 2 students want to come forward with their video of the event
Give it a rest, you're just embarrassing yourself.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
The presence of the word "apparently" means you don't know the truth of the matter?
I do not know the truth of the matter not do I say I do, indeed nobody knows the truth of this story.
Hence why Durham Police need to do a MET style investigation and resolve the issue
A Met-style investigation. Of a legal event.
To establish it was legal which is being questioned
Backing calls for "Met style investigations" at the behest of the Mail "to establish it was legal" doesn't seem to be a very conservative thing to do, Big_G.
Doesn't matter. He's not a conservative he's a Johnson fanboi.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
There is no dispute about the equivalence between this event and multiple Downing Street ones for which Boris should resign
However, if covid regulations were breached it would be an offence that many thousand committed during that period
The argument is that the drinking and food took place at 10.00pm after the meeting, and this was against the regulations applying at the time
I have no idea who is telling the truth but it is not a conspiracy for the event to be investigated further especially as 2 students want to come forward with their video of the event
Give it a rest, you're just embarrassing yourself.
Is this an example of the cancel culture we hear about ?
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
Again. They viewed the footage taken by the Tory students. Said "this is legal" and told the students to go away. I bet the students want to talk to Durham police, they think it grossly unfair that the labour leader acted legally and got away with it.
Apparently it is the two students who are alleging Starmer of breaking covid regulations
Apparently the students don't understand the law. Whether by accident or on purpose is yet to be known.
For someone with no axe to grind/skin in the game you aren't half making a meal of this. How many times do you want to be told that the police HAVE NOT STATED A VIEW on whether it was legal, they have said that it would be contrary to their practice, therefore unfair, to investigate its legality?
Because its bollocks. Here is the police statement: "Durham Police's statement said: “Earlier this year, Durham Constabulary undertook a review of video footage recorded in Durham on April 30, 2021. We stated that we did not believe an offence has been established in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken and would therefore take no further action in relation to the matter." https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/durham-police-insists-not-investigating-23820912
"We do not believe an offence has been established. They looked it it, concluded it was legal "in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken", and said nothing to investigate
"did not believe an offence has been established" is not a statement of a view on whether the thing was legal, any more than saying I do not believe that it has been established that there is life on any of the planets in the Trappist 1 star system equates to I do not believe there is life on any of the planets in the Trappist 1 star system.
This is a meta argument. nobody believes or gives a toss about twhether the law was broken or not, it's about Lab ineptitude in dealing with the question, and a blow to those of us who were looking to them for a bit of quiet competence.
Your analogy fails because the police say they conducted a review: they examined the evidence and formed a judgement. In your analogy, that would be like you looking at some video shot on a planet in the Trappist 1 star system that someone else had claimed proved life was there.
That's dead wrong. They very carefully do not say they formed a judgment on the substantive question.
The quote in the Chronicle Live article given above shows they did.
Can you honestly not distinguish we did not believe an offence has been established from we did not believe an offence has been committed? You think that X has not been established materially implies not-X?
Golly
The Police have to make a decision: is there sufficient evidence to justify a further investigation. They decided there was not. It is sophistry to suggest there was some substantive question left unanswered.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
I'd assume the difference is that people working in different offices were called together to celebrate with the cake. It might be a pretty low bar, but if Carrie (and the interior designer), and Boris and a few others were told to come to a room together to celebrate, then that could be where it passes the test.
It's reported that up to 30 people attended - and that large group of people wouldn't have gathered together otherwise.
And we shouldnt forget that they mailed out a hundred invitations to this event. That only 30 turned up simply evidences the responsibility of the other 70, since in normal times few would spurn an invite from Number Ten
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
How many times do we have to go over these stupid Partygate apologias? Carrie lives in a flat above No. 11. The Cabinet do not meet in her living room. She does not live in the Cabinet Office meeting rooms.
Everyone present was choosing to be at an event that was not a work event, so presumably that is why they all got fined.
Carries status is beside the point, since the vast majority of those with FPNs are not Carrie.
Your last statement could equally be applied to the gathering with Starmer et al, couldn’t it? A group of people having a few minutes of food and drink between work meetings.
I assume that given the long hours people were working at Downing Street, there would have been hundreds of occasions where they stopped for a regular meal. Clearly people need to eat, and no-one would call for FPNs for those meals.
The cake was not a regular event, it was a larger group gathering together for something social in nature.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
I'd assume the difference is that people working in different offices were called together to celebrate with the cake. It might be a pretty low bar, but if Carrie (and the interior designer), and Boris and a few others were told to come to a room together to celebrate, then that could be where it passes the test.
It's reported that up to 30 people attended - and that large group of people wouldn't have gathered together otherwise.
Yeah, that would be a fair distinction, although I suspect a fair few people come and go during a normal day in No 10 (even during the pandemic) anyway. The report in the Mail suggests it was a very subdued affair.
They said she attended the event with their son and stood by alongside some socially distanced staff. One insider said: 'The Prime Minister was there for a very short time. He was eating a salad lunch in the Cabinet room with people he worked with all day. People kept popping in.'
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
I'd assume the difference is that people working in different offices were called together to celebrate with the cake. It might be a pretty low bar, but if Carrie (and the interior designer), and Boris and a few others were told to come to a room together to celebrate, then that could be where it passes the test.
It's reported that up to 30 people attended - and that large group of people wouldn't have gathered together otherwise.
And we shouldnt forget that they mailed out a hundred invitations to this event. That only 30 turned up simply evidences the responsibility of the other 70, since in normal times few would spurn an invite from Number Ten
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
How many times do we have to go over these stupid Partygate apologias? Carrie lives in a flat above No. 11. The Cabinet do not meet in her living room. She does not live in the Cabinet Office meeting rooms.
Everyone present was choosing to be at an event that was not a work event, so presumably that is why they all got fined.
Carries status is beside the point, since the vast majority of those with FPNs are not Carrie.
Your last statement could equally be applied to the gathering with Starmer et al, couldn’t it? A group of people having a few minutes of food and drink between work meetings.
Carrie’s presence proves this is not a work event. If it’s not a work event, everyone present, regardless of whether they are Carrie or someone else, is in breach of the rules.
My statement does not apply to Durham because that was a work event.
We have 2 events. The Police examined evidence in both cases. In one case, they issued FPNs; in the other, they didn’t. It is possible that the Police did a bad job, but the simplest explanation is that one event breached the rules and the other didn’t.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
I'd assume the difference is that people working in different offices were called together to celebrate with the cake. It might be a pretty low bar, but if Carrie (and the interior designer), and Boris and a few others were told to come to a room together to celebrate, then that could be where it passes the test.
It's reported that up to 30 people attended - and that large group of people wouldn't have gathered together otherwise.
Yeah, that would be a fair distinction, although I suspect a fair few people come and go during a normal day in No 10 (even during the pandemic) anyway. The report in the Mail suggests it was a very subdued affair.
They said she attended the event with their son and stood by alongside some socially distanced staff. One insider said: 'The Prime Minister was there for a very short time. He was eating a salad lunch in the Cabinet room with people he worked with all day. People kept popping in.'
1 may was supposed to be mask freedom Day in italy, though in the event a late change extended the rules for public transport, hospitals and schools. But shops and restaurants and most other public places, no longer required. But my observations so far is that many Italians continue to wear them.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
I'd assume the difference is that people working in different offices were called together to celebrate with the cake. It might be a pretty low bar, but if Carrie (and the interior designer), and Boris and a few others were told to come to a room together to celebrate, then that could be where it passes the test.
It's reported that up to 30 people attended - and that large group of people wouldn't have gathered together otherwise.
And we shouldnt forget that they mailed out a hundred invitations to this event. That only 30 turned up simply evidences the responsibility of the other 70, since in normal times few would spurn an invite from Number Ten
Wasn't that a different event?
Sending out 100 BYOB invitations to people in different workplaces was a clear breach of the rules. If fines haven't been issued for that, presumably we can look forward to another batch incoming?
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
The Lie/dishonesty about Rayner is not a good look here and is helping the story keep going. In reality there is nothing to see here. But labour have handled it poorly.
If the activity was allowed under law and therefore not illegal who gives a fig whether she was there or not.
Plenty of people it would seem as the story is still dragging on and on. I’d rather my local constabulary would simply just get on with the job and not waste time and resource on this.
The only people dragging this on are Big Dogs supporters, and tory journalists who are trying to whitewash Boris and the tories. The BBC and Sky seem to be running their news progs from some of the newspapers. I'd like to know why it's gone so quiet on PPE and lady mone (a tory), and the high Court condemning the government for spreading covid into the nursing homes
Interesting that the High Court's decision on care homes as it applies equally to Scotland and Wales first ministers
Indeed. So, we either have 3 administrations (I suspect NI will be the same) semi independently making the same mistake on the information that they had before them at the time or the court is being utterly ridiculous in retrospectively determining that the law was broken when Ministers decided to clear the wards of bed blockers for an incoming tsunami of Covid victims without all of the checks being made on those being transferred.
This is the sort of thing that gives lawyers a bad name. There were no good choices here, only the less bad and the decision was entirely rational and reasonable in that context.
I’m old enough to remember when the PB consensus was that the SG’s attitude to COVID and care homes was uniquely awful, a view expressed repetitively and loudly.
Anas very much in agreement. At this rate Labour might also want C4 gutted and neutralised.
I don't remember any consensus although some did point out the awful consequences of the decisions made. But for me all of the administrations, whether led by the SNP, the Tories or Labour faced almost impossible choices. Did we want covid victims dying in corridors on trollies in the way we saw in northern Italy or did we prioritise the available beds by removing some of the bureaucratic impediments to the discharge of patient who in most cases should not have been in hospital in the first place but were stuck there because acceptable care plans had not been put in place?
With hindsight we can say that the waves on hospital admissions did not prove as high as the worst case scenarios anticipated but that is only hindsight. The decisions made were, in my view, rational and involved a weighing of harms and potential harms to get the best outcome. If we had known at the time that asymptomatic carriers could infect others then that balance may well have been different but we didn't.
However they should have been moved to the Nightingale hospitals that had fortunes spent on them.
They were for dealing with thousands of terminal patients. An eventuality we should be very thankful did not happen.
One of the worst lessons that could be "learned" from this is that we don't need to set up Nightingales in the next pandemic.
They could have used as a halfway house
The decision was made very early on. Did they know with confidence they wouldn’t be needed for their original purpose at that point?
key for me is they all knew they were endangering all the old patients in homes by sending back thousands of people without checking them
Interesting Scottish poll. Feels realistic to me and I will stick with my assumption that the Tories will hold up much better than expected in the Scottish local elections and get at least 20-23% at the local elections even if they suffer large middle class defections in Edinburgh to the LDs.
Still a good poll for the SNP and is why I would still struggle to see them drop below 40% at the next GE (at the moment) as SLab is not really winning over SNP/Greens directly.
For those of us betting on the next General Election, Labour's continued rise in Scotland could be significant.
On 22% they would stand to gain around 9 seats from the SNP. This poll puts them on 24% and rising, at the SNP's expense.
Much more of this and it could have a massive impact on Labour's chances of an overall majority.
Interesting Scottish poll. Feels realistic to me and I will stick with my assumption that the Tories will hold up much better than expected in the Scottish local elections and get at least 20-23% at the local elections even if they suffer large middle class defections in Edinburgh to the LDs.
Still a good poll for the SNP and is why I would still struggle to see them drop below 40% at the next GE (at the moment) as SLab is not really winning over SNP/Greens directly.
The changes above are presumably compared with the last poll. Compared with Scotland's 2019 results they are SNP -3.0, Lab +5.4, Con -4.1, LD -2.5. Kirkcaldy, Glasgow NE and Coatbridge look winnable for Labour on those figures.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
How many times do we have to go over these stupid Partygate apologias? Carrie lives in a flat above No. 11. The Cabinet do not meet in her living room. She does not live in the Cabinet Office meeting rooms.
Everyone present was choosing to be at an event that was not a work event, so presumably that is why they all got fined.
Carries status is beside the point, since the vast majority of those with FPNs are not Carrie.
Your last statement could equally be applied to the gathering with Starmer et al, couldn’t it? A group of people having a few minutes of food and drink between work meetings.
Carrie’s presence proves this is not a work event. If it’s not a work event, everyone present, regardless of whether they are Carrie or someone else, is in breach of the rules.
My statement does not apply to Durham because that was a work event.
We have 2 events. The Police examined evidence in both cases. In one case, they issued FPNs; in the other, they didn’t. It is possible that the Police did a bad job, but the simplest explanation is that one event breached the rules and the other didn’t.
they aren’t completely equal, since one of the forces has a policy not to investigate (or re investigate?) historic cases, while the other apparently does.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
I'd assume the difference is that people working in different offices were called together to celebrate with the cake. It might be a pretty low bar, but if Carrie (and the interior designer), and Boris and a few others were told to come to a room together to celebrate, then that could be where it passes the test.
It's reported that up to 30 people attended - and that large group of people wouldn't have gathered together otherwise.
And we shouldnt forget that they mailed out a hundred invitations to this event. That only 30 turned up simply evidences the responsibility of the other 70, since in normal times few would spurn an invite from Number Ten
Wasn't that a different event?
Sending out 100 BYOB invitations to people in different workplaces was a clear breach of the rules. If fines haven't been issued for that, presumably we can look forward to another batch incoming?
Yes, certainly. I don’t think the 100+ invite was for this though.
That Blair video that's out I did think it a little odd to focus on things like ethnic minorities in Cabinet etc, given that is not an area the Tories are lacking in. I know he made the point that change was such even Tories accepted them, and it is remarkable how different things were even 25 years ago, but when flagging up achievements one in which things actually are closer to equal now than in the New Labour heydey seems odd.
1 may was supposed to be mask freedom Day in italy, though in the event a late change extended the rules for public transport, hospitals and schools. But shops and restaurants and most other public places, no longer required. But my observations so far is that many Italians continue to wear them.
It was the same in the UK though... a gradual reduction which continues to this day.
Just been in to Waitrose - hardly any masks to be seen. Even Mrs P, who has been something of a mask enthusiast, 'forgot' to put hers on.
The choice of local council election candidates in my ward was underwhelming from the established parties, so I decided to have a look at the independents to see what they stood for etc.
For one of them, the only information I could find other than his name was (genuinely) that his favourite biscuit was a Jaffa cake.
Not sure whether or where to rank him in my voting on the basis of this information.
It'd be enough for me. Jaffa cake being a biscuit my arse, clearly the man is a deviant fool.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
Again. They viewed the footage taken by the Tory students. Said "this is legal" and told the students to go away. I bet the students want to talk to Durham police, they think it grossly unfair that the labour leader acted legally and got away with it.
Apparently it is the two students who are alleging Starmer of breaking covid regulations
Apparently the students don't understand the law. Whether by accident or on purpose is yet to be known.
For someone with no axe to grind/skin in the game you aren't half making a meal of this. How many times do you want to be told that the police HAVE NOT STATED A VIEW on whether it was legal, they have said that it would be contrary to their practice, therefore unfair, to investigate its legality?
Because its bollocks. Here is the police statement: "Durham Police's statement said: “Earlier this year, Durham Constabulary undertook a review of video footage recorded in Durham on April 30, 2021. We stated that we did not believe an offence has been established in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken and would therefore take no further action in relation to the matter." https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/durham-police-insists-not-investigating-23820912
"We do not believe an offence has been established. They looked it it, concluded it was legal "in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken", and said nothing to investigate
"did not believe an offence has been established" is not a statement of a view on whether the thing was legal, any more than saying I do not believe that it has been established that there is life on any of the planets in the Trappist 1 star system equates to I do not believe there is life on any of the planets in the Trappist 1 star system.
This is a meta argument. nobody believes or gives a toss about twhether the law was broken or not, it's about Lab ineptitude in dealing with the question, and a blow to those of us who were looking to them for a bit of quiet competence.
Your analogy fails because the police say they conducted a review: they examined the evidence and formed a judgement. In your analogy, that would be like you looking at some video shot on a planet in the Trappist 1 star system that someone else had claimed proved life was there.
That's dead wrong. They very carefully do not say they formed a judgment on the substantive question.
The quote in the Chronicle Live article given above shows they did.
Can you honestly not distinguish we did not believe an offence has been established from we did not believe an offence has been committed? You think that X has not been established materially implies not-X?
Golly
The Police have to make a decision: is there sufficient evidence to justify a further investigation. They decided there was not. It is sophistry to suggest there was some substantive question left unanswered.
You should be embalmed and put in some kind of Museum of Illogic. "The police came to a view there was insufficient evidence to answer the substantive question,, therefore it is sophistry to says that the substantive question was left unanswered."
Interesting Scottish poll. Feels realistic to me and I will stick with my assumption that the Tories will hold up much better than expected in the Scottish local elections and get at least 20-23% at the local elections even if they suffer large middle class defections in Edinburgh to the LDs.
Still a good poll for the SNP and is why I would still struggle to see them drop below 40% at the next GE (at the moment) as SLab is not really winning over SNP/Greens directly.
For those of us betting on the next General Election, Labour's continued rise in Scotland could be significant.
On 22% they would stand to gain around 9 seats from the SNP. This poll puts them on 24% and rising, at the SNP's expense.
Much more of this and it could have a massive impact on Labour's chances of an overall majority.
I can see now a route for Labour to win 15-20 seats in Scotland particularly if they do better than expected in West Central Scotland against the SNP next week but it is still a real long shot. And the SNP will be probably also do less well than expected (and get 35% max IMO) as it is LOCAL elections with the Greens and Independents doing better than expected plus LDs in the Highlands etc.
Having a chilled weekend after a demanding and hugely stressful week away. Mrs RP took me out for Tapas dinner last night in Aberdeen. A lazy morning and now watching 1981 Grand Prix highlights.
As well as debating with your good selves I am also browsing IKEA for office furniture ideas for the small business centre I am going to set up next door in my old bank, and debating whether I put the Tesla model Y I have reserved through the business or not.
^is this my version of a "chilled weekend"? Good grief...
The only way buying a Tesla makes sense is to put it through as a company car & take advantage of the 2% BIK rate. It’s the glory days of the 1980s all over again for company cars if you’re buying a pure electric EV.
Higher the affluence, the more likely people seem to be pissed off and staying at home.
Which is a big problem for the Tories. As that is how Labour won so decisively in 1997.
That was exactly my thought. New Labour was a very middle class thing.
Yes, though CHB is saying something slightly different here - not that the middle classes flocked to New Labour but that many Tories stayed at home. That was certainly our impression in 1997 in Broxtowe - we had very extensive canvass data and full telling at polling stations, and we were really struck by the low turnout in the traditional Tory villages and small towns there. It wasn't our impression that masses of Tories were embracing us - rather that they felt their party needed a time out of office to sort themselves out, and Blair didn't seem threatening enough to make it important to stop him.
That's undoubtedly the Starmer strategy. He thinks that the mood is "time for a change, so long as it's not very risky". People like me are restive as we didn't join Labour merely to be the we-aren't-too-bad party, but he's probably reading the national mood correctly.
The thing so many people don't seem to comprehend about elections is that it isn't just your own voter that matters, its your opponent. You can win by standing still if your opponent loses a stack of voters to apathy.
As for the mood of the country, is it that much of a surprise that people want a period of calm competence?
You and I are at on with your last sentence, if it can be found !!
I offer the good people of Macduff, Gardenstown and Rosehearty an extended period of calm if they elect me to Aberdeenshire council...
My advice, based on getting elected to the parish council on a platform of Eco-anarchism deep in a tory oblast, is to make your wife the centre of the campaign. I'm pretty sure some of the braindead old fuckers thought they were voting for her rather than me.
My advice is to stand in one of the many many many parishes where there are no elections due to dearth of candidates.
The choice of local council election candidates in my ward was underwhelming from the established parties, so I decided to have a look at the independents to see what they stood for etc.
For one of them, the only information I could find other than his name was (genuinely) that his favourite biscuit was a Jaffa cake.
Not sure whether or where to rank him in my voting on the basis of this information.
It'd be enough for me. Jaffa cake being a biscuit my arse, clearly the man is a deviant fool.
Solarflare should not rank him at all - just leave him out of the voting completely. Not even nth choice out of n. Vote for the MRLP, however. Much more sensible.
The choice of local council election candidates in my ward was underwhelming from the established parties, so I decided to have a look at the independents to see what they stood for etc.
For one of them, the only information I could find other than his name was (genuinely) that his favourite biscuit was a Jaffa cake.
Not sure whether or where to rank him in my voting on the basis of this information.
It'd be enough for me. Jaffa cake being a biscuit my arse, clearly the man is a deviant fool.
'Though it has been ruled a cake and is indeed called one, is it not in some sense also a biscuit? I apologise if anyone had been offended by my biscuitry but I call on all lovers of the biscuit and the cake to come together in a shared love of the Jaffa' etc.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
How many times do we have to go over these stupid Partygate apologias? Carrie lives in a flat above No. 11. The Cabinet do not meet in her living room. She does not live in the Cabinet Office meeting rooms.
Everyone present was choosing to be at an event that was not a work event, so presumably that is why they all got fined.
Carries status is beside the point, since the vast majority of those with FPNs are not Carrie.
Your last statement could equally be applied to the gathering with Starmer et al, couldn’t it? A group of people having a few minutes of food and drink between work meetings.
I assume that given the long hours people were working at Downing Street, there would have been hundreds of occasions where they stopped for a regular meal. Clearly people need to eat, and no-one would call for FPNs for those meals.
The cake was not a regular event, it was a larger group gathering together for something social in nature.
It was a birthday party. Wouldn't surprise me if there was jelly and a clown. In fact we know there was a clown.
The choice of local council election candidates in my ward was underwhelming from the established parties, so I decided to have a look at the independents to see what they stood for etc.
For one of them, the only information I could find other than his name was (genuinely) that his favourite biscuit was a Jaffa cake.
Not sure whether or where to rank him in my voting on the basis of this information.
It'd be enough for me. Jaffa cake being a biscuit my arse, clearly the man is a deviant fool.
'Though it has been ruled a cake and is indeed called one, is it not in some sense also a biscuit? I apologise if anyone had been offended by my biscuitry but I call on all lovers of the biscuit and the cake to come together in a shared love of the Jaffa' etc.
I love jaffa cakes, but I'm an ideological extremist when it comes to biscuits. I am willing to concede they may be shared and displayed alongside the mighty biscuit, but that's as far as I will go, sir!
My personal strand of biscuitry places suitability for dunking as a key criteria, but I recognise this is not accepted as orthodoxy yet among mainstream biscuitry.
The choice of local council election candidates in my ward was underwhelming from the established parties, so I decided to have a look at the independents to see what they stood for etc.
For one of them, the only information I could find other than his name was (genuinely) that his favourite biscuit was a Jaffa cake.
Not sure whether or where to rank him in my voting on the basis of this information.
It'd be enough for me. Jaffa cake being a biscuit my arse, clearly the man is a deviant fool.
'Though it has been ruled a cake and is indeed called one, is it not in some sense also a biscuit? I apologise if anyone had been offended by my biscuitry but I call on all lovers of the biscuit and the cake to come together in a shared love of the Jaffa' etc.
'Biscuit' is hard, dry etc.(plus topping/sandwich fill). Jaffa cake is sponge. Which is, er, spongy. The topping is incidental.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
How many times do we have to go over these stupid Partygate apologias? Carrie lives in a flat above No. 11. The Cabinet do not meet in her living room. She does not live in the Cabinet Office meeting rooms.
Everyone present was choosing to be at an event that was not a work event, so presumably that is why they all got fined.
Carries status is beside the point, since the vast majority of those with FPNs are not Carrie.
Your last statement could equally be applied to the gathering with Starmer et al, couldn’t it? A group of people having a few minutes of food and drink between work meetings.
I assume that given the long hours people were working at Downing Street, there would have been hundreds of occasions where they stopped for a regular meal. Clearly people need to eat, and no-one would call for FPNs for those meals.
The cake was not a regular event, it was a larger group gathering together for something social in nature.
It was a birthday party. Wouldn't surprise me if there was jelly and a clown. In fact we know there was a clown.
But what looked at first blush like jelly, was actually pure muscle.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
They watched a video and said “nah, can’t be bovvered”
So yes and no
And why weren't they bovvered? Because it was legal to meet to campaign.
Tories seem aggrieved that the police won't investigate something that was legal. After defending the Bog Dog repeatedly not understanding the law, they're now compounding their own stupidity by accusing someone of legally doing something.
Not what the police said. They said that as a matter of policy they would not investigate the issue.
Its a sensible policy not to waste time investigating things they can clearly see as legal.
I understand the strategy. Make as much noise as possible about plots and unfairness against poor Boris and maybe just maybe a few more people will vote Tory and that might save his job.
Its desperate and painfully funny but I understand it.
Because ultimately lets assume Durham Plod say "OK, we'll look at it". Spend an hour talking to the Tory students and looking at the video and pictures. Then plonk the law of the time on the table in front of them and say "this was legal". Or even go the whole hog and ask Starmer if he was there at the event. And then say "this was legal". Or perhaps summon the vagina-wielding Rayner and ask if she was there, hear she was and then say "this was legal".
I know the totally brain-dead Tories don't know this was legal. They're the ones saying "where did they stay, hotels were closed" apparently unaware that hotels were open. They won't be happy. But the job of Durham Police isn't to placate morons. Its to enforce the law. And there is nothing to enforce here however many times the Daily Wail writes front page "news" saying there is.
The bigger issue is the fact that politicians are weaponising the police.
For example that MP who just resigned over tractors (he’s so senior I’ve forgotten his name already). Jess Phillips has called for apology investigation into whether he has committed a criminal offence (I think displaying obscene materials in a public place) under some law from the 1980s.
What is the public benefit in that? It’s a purely political call - but the issue is it leads to thinks like this kerfuffle about whether the MET or Durham police acted politically or not.
The police should keep out for politics. And politicians shouldn’t try to involve them
The choice of local council election candidates in my ward was underwhelming from the established parties, so I decided to have a look at the independents to see what they stood for etc.
For one of them, the only information I could find other than his name was (genuinely) that his favourite biscuit was a Jaffa cake.
Not sure whether or where to rank him in my voting on the basis of this information.
It'd be enough for me. Jaffa cake being a biscuit my arse, clearly the man is a deviant fool.
'Though it has been ruled a cake and is indeed called one, is it not in some sense also a biscuit? I apologise if anyone had been offended by my biscuitry but I call on all lovers of the biscuit and the cake to come together in a shared love of the Jaffa' etc.
'Biscuit' is hard, dry etc.(plus topping/sandwich fill). Jaffa cake is sponge. Which is, er, spongy. The topping is incidental.
Where does that leave the horrible soft cookies that seem to have become all the rage in cafes and the like?
Biscuit or cake? (Or stale biscuity, cakey monstrosity?)
1 may was supposed to be mask freedom Day in italy, though in the event a late change extended the rules for public transport, hospitals and schools. But shops and restaurants and most other public places, no longer required. But my observations so far is that many Italians continue to wear them.
It was the same in the UK though... a gradual reduction which continues to this day.
Just been in to Waitrose - hardly any masks to be seen. Even Mrs P, who has been something of a mask enthusiast, 'forgot' to put hers on.
I was pretty surprised on a trip from Ayrshire to Edinburgh (via train, with stops off in banks and shopping centres) the other day how quickly mask-wearing had gone back to the relative fringes within just days of the legal obligation to wear them being lifted.
It was definitely in decline before then, but the announcement they were no longer required (but still "recommended") essentially finished them off in very short order - very few people were still wearing them.
Mulling over ideas for the revival of county cricket.... Thinking once again about the Japanese promotional event in 2017 where the ghosts from "The Ring" and "The Grudge" film franchises played baseball against each other https://mobile.twitter.com/zefrrrrrrr/status/1520060624897781762
The choice of local council election candidates in my ward was underwhelming from the established parties, so I decided to have a look at the independents to see what they stood for etc.
For one of them, the only information I could find other than his name was (genuinely) that his favourite biscuit was a Jaffa cake.
Not sure whether or where to rank him in my voting on the basis of this information.
It'd be enough for me. Jaffa cake being a biscuit my arse, clearly the man is a deviant fool.
'Though it has been ruled a cake and is indeed called one, is it not in some sense also a biscuit? I apologise if anyone had been offended by my biscuitry but I call on all lovers of the biscuit and the cake to come together in a shared love of the Jaffa' etc.
'Biscuit' is hard, dry etc.(plus topping/sandwich fill). Jaffa cake is sponge. Which is, er, spongy. The topping is incidental.
I don't disagree, but if someone invited you around for cake and you got Jaffa cakes you'd probably be slightly disappointed, whereas if someone invited you round for tea and biscuits and you got Jaffa cakes you'd probably think you were up on the deal, so...
A vivid evening in New Orleans. Still a hugely compelling city, but maybe edgier than it was
And it’s a terrific tourist cliche but it is nonetheless moving to hear Wonderful World - so closely associated with son-of-Nola Louis Armstrong - played in the Preservation Hall in the French Quarter
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
Anyone remember when Bog G said his vote was up for grabs? Now he’s back shilling for his Tory paymasters again
Deflecting and juvenile comment
Your new strategy is not to debate but instead attack me.
Mrs Thatcher used to say, when they attack me personally I know they’re losing. So thank you.
Big G clearly swallowed the Daily Mail or whatever Tory propaganda he’s sent.
I hope people will remember this when he next “wavers”. He’s one of the most dishonest people on this site.
I think you need to get off the computer this fine weekend and clear your head.
Hear Hear , seems fixated on Big G, not very edyfying to see.
He’s confessed that it would “make his year” to drive BigG off this blog. It seems a quite creepy, and pretty pathetic, vendetta. I hope BigG realises that he’s not the one with the real problem.
I really do and I know he has mental health issues which I greatly sympathise with having my eldest son experiencing extreme PTSD and anxiety for the last two years and only just now after intensive on going treatment is slowly emerging from his and our distress
Don't bring up my mental health issues again. You've been warned.
Can I gently suggest that you stop talking to each other - or about each other.
You clearly don’t get on, and the posts aren’t very interesting for the other readers of the site.
A vivid evening in New Orleans. Still a hugely compelling city, but maybe edgier than it was
And it’s a terrific tourist cliche but it is nonetheless moving to hear Wonderful World - so closely associated with son-of-Nola Louis Armstrong - played in the Preservation Hall in the French Quarter
They need some LD councillors onto those potholes.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
Again. They viewed the footage taken by the Tory students. Said "this is legal" and told the students to go away. I bet the students want to talk to Durham police, they think it grossly unfair that the labour leader acted legally and got away with it.
Apparently it is the two students who are alleging Starmer of breaking covid regulations
Apparently the students don't understand the law. Whether by accident or on purpose is yet to be known.
For someone with no axe to grind/skin in the game you aren't half making a meal of this. How many times do you want to be told that the police HAVE NOT STATED A VIEW on whether it was legal, they have said that it would be contrary to their practice, therefore unfair, to investigate its legality?
Because its bollocks. Here is the police statement: "Durham Police's statement said: “Earlier this year, Durham Constabulary undertook a review of video footage recorded in Durham on April 30, 2021. We stated that we did not believe an offence has been established in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken and would therefore take no further action in relation to the matter." https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/durham-police-insists-not-investigating-23820912
"We do not believe an offence has been established. They looked it it, concluded it was legal "in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken", and said nothing to investigate
May be it’s parsing words but I think “has [not] been established” sounds like ‘not proven’ rather than your more positive ‘concluded it was legal’
Having a chilled weekend after a demanding and hugely stressful week away. Mrs RP took me out for Tapas dinner last night in Aberdeen. A lazy morning and now watching 1981 Grand Prix highlights.
As well as debating with your good selves I am also browsing IKEA for office furniture ideas for the small business centre I am going to set up next door in my old bank, and debating whether I put the Tesla model Y I have reserved through the business or not.
^is this my version of a "chilled weekend"? Good grief...
The only way buying a Tesla makes sense is to put it through as a company car & take advantage of the 2% BIK rate. It’s the glory days of the 1980s all over again for company cars if you’re buying a pure electric EV.
Two factors driving things: My (personally-owned) Outlander PHEV is worth £stupid. Have done 20k miles in it in 12 months and its only cost £4k in depreciation. So flogging it and pocketing the equity vs finance is appealing even though I like the thing. I've done better / spent less this year than expected means surplus profit which means Corporation Tax higher than I'm happy with. Using that as a car deposit instead of paying the tax man appeals
Anyway, the Tesla is like driving a starship compared to the 90s tech Outlander.
The choice of local council election candidates in my ward was underwhelming from the established parties, so I decided to have a look at the independents to see what they stood for etc.
For one of them, the only information I could find other than his name was (genuinely) that his favourite biscuit was a Jaffa cake.
Not sure whether or where to rank him in my voting on the basis of this information.
It'd be enough for me. Jaffa cake being a biscuit my arse, clearly the man is a deviant fool.
'Though it has been ruled a cake and is indeed called one, is it not in some sense also a biscuit? I apologise if anyone had been offended by my biscuitry but I call on all lovers of the biscuit and the cake to come together in a shared love of the Jaffa' etc.
'Biscuit' is hard, dry etc.(plus topping/sandwich fill). Jaffa cake is sponge. Which is, er, spongy. The topping is incidental.
Where does that leave the horrible soft cookies that seem to have become all the rage in cafes and the like?
Biscuit or cake? (Or stale biscuity, cakey monstrosity?)
The problem is solved by calling these cookies “cookies” - neither biscuit nor cake
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
So you have a meeting in a room and someone turns up with a cake. And you are guilty of an offence?
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
The presence of the word "apparently" means you don't know the truth of the matter?
I do not know the truth of the matter not do I say I do, indeed nobody knows the truth of this story.
Hence why Durham Police need to do a MET style investigation and resolve the issue
A Met-style investigation. Of a legal event.
To establish it was legal which is being questioned
Backing calls for "Met style investigations" at the behest of the Mail "to establish it was legal" doesn't seem to be a very conservative thing to do, Big_G.
Fairness is a virtue and to be honest the event is now being widely questioned
What you suggest is a pretty skewed idea of fair. You're saying that police re-investigations (not even investigations) should be at the behest of those with a political motive to call for them ? That is quite extraordinary.
I would suggest that is what happened in regards to the Met, and the police should act on evidence which is now big offered by 2 students who took their own video of the event
Either it is legal to have a campaign event or it is not. The video is hardly new - stills from it were used as the "LOOK AT THIS" splash originally. So its reasonable to assume the police have already reviewed the video. Certainly they aren't now saying "ooh is there a video?" they're saying "we've already investigated this".
Would be fascinating to hear what evidence these (Tory or Corbynite, same thing) students want to offer. If its like on Twitter it will be laughable.
Why not keep an open mind
It is clear it is a controversial event and Durham Police will need to be more open in their response
Honestly chuckling a little.
It is not a controversial event no matter how much the Tories want it to be. The need for an open mind was before the police investigated it. We don't need to consider if the law was broken because the police have investigated and concluded it wasn't.
Its that simple. Tories about to get a kicking on Thursday. Tory MPs have sent post-dated no confidence letters. So must do anything to try and save Tory councillors and thus the boss. So attack Rayner for having a vagina to mesmerise Tory ministers with. Attack Rayner for legally attending a campaign event- THEY LIED about if she was there because they had no concept anyone would care. Don't mention the High Court ruling that the government killed your granny or that a Tory MP wanks off to tractors. Vote Conservative.
I assume its muscle memory. There is Good News my friend! Having left the party and voted against their criminality you don't have to defend them any more. So relax!
NO THEY HAVE NOT
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
They have been very careful not to state any conclusion as to whether the law was broken. Do you really not see that "X" and "There is evidence that X" are logically independent statements: which can be TT, TF, FT or FF?
You haven't left this subject for 4 consec threads now and you persist in logic fails which would embarrass a 10 year old. I'd hate to see you latch on to a subject where you do have "skin in the game."
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
Again. They viewed the footage taken by the Tory students. Said "this is legal" and told the students to go away. I bet the students want to talk to Durham police, they think it grossly unfair that the labour leader acted legally and got away with it.
Apparently it is the two students who are alleging Starmer of breaking covid regulations
Apparently the students don't understand the law. Whether by accident or on purpose is yet to be known.
For someone with no axe to grind/skin in the game you aren't half making a meal of this. How many times do you want to be told that the police HAVE NOT STATED A VIEW on whether it was legal, they have said that it would be contrary to their practice, therefore unfair, to investigate its legality?
Because its bollocks. Here is the police statement: "Durham Police's statement said: “Earlier this year, Durham Constabulary undertook a review of video footage recorded in Durham on April 30, 2021. We stated that we did not believe an offence has been established in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken and would therefore take no further action in relation to the matter." https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/durham-police-insists-not-investigating-23820912
"We do not believe an offence has been established. They looked it it, concluded it was legal "in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken", and said nothing to investigate
May be it’s parsing words but I think “has [not] been established” sounds like ‘not proven’ rather than your more positive ‘concluded it was legal’
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
Again. They viewed the footage taken by the Tory students. Said "this is legal" and told the students to go away. I bet the students want to talk to Durham police, they think it grossly unfair that the labour leader acted legally and got away with it.
Apparently it is the two students who are alleging Starmer of breaking covid regulations
Apparently the students don't understand the law. Whether by accident or on purpose is yet to be known.
For someone with no axe to grind/skin in the game you aren't half making a meal of this. How many times do you want to be told that the police HAVE NOT STATED A VIEW on whether it was legal, they have said that it would be contrary to their practice, therefore unfair, to investigate its legality?
Because its bollocks. Here is the police statement: "Durham Police's statement said: “Earlier this year, Durham Constabulary undertook a review of video footage recorded in Durham on April 30, 2021. We stated that we did not believe an offence has been established in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken and would therefore take no further action in relation to the matter." https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/durham-police-insists-not-investigating-23820912
"We do not believe an offence has been established. They looked it it, concluded it was legal "in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken", and said nothing to investigate
May be it’s parsing words but I think “has [not] been established” sounds like ‘not proven’ rather than your more positive ‘concluded it was legal’
Its "what do you want us to investigate here, we judge that it is legal under the regulations". The police can't pursue detailed investigations without a reason to do so. If the look at the video prompts "regulations allow them to be there" that's it done.
Again, lets assume Durham Police revisit the video. That hasn't changed. The regulations haven't changed. The result won't change. Something either is legal or it is not.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
The Lie/dishonesty about Rayner is not a good look here and is helping the story keep going. In reality there is nothing to see here. But labour have handled it poorly.
If the activity was allowed under law and therefore not illegal who gives a fig whether she was there or not.
Plenty of people it would seem as the story is still dragging on and on. I’d rather my local constabulary would simply just get on with the job and not waste time and resource on this.
The only people dragging this on are Big Dogs supporters, and tory journalists who are trying to whitewash Boris and the tories. The BBC and Sky seem to be running their news progs from some of the newspapers. I'd like to know why it's gone so quiet on PPE and lady mone (a tory), and the high Court condemning the government for spreading covid into the nursing homes
Interesting that the High Court's decision on care homes as it applies equally to Scotland and Wales first ministers
Indeed. So, we either have 3 administrations (I suspect NI will be the same) semi independently making the same mistake on the information that they had before them at the time or the court is being utterly ridiculous in retrospectively determining that the law was broken when Ministers decided to clear the wards of bed blockers for an incoming tsunami of Covid victims without all of the checks being made on those being transferred.
This is the sort of thing that gives lawyers a bad name. There were no good choices here, only the less bad and the decision was entirely rational and reasonable in that context.
I’m old enough to remember when the PB consensus was that the SG’s attitude to COVID and care homes was uniquely awful, a view expressed repetitively and loudly.
Anas very much in agreement. At this rate Labour might also want C4 gutted and neutralised.
I don't remember any consensus although some did point out the awful consequences of the decisions made. But for me all of the administrations, whether led by the SNP, the Tories or Labour faced almost impossible choices. Did we want covid victims dying in corridors on trollies in the way we saw in northern Italy or did we prioritise the available beds by removing some of the bureaucratic impediments to the discharge of patient who in most cases should not have been in hospital in the first place but were stuck there because acceptable care plans had not been put in place?
With hindsight we can say that the waves on hospital admissions did not prove as high as the worst case scenarios anticipated but that is only hindsight. The decisions made were, in my view, rational and involved a weighing of harms and potential harms to get the best outcome. If we had known at the time that asymptomatic carriers could infect others then that balance may well have been different but we didn't.
However they should have been moved to the Nightingale hospitals that had fortunes spent on them.
They were for dealing with thousands of terminal patients. An eventuality we should be very thankful did not happen.
One of the worst lessons that could be "learned" from this is that we don't need to set up Nightingales in the next pandemic.
They could have used as a halfway house
They would have been terrible. They were not set up for dignity or privacy - which is what matters in care homes.
They were basically warehouses for people on mechanical ventilation
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
Again. They viewed the footage taken by the Tory students. Said "this is legal" and told the students to go away. I bet the students want to talk to Durham police, they think it grossly unfair that the labour leader acted legally and got away with it.
Apparently it is the two students who are alleging Starmer of breaking covid regulations
Apparently the students don't understand the law. Whether by accident or on purpose is yet to be known.
For someone with no axe to grind/skin in the game you aren't half making a meal of this. How many times do you want to be told that the police HAVE NOT STATED A VIEW on whether it was legal, they have said that it would be contrary to their practice, therefore unfair, to investigate its legality?
Because its bollocks. Here is the police statement: "Durham Police's statement said: “Earlier this year, Durham Constabulary undertook a review of video footage recorded in Durham on April 30, 2021. We stated that we did not believe an offence has been established in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken and would therefore take no further action in relation to the matter." https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/durham-police-insists-not-investigating-23820912
"We do not believe an offence has been established. They looked it it, concluded it was legal "in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken", and said nothing to investigate
May be it’s parsing words but I think “has [not] been established” sounds like ‘not proven’ rather than your more positive ‘concluded it was legal’
We don't have not proven in English law.
We aren't talking about verdicts, so not really the strongest point. And anyway we do, just not in so many words: "not guilty" actually means "guilt has not been established to our satisfaction."
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
Isn’t that what happened with the infamous birthday cake?
I said previously the FPN for that event seems strange and sets the bar low given the other events seemed on the face of it a much clearer breach of the rules .
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It does suggest that isn’t the key legal test, since undeniably the primary reason they were there was for work, not a seven-minute party, but they still got a FPN.
At least 1 person so gathered for the birthday celebration was not there for work i.e. Carrie. Starmer’s event had no spouses wandering in.
Doesn’t she live there? In any case, it wasn’t just her who got one (if she even did).
How many times do we have to go over these stupid Partygate apologias? Carrie lives in a flat above No. 11. The Cabinet do not meet in her living room. She does not live in the Cabinet Office meeting rooms.
Everyone present was choosing to be at an event that was not a work event, so presumably that is why they all got fined.
Carries status is beside the point, since the vast majority of those with FPNs are not Carrie.
Your last statement could equally be applied to the gathering with Starmer et al, couldn’t it? A group of people having a few minutes of food and drink between work meetings.
I assume that given the long hours people were working at Downing Street, there would have been hundreds of occasions where they stopped for a regular meal. Clearly people need to eat, and no-one would call for FPNs for those meals.
The cake was not a regular event, it was a larger group gathering together for something social in nature.
It was a birthday party. Wouldn't surprise me if there was jelly and a clown. In fact we know there was a clown.
But what looked at first blush like jelly, was actually pure muscle.
Yep. It was so hard a spoon was no good. You needed a chisel.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
Again. They viewed the footage taken by the Tory students. Said "this is legal" and told the students to go away. I bet the students want to talk to Durham police, they think it grossly unfair that the labour leader acted legally and got away with it.
Apparently it is the two students who are alleging Starmer of breaking covid regulations
Apparently the students don't understand the law. Whether by accident or on purpose is yet to be known.
For someone with no axe to grind/skin in the game you aren't half making a meal of this. How many times do you want to be told that the police HAVE NOT STATED A VIEW on whether it was legal, they have said that it would be contrary to their practice, therefore unfair, to investigate its legality?
Because its bollocks. Here is the police statement: "Durham Police's statement said: “Earlier this year, Durham Constabulary undertook a review of video footage recorded in Durham on April 30, 2021. We stated that we did not believe an offence has been established in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken and would therefore take no further action in relation to the matter." https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/durham-police-insists-not-investigating-23820912
"We do not believe an offence has been established. They looked it it, concluded it was legal "in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken", and said nothing to investigate
May be it’s parsing words but I think “has [not] been established” sounds like ‘not proven’ rather than your more positive ‘concluded it was legal’
Its "what do you want us to investigate here, we judge that it is legal under the regulations". The police can't pursue detailed investigations without a reason to do so. If the look at the video prompts "regulations allow them to be there" that's it done.
Again, lets assume Durham Police revisit the video. That hasn't changed. The regulations haven't changed. The result won't change. Something either is legal or it is not.
Yes, but so does - hypothetically - "the bastards are guilty as sin but we don't think we can prove it/it is not our policy to attempt to porove it," so why do you think one possible explanation rules out all others?
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
The presence of the word "apparently" means you don't know the truth of the matter?
I do not know the truth of the matter not do I say I do, indeed nobody knows the truth of this story.
Hence why Durham Police need to do a MET style investigation and resolve the issue
A Met-style investigation. Of a legal event.
To establish it was legal which is being questioned
Backing calls for "Met style investigations" at the behest of the Mail "to establish it was legal" doesn't seem to be a very conservative thing to do, Big_G.
Fairness is a virtue and to be honest the event is now being widely questioned
What you suggest is a pretty skewed idea of fair. You're saying that police re-investigations (not even investigations) should be at the behest of those with a political motive to call for them ? That is quite extraordinary.
I would suggest that is what happened in regards to the Met, and the police should act on evidence which is now big offered by 2 students who took their own video of the event
Either it is legal to have a campaign event or it is not. The video is hardly new - stills from it were used as the "LOOK AT THIS" splash originally. So its reasonable to assume the police have already reviewed the video. Certainly they aren't now saying "ooh is there a video?" they're saying "we've already investigated this".
Would be fascinating to hear what evidence these (Tory or Corbynite, same thing) students want to offer. If its like on Twitter it will be laughable.
Why not keep an open mind
It is clear it is a controversial event and Durham Police will need to be more open in their response
Honestly chuckling a little.
It is not a controversial event no matter how much the Tories want it to be. The need for an open mind was before the police investigated it. We don't need to consider if the law was broken because the police have investigated and concluded it wasn't.
Its that simple. Tories about to get a kicking on Thursday. Tory MPs have sent post-dated no confidence letters. So must do anything to try and save Tory councillors and thus the boss. So attack Rayner for having a vagina to mesmerise Tory ministers with. Attack Rayner for legally attending a campaign event- THEY LIED about if she was there because they had no concept anyone would care. Don't mention the High Court ruling that the government killed your granny or that a Tory MP wanks off to tractors. Vote Conservative.
I assume its muscle memory. There is Good News my friend! Having left the party and voted against their criminality you don't have to defend them any more. So relax!
NO THEY HAVE NOT
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
They have been very careful not to state any conclusion as to whether the law was broken. Do you really not see that "X" and "There is evidence that X" are logically independent statements: which can be TT, TF, FT or FF?
You haven't left this subject for 4 consec threads now and you persist in logic fails which would embarrass a 10 year old. I'd hate to see you latch on to a subject where you do have "skin in the game."
We will have to agree to disagree will we not. On my side is Durham Police. On your side is Dan Hodges. Personally I am happy with my side.
On your "evidence of absence point". As there is no evidence that has been presented to the police demonstrating anything suggesting illegality, on what grounds would you have them conduct further investigations?
The complaint raised was the video taken by these two students. It was in the papers at the time. The police looked at it, saw nothing of concern and said so. Now the Tories are upset. The students want to talk to the police. About their video. Which they have already reviewed and discounted.
You seem to be proposing a politically-driven investigation outside of the legal framework which governs the police. Someone complains the law was broken. Presents evidence. This shows no criminality says the police. Not good enough say the Tories, our guy got done, so he must get done. Complains about the evidence not being looked at. But it has been looked at.
Does anyone have any *new* evidence with which to make a new complaint? Without a reason to open a new investigation what is the legal grounds for them to do so?
If I have raised this on a number of threads it is for simple reason thus: this government are doing dangerous things to the Rule of Law. We cannot have them breaking the law openly and getting away with it. Or bending the application of law for party political reasons. And attacking the impartial upholders of the law for electoral reasons. This is a very very slippery slope. And otherwise sensible heads like your good self have lost their shit over this.
The key legal question is where the people in attendance there for the primary reason of work or a social gathering .
If you work then pass some sandwiches around and a drink then go back to work this is legal . It’s pretty clear that Starmer is standing chatting to constituency workers who are seated in front of laptops in the original footage .
Durham police have obviously seen the full footage and have judged this to not have broken the rules .
The DM in its desperate efforts to make false equivalence only keeps partygate going and unless you’re stupid with an IQ of a fruit fly then it’s pretty clear that party central at no 10 is in a different league to the dead horse the DM keeps trying to flog !
So you have a meeting in a room and someone turns up with a cake. And you are guilty of an offence?
If they bring 20 more people with them, who weren't attending the meeting, then yes. I guess we may find out exactly what happened when the report comes out, but that appears to be the difference.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
Again. They viewed the footage taken by the Tory students. Said "this is legal" and told the students to go away. I bet the students want to talk to Durham police, they think it grossly unfair that the labour leader acted legally and got away with it.
Apparently it is the two students who are alleging Starmer of breaking covid regulations
Apparently the students don't understand the law. Whether by accident or on purpose is yet to be known.
For someone with no axe to grind/skin in the game you aren't half making a meal of this. How many times do you want to be told that the police HAVE NOT STATED A VIEW on whether it was legal, they have said that it would be contrary to their practice, therefore unfair, to investigate its legality?
Because its bollocks. Here is the police statement: "Durham Police's statement said: “Earlier this year, Durham Constabulary undertook a review of video footage recorded in Durham on April 30, 2021. We stated that we did not believe an offence has been established in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken and would therefore take no further action in relation to the matter." https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/durham-police-insists-not-investigating-23820912
"We do not believe an offence has been established. They looked it it, concluded it was legal "in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken", and said nothing to investigate
May be it’s parsing words but I think “has [not] been established” sounds like ‘not proven’ rather than your more positive ‘concluded it was legal’
We don't have not proven in English law.
I know. It was a short hand way of saying “insufficient evidence to prove guilt”. That’s not the same as “the event was legal”.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
Again. They viewed the footage taken by the Tory students. Said "this is legal" and told the students to go away. I bet the students want to talk to Durham police, they think it grossly unfair that the labour leader acted legally and got away with it.
Apparently it is the two students who are alleging Starmer of breaking covid regulations
Apparently the students don't understand the law. Whether by accident or on purpose is yet to be known.
For someone with no axe to grind/skin in the game you aren't half making a meal of this. How many times do you want to be told that the police HAVE NOT STATED A VIEW on whether it was legal, they have said that it would be contrary to their practice, therefore unfair, to investigate its legality?
Because its bollocks. Here is the police statement: "Durham Police's statement said: “Earlier this year, Durham Constabulary undertook a review of video footage recorded in Durham on April 30, 2021. We stated that we did not believe an offence has been established in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken and would therefore take no further action in relation to the matter." https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/durham-police-insists-not-investigating-23820912
"We do not believe an offence has been established. They looked it it, concluded it was legal "in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken", and said nothing to investigate
May be it’s parsing words but I think “has [not] been established” sounds like ‘not proven’ rather than your more positive ‘concluded it was legal’
Its "what do you want us to investigate here, we judge that it is legal under the regulations". The police can't pursue detailed investigations without a reason to do so. If the look at the video prompts "regulations allow them to be there" that's it done.
Again, lets assume Durham Police revisit the video. That hasn't changed. The regulations haven't changed. The result won't change. Something either is legal or it is not.
You’re making an assumption about the police rationale.
Let’s say - for example - that one of the open laptops had porn playing.
Was it a [dull] sex party or a work event at which a bad actor was behaving inappropriately? Without sound (and judging by the fact the film is from outside the wi die I guess there isn’t) you can’t tell.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
The presence of the word "apparently" means you don't know the truth of the matter?
I do not know the truth of the matter not do I say I do, indeed nobody knows the truth of this story.
Hence why Durham Police need to do a MET style investigation and resolve the issue
A Met-style investigation. Of a legal event.
To establish it was legal which is being questioned
Backing calls for "Met style investigations" at the behest of the Mail "to establish it was legal" doesn't seem to be a very conservative thing to do, Big_G.
Fairness is a virtue and to be honest the event is now being widely questioned
What you suggest is a pretty skewed idea of fair. You're saying that police re-investigations (not even investigations) should be at the behest of those with a political motive to call for them ? That is quite extraordinary.
I would suggest that is what happened in regards to the Met, and the police should act on evidence which is now big offered by 2 students who took their own video of the event
Either it is legal to have a campaign event or it is not. The video is hardly new - stills from it were used as the "LOOK AT THIS" splash originally. So its reasonable to assume the police have already reviewed the video. Certainly they aren't now saying "ooh is there a video?" they're saying "we've already investigated this".
Would be fascinating to hear what evidence these (Tory or Corbynite, same thing) students want to offer. If its like on Twitter it will be laughable.
Why not keep an open mind
It is clear it is a controversial event and Durham Police will need to be more open in their response
Honestly chuckling a little.
It is not a controversial event no matter how much the Tories want it to be. The need for an open mind was before the police investigated it. We don't need to consider if the law was broken because the police have investigated and concluded it wasn't.
Its that simple. Tories about to get a kicking on Thursday. Tory MPs have sent post-dated no confidence letters. So must do anything to try and save Tory councillors and thus the boss. So attack Rayner for having a vagina to mesmerise Tory ministers with. Attack Rayner for legally attending a campaign event- THEY LIED about if she was there because they had no concept anyone would care. Don't mention the High Court ruling that the government killed your granny or that a Tory MP wanks off to tractors. Vote Conservative.
I assume its muscle memory. There is Good News my friend! Having left the party and voted against their criminality you don't have to defend them any more. So relax!
NO THEY HAVE NOT
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
They have been very careful not to state any conclusion as to whether the law was broken. Do you really not see that "X" and "There is evidence that X" are logically independent statements: which can be TT, TF, FT or FF?
You haven't left this subject for 4 consec threads now and you persist in logic fails which would embarrass a 10 year old. I'd hate to see you latch on to a subject where you do have "skin in the game."
We will have to agree to disagree will we not. On my side is Durham Police. On your side is Dan Hodges. Personally I am happy with my side.
On your "evidence of absence point". As there is no evidence that has been presented to the police demonstrating anything suggesting illegality, on what grounds would you have them conduct further investigations?
The complaint raised was the video taken by these two students. It was in the papers at the time. The police looked at it, saw nothing of concern and said so. Now the Tories are upset. The students want to talk to the police. About their video. Which they have already reviewed and discounted.
You seem to be proposing a politically-driven investigation outside of the legal framework which governs the police. Someone complains the law was broken. Presents evidence. This shows no criminality says the police. Not good enough say the Tories, our guy got done, so he must get done. Complains about the evidence not being looked at. But it has been looked at.
Does anyone have any *new* evidence with which to make a new complaint? Without a reason to open a new investigation what is the legal grounds for them to do so?
If I have raised this on a number of threads it is for simple reason thus: this government are doing dangerous things to the Rule of Law. We cannot have them breaking the law openly and getting away with it. Or bending the application of law for party political reasons. And attacking the impartial upholders of the law for electoral reasons. This is a very very slippery slope. And otherwise sensible heads like your good self have lost their shit over this.
No, you have lost your shit (and are you still saying you have "no dog in the fight?" LOL) Actually, I do: I desperately want SKS to win the next election and am therefore seriously peeved at the ineptitude with which he has mishandled this issue (on which I have no reason to doubt he is entirely innocent).
What exercises me, is people being wrong on the internet. You are STILL saying you "have Durham police on your side" on a question which a reasonably intelligent 8 year old would realise Durham police have not stated a position on one way or the other. You cannot get from X has not been established, to not-X. Surely you actually realise that, and just feel too committed to back down?
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
Again. They viewed the footage taken by the Tory students. Said "this is legal" and told the students to go away. I bet the students want to talk to Durham police, they think it grossly unfair that the labour leader acted legally and got away with it.
Apparently it is the two students who are alleging Starmer of breaking covid regulations
Apparently the students don't understand the law. Whether by accident or on purpose is yet to be known.
For someone with no axe to grind/skin in the game you aren't half making a meal of this. How many times do you want to be told that the police HAVE NOT STATED A VIEW on whether it was legal, they have said that it would be contrary to their practice, therefore unfair, to investigate its legality?
Because its bollocks. Here is the police statement: "Durham Police's statement said: “Earlier this year, Durham Constabulary undertook a review of video footage recorded in Durham on April 30, 2021. We stated that we did not believe an offence has been established in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken and would therefore take no further action in relation to the matter." https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/durham-police-insists-not-investigating-23820912
"We do not believe an offence has been established. They looked it it, concluded it was legal "in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken", and said nothing to investigate
May be it’s parsing words but I think “has [not] been established” sounds like ‘not proven’ rather than your more positive ‘concluded it was legal’
Its "what do you want us to investigate here, we judge that it is legal under the regulations". The police can't pursue detailed investigations without a reason to do so. If the look at the video prompts "regulations allow them to be there" that's it done.
Again, lets assume Durham Police revisit the video. That hasn't changed. The regulations haven't changed. The result won't change. Something either is legal or it is not.
Yes, but so does - hypothetically - "the bastards are guilty as sin but we don't think we can prove it/it is not our policy to attempt to porove it," so why do you think one possible explanation rules out all others?
1. Hello Police I want to complaint about the Labour party. Here is my evidence they are bad 2. [Watches video, checks regulations] we do not believe this constitutes evidence that an offence took place. 3. Yebbut you have to do Starmer, our guy got done 4. Do you have any new evidence to back up your allegation? You didn't provide anything that prompted the due suspicion we need to investigate any further than we have 5. Yebbut they said Rayner wasn't there and she was and where did they stay as hotels were closed and the election is on Thursday so you must
A Happy Bealltainn to those having such pagan fun. In Estonia the last night is Volberiöö- Walpurgisnacht- when the witches dance until the cock crows and mortals should fear to be awake. These days its a bit like American Halloween, and mostly celebrated by the students at the University of Tartu with fire parades and raucous revelry. There will be many hungover fraternity students this morning.
In a way it rather feels like Russia is in some feverish Volberiöö itself. The unhinged television commentary; the casual references to levels of brutality that go beyond even the perversions of the most demented Nazi sadist; the increasing silence by a growing number as a smaller group descends into an insane fury.
That silence is beginning to speak volumes. The anti war graffitti that seems to be spreading across European Russia may or may not be significant, but if Putin is planning to announce conscription in European Russia, then he is playing with fire. So far the large casualties in the war have been borne by non Russian minorities: Buryatia and Dagestan especially. If conscription now means that young Muscovites are in line, then the regime will need to explain how badly the war has been going for them so far. To openly admit that it has not exactly been a walk in the park will ask a lot of other questions.
In any event, it would take months for the conscripts to be sufficiently prepared to enter the battlefield. Despite the assessment that the war could indeed go on for months or even years, it may well be that Russia does not have months. A comprehensive Russian defeat in the East and South grows more likely as Ukraine brings in new units and new equipment and Russian losses remain critical.
The Russian economy, including its arms manufacturing sector, is coming to a dead stop as sector after sector wilts under the sanctions regime. The point is that Putin can announce whatever he pleases, but the exhausted and shattered Russian army and the crippled nag of its economy may simply not be able to deliver.
Then the Russian Volberiöö will begin in earnest.
Not long hopefully, before Putin and his allies get the reluctant Turkish conscript treatment.
On this mornings Sophie Ridge and Sophie Raworth programmes both Starmer and Lammy admitted the lie that Rayner was not present at the controversial Durham meeting, and it is becoming obvious that the correct way for this issue to be resolved is for Durham police to interview those present and send out questionnaire as per the Met
It appears Durham Police only looked at the tape and have not questioned Starmer or those present and now 2 students who actually filmed at the event are prepared to make statements about it to Durham Police
Starmer and Labour should welcome a full investigation as they are confident no covid regulations were broken and the matter can be resolved
If only we can get Starmer and Rayner a FPN each it proves Johnson's innocence of all charges! This seems to be a case of should something be repeated often enough it comes true.
The evidence looks very, very slim to me that the law was broken, although the lie is foolish and unacceptable and perhaps you should demand Starmer and Rayner should both resign, not for the event but for the subsequent lie.
Boris is guilty and should resign but Starmer and Rayner should submit to an investigation over Durham as Durham Police have not interviewed anyone present nor the 2 students who made a video of the event and have said they will speak to Durham Police if asked
Starmer and Rayner have nothing to worry about if it was legal but to date Durham Police have not undertaken a proper investigation
I don’t think that’s true. Wasn’t there an investigation by Durham police previously?
Apparently they viewed footage of the event but have not interviewed anyone present and certainly not the 2 students who have come forward with their own video of the event and want to speak to Durham Police
This is not about excusing Botis as he is inexcusable but it is about fairness in the application of the law and investigation into covid offences
Again. They viewed the footage taken by the Tory students. Said "this is legal" and told the students to go away. I bet the students want to talk to Durham police, they think it grossly unfair that the labour leader acted legally and got away with it.
Apparently it is the two students who are alleging Starmer of breaking covid regulations
Apparently the students don't understand the law. Whether by accident or on purpose is yet to be known.
For someone with no axe to grind/skin in the game you aren't half making a meal of this. How many times do you want to be told that the police HAVE NOT STATED A VIEW on whether it was legal, they have said that it would be contrary to their practice, therefore unfair, to investigate its legality?
Because its bollocks. Here is the police statement: "Durham Police's statement said: “Earlier this year, Durham Constabulary undertook a review of video footage recorded in Durham on April 30, 2021. We stated that we did not believe an offence has been established in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken and would therefore take no further action in relation to the matter." https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/durham-police-insists-not-investigating-23820912
"We do not believe an offence has been established. They looked it it, concluded it was legal "in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at the time the footage was taken", and said nothing to investigate
May be it’s parsing words but I think “has [not] been established” sounds like ‘not proven’ rather than your more positive ‘concluded it was legal’
Its "what do you want us to investigate here, we judge that it is legal under the regulations". The police can't pursue detailed investigations without a reason to do so. If the look at the video prompts "regulations allow them to be there" that's it done.
Again, lets assume Durham Police revisit the video. That hasn't changed. The regulations haven't changed. The result won't change. Something either is legal or it is not.
Yes, but so does - hypothetically - "the bastards are guilty as sin but we don't think we can prove it/it is not our policy to attempt to porove it," so why do you think one possible explanation rules out all others?
1. Hello Police I want to complaint about the Labour party. Here is my evidence they are bad 2. [Watches video, checks regulations] we do not believe this constitutes evidence that an offence took place. 3. Yebbut you have to do Starmer, our guy got done 4. Do you have any new evidence to back up your allegation? You didn't provide anything that prompted the due suspicion we need to investigate any further than we have 5. Yebbut they said Rayner wasn't there and she was and where did they stay as hotels were closed and the election is on Thursday so you must
The choice of local council election candidates in my ward was underwhelming from the established parties, so I decided to have a look at the independents to see what they stood for etc.
For one of them, the only information I could find other than his name was (genuinely) that his favourite biscuit was a Jaffa cake.
Not sure whether or where to rank him in my voting on the basis of this information.
It'd be enough for me. Jaffa cake being a biscuit my arse, clearly the man is a deviant fool.
'Though it has been ruled a cake and is indeed called one, is it not in some sense also a biscuit? I apologise if anyone had been offended by my biscuitry but I call on all lovers of the biscuit and the cake to come together in a shared love of the Jaffa' etc.
'Biscuit' is hard, dry etc.(plus topping/sandwich fill). Jaffa cake is sponge. Which is, er, spongy. The topping is incidental.
I don't disagree, but if someone invited you around for cake and you got Jaffa cakes you'd probably be slightly disappointed, whereas if someone invited you round for tea and biscuits and you got Jaffa cakes you'd probably think you were up on the deal, so...
I’m not sure which debate is more bizarrely tedious, Tractor-porn-gate or Durham-beer-party-not
TBH British politics looks neither sensible nor interesting when viewed from abroad. Even our sex scandals have a pathetically dismal quality
But this may be true for all politics obsessives who go abroad, whatever their nationality. Suddenly all the stuff you “cared about” can be seen more objectively, and it suffers, badly, with that perspective
Comments
For one of them, the only information I could find other than his name was (genuinely) that his favourite biscuit was a Jaffa cake.
Not sure whether or where to rank him in my voting on the basis of this information.
However, if covid regulations were breached it would be an offence that many thousand committed during that period
The argument is that the drinking and food took place at 10.00pm after the meeting, and this was against the regulations applying at the time
I have no idea who is telling the truth but it is not a conspiracy for the event to be investigated further especially as 2 students want to come forward with their video of the event
Would be fascinating to hear what evidence these (Tory or Corbynite, same thing) students want to offer. If its like on Twitter it will be laughable.
The Met enquiry was a direct result of detailed information provided by the Cabinet Office.
As Dick plainly stated:
“As a result, firstly, of the information provided by the Cabinet Office inquiry team, and, secondly, my own officers’ assessment, I can confirm that the Met is now investigating a number of events that took place at Downing Street and Whitehall in the last two years in relation to potential breaches of Covid-19 regulations.”
It is clear it is a controversial event and Durham Police will need to be more open in their response
The two students who filmed the video of Starmer and others want to provide a statement . They also seem to have an issue with Starmer and others being outside drinking which wasn’t a breach of the regulations !
It is not a controversial event no matter how much the Tories want it to be. The need for an open mind was before the police investigated it. We don't need to consider if the law was broken because the police have investigated and concluded it wasn't.
Its that simple. Tories about to get a kicking on Thursday. Tory MPs have sent post-dated no confidence letters. So must do anything to try and save Tory councillors and thus the boss. So attack Rayner for having a vagina to mesmerise Tory ministers with. Attack Rayner for legally attending a campaign event- THEY LIED about if she was there because they had no concept anyone would care. Don't mention the High Court ruling that the government killed your granny or that a Tory MP wanks off to tractors. Vote Conservative.
I assume its muscle memory. There is Good News my friend! Having left the party and voted against their criminality you don't have to defend them any more. So relax!
Big G and Little G.
One of the worst lessons that could be "learned" from this is that we don't need to set up Nightingales in the next pandemic.
A superb body swerve of the cake or biscuit dispute. The boy will go far.
The point was to have what are essentially isolation hospitals for the infected. Had they been available early, many of the care home deaths resulting from discharged infected patients might have been avoided.
Having some isolation capacity maintained on an ongoing basis ought to be costed and studied.
Everyone present was choosing to be at an event that was not a work event, so presumably that is why they all got fined.
Four notes above middle C?
Your last statement could equally be applied to the gathering with Starmer et al, couldn’t it? A group of people having a few minutes of food and drink between work meetings.
It's reported that up to 30 people attended - and that large group of people wouldn't have gathered together otherwise.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/may/01/four-in-five-people-in-the-uk-believe-in-being-woke-to-race-and-social-justice
Golly
As well as debating with your good selves I am also browsing IKEA for office furniture ideas for the small business centre I am going to set up next door in my old bank, and debating whether I put the Tesla model Y I have reserved through the business or not.
^is this my version of a "chilled weekend"? Good grief...
The cake was not a regular event, it was a larger group gathering together for something social in nature.
They said she attended the event with their son and stood by alongside some socially distanced staff. One insider said: 'The Prime Minister was there for a very short time. He was eating a salad lunch in the Cabinet room with people he worked with all day. People kept popping in.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10712869/DANIEL-MARTIN-analyses-REALLY-happened-Boris-Johnsons-called-birthday-party.html
Not to mention this event was reported on almost immediately in 2020 when no one cared about this sort of thing, apparently.
My statement does not apply to Durham because that was a work event.
We have 2 events. The Police examined evidence in both cases. In one case, they issued FPNs; in the other, they didn’t. It is possible that the Police did a bad job, but the simplest explanation is that one event breached the rules and the other didn’t.
On 22% they would stand to gain around 9 seats from the SNP. This poll puts them on 24% and rising, at the SNP's expense.
Much more of this and it could have a massive impact on Labour's chances of an overall majority.
Just been in to Waitrose - hardly any masks to be seen. Even Mrs P, who has been something of a mask enthusiast, 'forgot' to put hers on.
My personal strand of biscuitry places suitability for dunking as a key criteria, but I recognise this is not accepted as orthodoxy yet among mainstream biscuitry.
For example that MP who just resigned over tractors (he’s so senior I’ve forgotten his name already). Jess Phillips has called for apology investigation into whether he has committed a criminal offence (I think displaying obscene materials in a public place) under some law from the 1980s.
What is the public benefit in that? It’s a purely political call - but the issue is it leads to thinks like this kerfuffle about whether the MET or Durham police acted politically or not.
The police should keep out for politics. And politicians shouldn’t try to involve them
Biscuit or cake? (Or stale biscuity, cakey monstrosity?)
It was definitely in decline before then, but the announcement they were no longer required (but still "recommended") essentially finished them off in very short order - very few people were still wearing them.
Thinking once again about the Japanese promotional event in 2017 where the ghosts from "The Ring" and "The Grudge" film franchises played baseball against each other
https://mobile.twitter.com/zefrrrrrrr/status/1520060624897781762
And it’s a terrific tourist cliche but it is nonetheless moving to hear Wonderful World - so closely associated with son-of-Nola Louis Armstrong - played in the Preservation Hall in the French Quarter
You clearly don’t get on, and the posts aren’t very interesting for the other readers of the site.
My (personally-owned) Outlander PHEV is worth £stupid. Have done 20k miles in it in 12 months and its only cost £4k in depreciation. So flogging it and pocketing the equity vs finance is appealing even though I like the thing.
I've done better / spent less this year than expected means surplus profit which means Corporation Tax higher than I'm happy with. Using that as a car deposit instead of paying the tax man appeals
Anyway, the Tesla is like driving a starship compared to the 90s tech Outlander.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
They have been very careful not to state any conclusion as to whether the law was broken. Do you really not see that "X" and "There is evidence that X" are logically independent statements: which can be TT, TF, FT or FF?
You haven't left this subject for 4 consec threads now and you persist in logic fails which would embarrass a 10 year old. I'd hate to see you latch on to a subject where you do have "skin in the game."
Again, lets assume Durham Police revisit the video. That hasn't changed. The regulations haven't changed. The result won't change. Something either is legal or it is not.
They were basically warehouses for people on mechanical ventilation
On your "evidence of absence point". As there is no evidence that has been presented to the police demonstrating anything suggesting illegality, on what grounds would you have them conduct further investigations?
The complaint raised was the video taken by these two students. It was in the papers at the time. The police looked at it, saw nothing of concern and said so. Now the Tories are upset. The students want to talk to the police. About their video. Which they have already reviewed and discounted.
You seem to be proposing a politically-driven investigation outside of the legal framework which governs the police. Someone complains the law was broken. Presents evidence. This shows no criminality says the police. Not good enough say the Tories, our guy got done, so he must get done. Complains about the evidence not being looked at. But it has been looked at.
Does anyone have any *new* evidence with which to make a new complaint? Without a reason to open a new investigation what is the legal grounds for them to do so?
If I have raised this on a number of threads it is for simple reason thus: this government are doing dangerous things to the Rule of Law. We cannot have them breaking the law openly and getting away with it. Or bending the application of law for party political reasons. And attacking the impartial upholders of the law for electoral reasons. This is a very very slippery slope. And otherwise sensible heads like your good self have lost their shit over this.
Let’s say - for example - that one of the open laptops had porn playing.
Was it a [dull] sex party or a work event at which a bad actor was behaving inappropriately? Without sound (and judging by the fact the film is from outside the wi die I guess there isn’t) you can’t tell.
So you don’t know if it is legal or not.
What exercises me, is people being wrong on the internet. You are STILL saying you "have Durham police on your side" on a question which a reasonably intelligent 8 year old would realise Durham police have not stated a position on one way or the other. You cannot get from X has not been established, to not-X. Surely you actually realise that, and just feel too committed to back down?
2. [Watches video, checks regulations] we do not believe this constitutes evidence that an offence took place.
3. Yebbut you have to do Starmer, our guy got done
4. Do you have any new evidence to back up your allegation? You didn't provide anything that prompted the due suspicion we need to investigate any further than we have
5. Yebbut they said Rayner wasn't there and she was and where did they stay as hotels were closed and the election is on Thursday so you must
You are a moron.
TBH British politics looks neither sensible nor interesting when viewed from abroad. Even our sex scandals have a pathetically dismal quality
But this may be true for all politics obsessives who go abroad, whatever their nationality. Suddenly all the stuff you “cared about” can be seen more objectively, and it suffers, badly, with that perspective