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
It would have been considerably less terrible that what actually happened. And most discharged infected patients need only have stayed there for a fortnight.
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?
I don't get how you or why you are ranting about this?
Someone made a complaint. Provided evidence to back up their complaint. Police view evidence. Conclude the complainant doesn't understand the law. Dismisses the complaint. As no other valid evidence has been raised what do they have to investigate?
A very simple legal position here - Starmer et al are innocent of breaking the law until anyone proves otherwise. The only "proof" being offered does not - so say the police provide sufficient evidence that an offence has taken place.
TBH I find the bunfight to be funny, I'm not dying on a hill to defend Starmer. If evidence of him and Rayner holding lockdown tractor orgies came to light I would roar with laughter as hard as HY. What i am prepared to defend is the principle that the twat press - whether left or right - can't just print any old crap and call it news. That partisan gobshites saying "they are guilty as the hotels were closed" are not providing evidence.
If someone wants to proffer evidence that Starmer and Rayner et al broke the law then do so. All we have here is evidence that the police quickly dismissed being hurled about in anger because it was supposed to smear him and thus save the Big Dog and it failed.
Like I said, when the police get weaponised for political reasons and the rule of law goes out the window we're in deep trouble. Unless anyone has any evidence suggesting criminality the police cannot and should not investigate people going about their legal business. Whoever they are.
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…
Absence of evidence is absence of any grounds for investigation.
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
Gonna have to drop an M bomb here.
You are a moron.
So tell me what evidence you want the police to view? "I think x crime happened". OK sir do you have any evidence. "No". And you're saying the police should just investigate anyway? So I can make up any lies I want about anyone - how about you - with no evidence. And the police should bring you in for questioning about my baseless complaint?
That isn't a world we want to live in. Complaints leading to police investigations require evidence. The only evidence in this case has already been dismissed. So on what grounds are we asking them to investigate - because Paul Dacre wants them to?
Next year’s Formula E car is quite interesting. The Gen3 car will be lighter than the current Formula E car, with a maximum power output of 350kW, capable of a top speed of over 320kph (200mph). It will feature two powertrains – one at the front and rear – which will more than double the regenerative potential of the car compared to the current model.…
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…
Absence of evidence is absence of any grounds for investigation.
The Twitter storm has been telling. Tory activists keep popping up with lots of evidence, none of which stands up to any scrutiny. "Where did they stay, the hotels were closed" is the best one. posted repeatedly by various people of further proof of criminality. That hotels were open doesn't bother them, they just post government graphics saying hotels are closed (to holidaymakers).
The police don't legally have the luxury of pursuing malicious investigations. They have to take complaints seriously. They did here. Its just that nobody has presented them with any evidence showing even a suspicion of breaking the law. Because the people demanding one don't know what the law was, they just want one because politics.
Can I make allegations against Nigel Farage because I don't like him, supply no relevant evidence and then have the police drag him publicly through the mud searching for the evidence nobody has supplied to back up my baseless allegation? No, I can't. Yet apparently we can if its election week and the government is losing. No, we can't. Do we have the rule of law or not?
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.
We can only hope. The foot needs to stay on the accelerator starting with an EU oil embargo.
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.
I think Labour's prospects in Scotland in the next election will depend on much as pro-indy voters staying at home as much as directly picking up voters from the SNP. I think there's definitely an element of the pro-indy electorate who have become disillusioned with the SNP and feel that's it now just a bland, technocratic social democratic party who aren't that interested in independence. They definitely won't vote for Labour (nor probably Alba for that matter), but Labour doesn't need them to... it just needs for them to not bother turning up at the polling station.;
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
Gonna have to drop an M bomb here.
You are a moron.
So tell me what evidence you want the police to view? "I think x crime happened". OK sir do you have any evidence. "No". And you're saying the police should just investigate anyway? So I can make up any lies I want about anyone - how about you - with no evidence. And the police should bring you in for questioning about my baseless complaint?
That isn't a world we want to live in. Complaints leading to police investigations require evidence. The only evidence in this case has already been dismissed. So on what grounds are we asking them to investigate - because Paul Dacre wants them to?
Shit. You are deranged about this. The police have played a Don't Want To Get Involved card, like the Met did, and like the Met they are likely to be shamed/lawyered into a Tough, You Are Gonna Have To position. There plainly *is* the potential for further evidence out there, likefrinstance taking some witness statements, collecting some fotos, etc etc.
I am not saying I want this to happen or that it ought to happen. I just think there's a real chance that it will, because Johnson is a clever shit with a lot of clever shits working for him. I'm just reporting this, not supporting it.
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.
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.
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
Gonna have to drop an M bomb here.
You are a moron.
So tell me what evidence you want the police to view? "I think x crime happened". OK sir do you have any evidence. "No". And you're saying the police should just investigate anyway? So I can make up any lies I want about anyone - how about you - with no evidence. And the police should bring you in for questioning about my baseless complaint?
That isn't a world we want to live in. Complaints leading to police investigations require evidence. The only evidence in this case has already been dismissed. So on what grounds are we asking them to investigate - because Paul Dacre wants them to?
Shit. You are deranged about this. The police have played a Don't Want To Get Involved card, like the Met did, and like the Met they are likely to be shamed/lawyered into a Tough, You Are Gonna Have To position. There plainly *is* the potential for further evidence out there, likefrinstance taking some witness statements, collecting some fotos, etc etc.
I am not saying I want this to happen or that it ought to happen. I just think there's a real chance that it will, because Johnson is a clever shit with a lot of clever shits working for him. I'm just reporting this, not supporting it.
I never said there wasn't potential for further evidence - we are still waiting for people to produce it.
Lets assume you made a complaint that I was doing unnatural things with tractors. You hand over some photos showing me next to a tractor but not doing anything illegal. They listen to your complaint, look at the evidence provided and conclude there is nothing illegal in the evidence.
You're saying that despite not producing any evidence of me noncing with tractors that you would have the police dig into my life, and look for the evidence that you failed to offer?
They don't want to get involved because thats the law. They don't start investigating potential crimes unless evidence suggesting crimes is there.
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.
I think Labour's prospects in Scotland in the next election will depend on much as pro-indy voters staying at home as much as directly picking up voters from the SNP. I think there's definitely an element of the pro-indy electorate who have become disillusioned with the SNP and feel that's it now just a bland, technocratic social democratic party who aren't that interested in independence. They definitely won't vote for Labour (nor probably Alba for that matter), but Labour doesn't need them to... it just needs for them to not bother turning up at the polling station.;
As a non-Scot, the SNP looks a lot worse than just “bland, and technocratic” - it looks clearly corrupt, greedy, sleazy and incompetent. As you would expect after so long in power - especially in a small polity. They need kicking out
So I guess the question is how long YESsers will continue to tolerate this inept SNP bollocks in return for the receding dream of Sindy?
Sturgeon has done an amazing job but all political careers are mortal
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.
I doubt they'd be the right shape.
I thought they were quite good on the contortion front.
Whose kidding who here? Sex sells doesn’t it? Alpha males always beat the beta in elections. 🤷♀️
Monday 2nd May Boris Johnson’s Sex Tape with former mistress appears all over the internet. Carrie and the Cabinet pledge loyalty to him “at this difficult time.”
Tuesday 3rd May In response to Boris Johnson’s Poll Surge - a spokesperson for the Labour Leadership reveals Starmer once had “sex with the light on.” Polling and Focus Groups show electorate believe Labour are lying about this. Nadine Dorries announces plans to privatise the internet.
Wednesday 3rd Lib Dem statement reveals Ed Davey has been secretly visiting Megan Thee Stallion for “riding lessons.” When vox popped Voters ask “Ed who?” story is filed in media under “Megan Thee Stallion news”.
Thursday 4th. Snap polling reveals Boris Johnson is UK politics number 1 Alpha Male. Nicola Sturgeon is in second place, the rest bundled together as “others”. Voting begins. The Nation votes for the Alpha Male.
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).
Whose kidding who here? Sex sells doesn’t it? Alpha males always beat the beta in elections. 🤷♀️
Monday 2nd May Boris Johnson’s Sex Tape with former mistress appears all over the internet. Carrie and the Cabinet pledge loyalty to him “at this difficult time.”
Tuesday 3rd May In response to Boris Johnson’s Poll Surge - a spokesperson for the Labour Leadership reveals Starmer once had “sex with the light on.” Polling and Focus Groups show electorate believe Labour are lying about this. Nadine Dorries announces plans to privatise the internet.
Wednesday 3rd Lib Dem statement reveals Ed Davey has been secretly visiting Megan Thee Stallion for “riding lessons.” When vox popped Voters ask “Ed who?” story is filed in media under “Megan Thee Stallion news”.
Thursday 4th. Snap polling reveals Boris Johnson is UK politics number 1 Alpha Male. Nicola Sturgeon is in second place, the rest bundled together as “others”. Voting begins. The Nation votes for the Alpha Male.
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.
Dunking is an abomination.
I agree.
Dunkers are obviously people with really filthy sexual proclivities. And I don’t mean good filthy, just filthy shake-your-head filthy.
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.
Used to be done in every local authority and burgh/borough council as a matter of routine and ?legal duty, and not just in big cities, certainly in Scotland (it is simply that I don't know what happened in rUK, that's all, not having inquired).
My small town had its own "fever hospital"/"isolation hospital" for the isolation of people suffering from infectious diseases. Scarlet fever, smallpox, meningitis, that sort of thing.
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...
Beg to differ. Crap cake is often better than ordinary biscuit (though there is an overlap: I'd take my late mother's shortbread or gypsy creams over supermarket cake any day).
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?)
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
Get in your car & check out Pass Manchac and Middendorf's Restaurant.
You'll be glad you did IF you do.
Addendum - BTW, what street is that? Believe view is westward (based on tall blue building in background).
Whose kidding who here? Sex sells doesn’t it? Alpha males always beat the beta in elections. 🤷♀️
Monday 2nd May Boris Johnson’s Sex Tape with former mistress appears all over the internet. Carrie and the Cabinet pledge loyalty to him “at this difficult time.”
Tuesday 3rd May In response to Boris Johnson’s Poll Surge - a spokesperson for the Labour Leadership reveals Starmer once had “sex with the light on.” Polling and Focus Groups show electorate believe Labour are lying about this. Nadine Dorries announces plans to privatise the internet.
Wednesday 3rd Lib Dem statement reveals Ed Davey has been secretly visiting Megan Thee Stallion for “riding lessons.” When vox popped Voters ask “Ed who?” story is filed in media under “Megan Thee Stallion news”.
Thursday 4th. Snap polling reveals Boris Johnson is UK politics number 1 Alpha Male. Nicola Sturgeon is in second place, the rest bundled together as “others”. Voting begins. The Nation votes for the Alpha Male.
The bit that made me laugh most at that was Nadine Dorries trying to privatise the internet, because if anyone mentions it to her I'm sure she will give it a go.
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).
No. In a separate flat.
It’s an interesting question though. What constitutes a separate property for the purposes of the regulations?
A flat in a block is a separate property because it has a separate title.
Downing Street is a designated set of rooms for private use, but without a separate entrance or title. It has the same address as well. I believe the PM pays council tax, but is that as a separate unit or as a percentage of the tax for the whole site?
The Rayner/Starmer case, in light of fresh allegations, should be reopened by Durham police.
However, in light of his admission that he lied about his reasons for breaking quarantine, so should the Cummings case.
Along with an investigation into whether Braverman and Johnson conspired to pervert the course of justice by giving totally misleading advice on facts and law.
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
Gonna have to drop an M bomb here.
You are a moron.
So tell me what evidence you want the police to view? "I think x crime happened". OK sir do you have any evidence. "No". And you're saying the police should just investigate anyway? So I can make up any lies I want about anyone - how about you - with no evidence. And the police should bring you in for questioning about my baseless complaint?
That isn't a world we want to live in. Complaints leading to police investigations require evidence. The only evidence in this case has already been dismissed. So on what grounds are we asking them to investigate - because Paul Dacre wants them to?
Shit. You are deranged about this. The police have played a Don't Want To Get Involved card, like the Met did, and like the Met they are likely to be shamed/lawyered into a Tough, You Are Gonna Have To position. There plainly *is* the potential for further evidence out there, likefrinstance taking some witness statements, collecting some fotos, etc etc.
I am not saying I want this to happen or that it ought to happen. I just think there's a real chance that it will, because Johnson is a clever shit with a lot of clever shits working for him. I'm just reporting this, not supporting it.
Comments
And most discharged infected patients need only have stayed there for a fortnight.
Someone made a complaint. Provided evidence to back up their complaint. Police view evidence. Conclude the complainant doesn't understand the law. Dismisses the complaint. As no other valid evidence has been raised what do they have to investigate?
A very simple legal position here - Starmer et al are innocent of breaking the law until anyone proves otherwise. The only "proof" being offered does not - so say the police provide sufficient evidence that an offence has taken place.
TBH I find the bunfight to be funny, I'm not dying on a hill to defend Starmer. If evidence of him and Rayner holding lockdown tractor orgies came to light I would roar with laughter as hard as HY. What i am prepared to defend is the principle that the twat press - whether left or right - can't just print any old crap and call it news. That partisan gobshites saying "they are guilty as the hotels were closed" are not providing evidence.
If someone wants to proffer evidence that Starmer and Rayner et al broke the law then do so. All we have here is evidence that the police quickly dismissed being hurled about in anger because it was supposed to smear him and thus save the Big Dog and it failed.
Like I said, when the police get weaponised for political reasons and the rule of law goes out the window we're in deep trouble. Unless anyone has any evidence suggesting criminality the police cannot and should not investigate people going about their legal business. Whoever they are.
That isn't a world we want to live in. Complaints leading to police investigations require evidence. The only evidence in this case has already been dismissed. So on what grounds are we asking them to investigate - because Paul Dacre wants them to?
The Gen3 car will be lighter than the current Formula E car, with a maximum power output of 350kW, capable of a top speed of over 320kph (200mph). It will feature two powertrains – one at the front and rear – which will more than double the regenerative potential of the car compared to the current model.…
I love political kitsch
That said, my Vlad Putin half-naked-on-horseback mug, bought in St Petersburg, looks less amusing now
The police don't legally have the luxury of pursuing malicious investigations. They have to take complaints seriously. They did here. Its just that nobody has presented them with any evidence showing even a suspicion of breaking the law. Because the people demanding one don't know what the law was, they just want one because politics.
Can I make allegations against Nigel Farage because I don't like him, supply no relevant evidence and then have the police drag him publicly through the mud searching for the evidence nobody has supplied to back up my baseless allegation? No, I can't. Yet apparently we can if its election week and the government is losing. No, we can't. Do we have the rule of law or not?
I am not saying I want this to happen or that it ought to happen. I just think there's a real chance that it will, because Johnson is a clever shit with a lot of clever shits working for him. I'm just reporting this, not supporting it.
Lets assume you made a complaint that I was doing unnatural things with tractors. You hand over some photos showing me next to a tractor but not doing anything illegal. They listen to your complaint, look at the evidence provided and conclude there is nothing illegal in the evidence.
You're saying that despite not producing any evidence of me noncing with tractors that you would have the police dig into my life, and look for the evidence that you failed to offer?
They don't want to get involved because thats the law. They don't start investigating potential crimes unless evidence suggesting crimes is there.
So I guess the question is how long YESsers will continue to tolerate this inept SNP bollocks in return for the receding dream of Sindy?
Sturgeon has done an amazing job but all political careers are mortal
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1520751432416247809
Monday 2nd May
Boris Johnson’s Sex Tape with former mistress appears all over the internet. Carrie and the Cabinet pledge loyalty to him “at this difficult time.”
Tuesday 3rd May
In response to Boris Johnson’s Poll Surge - a spokesperson for the Labour Leadership reveals Starmer once had “sex with the light on.” Polling and Focus Groups show electorate believe Labour are lying about this.
Nadine Dorries announces plans to privatise the internet.
Wednesday 3rd
Lib Dem statement reveals Ed Davey has been secretly visiting Megan Thee Stallion for “riding lessons.” When vox popped Voters ask “Ed who?” story is filed in media under “Megan Thee Stallion news”.
Thursday 4th.
Snap polling reveals Boris Johnson is UK politics number 1 Alpha Male. Nicola Sturgeon is in second place, the rest bundled together as “others”.
Voting begins. The Nation votes for the Alpha Male.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/01/scholz-defends-ukraine-policy-as-criticism-mounts-in-germany
Dunkers are obviously people with really filthy sexual proclivities. And I don’t mean good filthy, just filthy shake-your-head filthy.
Bleuch.
My small town had its own "fever hospital"/"isolation hospital" for the isolation of people suffering from infectious diseases. Scarlet fever, smallpox, meningitis, that sort of thing.
https://historic-hospitals.com/gazetteer/the-lothians/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/Lets-bring-back-Britains-fever-hospitals
They are god-tier biscuit/cakes.
You'll be glad you did IF you do.
Addendum - BTW, what street is that? Believe view is westward (based on tall blue building in background).
A flat in a block is a separate property because it has a separate title.
Downing Street is a designated set of rooms for private use, but without a separate entrance or title. It has the same address as well. I believe the PM pays council tax, but is that as a separate unit or as a percentage of the tax for the whole site?
However, in light of his admission that he lied about his reasons for breaking quarantine, so should the Cummings case.
Along with an investigation into whether Braverman and Johnson conspired to pervert the course of justice by giving totally misleading advice on facts and law.