What happened at the Starmer curry? Here's a person familiar:
— 'working dinner' pre-arranged — but takeaway arrived late, after work had finished — 15 people stayed to eat & drink anyway — it therefore "crossed the line" — they'll speak to cops — 2 "redthroats" talking to media
This seems awfully flimsy.
No work afterwards they were aware of doesn’t sound like they know a lot really, that’s doing a lot of heavy lifting. If they do have strong evidence then hand it to the police and Starmer can rightly be fined and quit
Well if that is right Starmer is off the hook completely. It would be fine as ordered, it was late, they were hungry, they were meant to send it back or bin it?
Hang on, how does that get him off the hook? You have been banging away for ages how the campaign event was against the law - what does the timing of the delivery have to do with it? Either you can meet to campaign or you can't.
Jesus Christ doing wheelies on a fucking unicycle, what is the point of my saying anything about anything? I have not once stated a view on legality (except just now, when I have said: probably legal), I have said time and time and time again that SKS is guilty of gross political incompetence. Legality is for these purposes utterly irrelevant.
As to whether Keir Starmer should resign... I think yes if he is found to have broken the rules.
I often criticize the left for being too nice and playing by rules that the other side doesn't respect. But sometimes I think you have to acknowledge that even though your act of decency wouldn't be reciprocated, you've still got to do the right thing.
From a cyber security perspective it is probably inadvisible to click on Kremlin.ru. Do so at your own risk, do not accept cookies and disinfect your system for malware and do a full scan afterwards.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
Well indeed. Many Tory voters expressed for months (before the FPN was issue) expressed their disgust, including myself.
Seeing a parade of Labour voters here insist "nothing to see here" when the situation is just as bad as it was, for what disgusted me about Boris, is very interesting.
One difference perhaps though is that many of the disgusted ex-Tory voters like myself, Max, Topping and many more were vehemently opposed by the end to the restrictions being imposed, so seeing politicians imposing these restrictions on us while not respecting them themselves is an aggravating factor.
Many of those who insist now "nothing to see here" about Starmer, were at the time justifying restrictions, but seem to be OK with restrictions being broken so long as its done with a red rosette.
You are lying about Labour voters on PB saying "nothing to see". I believe without exception all have called for his resignation on a receipt of an FPN, others, like myself have requested he goes now.
Nonetheless, the Starmer investigation is for one potential indiscretion, Johnson is under investigation for up to 12. For you that is an asymmetry in Johnson's favour. Up to a dozen is nowhere near as bad as one.
I'm not lying, plenty have been banging on that there's nothing to see. Heck look at Roger's post at 7:44am and after reading that perhaps think if you owe me an apology for saying its a lie.
Of course Max, myself, Big G and plenty of other ex-Tories were saying Boris should go before the Police issued the FPN. From memory only HYUFD has been defending him, whereas as far as I can see only you are requesting he goes now whereas we were all where only you are now when the rosette has changed colour.
Another fib, I don't recall many of the faithful demanding Johnson go on news of the investigation. "Wait and see" was the clarion cry.
Neither were fibs. As well as Roger at 7:44, @RochdalePioneers has literally said "nothing to see here" at 8:21am and Stuart liked it so that's at least 3. So will you apologise for claiming I lied in saying people were saying "nothing to see here" on PB about Starmer?
2019 Tories (from the best of my memory) calling for Boris to go before the FPN was issued: Big_G, MaxPB, CasinoRoyale, DavidL, rcs1000 and myself. And probably many more not coming to memory.
Anyway, Covid is dead. Spent yesterday in a crowded grandstand at Badminton and then a crowded concert hall in Plymouth. Never saw a mask. Never thought about it. Hurray.
"More now on Vladimir Putin's speech. He said the West did not want to listen to Russia, and they had other plans.
Speaking in Red Square in Moscow, he said the West was "preparing for the invasion of our land, including Crimea"."
I mean, FFS. He's totally lost it.
Has he? Notice the reference to Crimea which used to be part of Ukraine till Russia annexed it. Is Putin offering the basis for an armistice? Pre-currygate borders?
From a cyber security perspective it is probably inadvisible to click on Kremlin.ru. Do so at your own risk, do not accept cookies and disinfect your system for malware and do a full scan afterwards.
...otherwise you end up with your VPN exiting at a fixed IP address, which is listed as "compromised" by the anti-spam/hacking lists....
Shoigu looks awful and Gerasimov missing... No fly past... Unable to announce conscription call up. This discount parade in Moscow asks quite a few interesting questions. If Izyum is indeed now cut off, then a second defeat for Russia on the scale of the Battle of Kyiv could be on the cards within the next few days.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
Well indeed. Many Tory voters expressed for months (before the FPN was issue) expressed their disgust, including myself.
Seeing a parade of Labour voters here insist "nothing to see here" when the situation is just as bad as it was, for what disgusted me about Boris, is very interesting.
One difference perhaps though is that many of the disgusted ex-Tory voters like myself, Max, Topping and many more were vehemently opposed by the end to the restrictions being imposed, so seeing politicians imposing these restrictions on us while not respecting them themselves is an aggravating factor.
Many of those who insist now "nothing to see here" about Starmer, were at the time justifying restrictions, but seem to be OK with restrictions being broken so long as its done with a red rosette.
You are lying about Labour voters on PB saying "nothing to see". I believe without exception all have called for his resignation on a receipt of an FPN, others, like myself have requested he goes now.
Nonetheless, the Starmer investigation is for one potential indiscretion, Johnson is under investigation for up to 12. For you that is an asymmetry in Johnson's favour. Up to a dozen is nowhere near as bad as one.
I'm not lying, plenty have been banging on that there's nothing to see. Heck look at Roger's post at 7:44am and after reading that perhaps think if you owe me an apology for saying its a lie.
Of course Max, myself, Big G and plenty of other ex-Tories were saying Boris should go before the Police issued the FPN. From memory only HYUFD has been defending him, whereas as far as I can see only you are requesting he goes now whereas we were all where only you are now when the rosette has changed colour.
Another fib, I don't recall many of the faithful demanding Johnson go on news of the investigation. "Wait and see" was the clarion cry.
Neither were fibs. As well as Roger at 7:44, @RochdalePioneers has literally said "nothing to see here" at 8:21am and Stuart liked it so that's at least 3. So will you apologise for claiming I lied in saying people were saying "nothing to see here" on PB about Starmer?
2019 Tories (from the best of my memory) calling for Boris to go before the FPN was issued: Big_G, MaxPB, CasinoRoyale, DavidL, rcs1000 and myself. And probably many more not coming to memory.
I was clear that he should go because he lied to the HoC. I have never been interested in the minutiae of partygate and I am even less interested in the minutiae of currygate.
What happened at the Starmer curry? Here's a person familiar:
— 'working dinner' pre-arranged — but takeaway arrived late, after work had finished — 15 people stayed to eat & drink anyway — it therefore "crossed the line" — they'll speak to cops — 2 "redthroats" talking to media
This seems awfully flimsy.
No work afterwards they were aware of doesn’t sound like they know a lot really, that’s doing a lot of heavy lifting. If they do have strong evidence then hand it to the police and Starmer can rightly be fined and quit
Very interesting. A gathering, reasonably necessary for work purposes, is intended to occur and food ordered. The food is late. Is it reasonable to expect, with delicious curry imminent, that people would leave hungry? With that curry on my mind, at the end of a long day, for which I would have been 'saving myself', the police would have to carry me out crying.
I then wonder if this falls under “reasonably necessary”. Because at that time the hotel would have stopped serving food so they would have all had to go back to their hotel rooms and not eat until breakfast.
One for a legal eagle
The hotel served until 9.00pm and then room service was available
Furthermore there were several eating establishments in the area open anyway
I think you are right, the guiltier we paint Starmer the more that offsets Johnson's misdemeanors. A sort of carbon credits with curry if you like.
Shoigu looks awful and Gerasimov missing... No fly past... Unable to announce conscription call up. This discount parade in Moscow asks quite a few interesting questions. If Izyum is indeed now cut off, then a second defeat for Russia on the scale of the Battle of Kyiv could be on the cards within the next few days.
Dhow many Aramata T14s did they wheel out this year?
WRT London, that is the one city where can reasonably argue that Labour did so well in 2018 that they did well simply to match that performance. The won 1,130 council seats to 382 for the Conservatives, who did well to translate that into winning six councils.
What happened at the Starmer curry? Here's a person familiar:
— 'working dinner' pre-arranged — but takeaway arrived late, after work had finished — 15 people stayed to eat & drink anyway — it therefore "crossed the line" — they'll speak to cops — 2 "redthroats" talking to media
This seems awfully flimsy.
No work afterwards they were aware of doesn’t sound like they know a lot really, that’s doing a lot of heavy lifting. If they do have strong evidence then hand it to the police and Starmer can rightly be fined and quit
Well if that is right Starmer is off the hook completely. It would be fine as ordered, it was late, they were hungry, they were meant to send it back or bin it?
Hang on, how does that get him off the hook? You have been banging away for ages how the campaign event was against the law - what does the timing of the delivery have to do with it? Either you can meet to campaign or you can't.
Jesus Christ doing wheelies on a fucking unicycle, what is the point of my saying anything about anything? I have not once stated a view on legality (except just now, when I have said: probably legal), I have said time and time and time again that SKS is guilty of gross political incompetence. Legality is for these purposes utterly irrelevant.
Fair enough on the legality point. So looking only at the politics, we're back to Labour's lack of a spin machine. They didn't do any work on covering this because they didn't think they needed to as it was legal. But as the smears started circulating they should have nailed it down hard and pivoted onto the Tory campaign events.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
Well indeed. Many Tory voters expressed for months (before the FPN was issue) expressed their disgust, including myself.
Seeing a parade of Labour voters here insist "nothing to see here" when the situation is just as bad as it was, for what disgusted me about Boris, is very interesting.
One difference perhaps though is that many of the disgusted ex-Tory voters like myself, Max, Topping and many more were vehemently opposed by the end to the restrictions being imposed, so seeing politicians imposing these restrictions on us while not respecting them themselves is an aggravating factor.
Many of those who insist now "nothing to see here" about Starmer, were at the time justifying restrictions, but seem to be OK with restrictions being broken so long as its done with a red rosette.
You are lying about Labour voters on PB saying "nothing to see". I believe without exception all have called for his resignation on a receipt of an FPN, others, like myself have requested he goes now.
Nonetheless, the Starmer investigation is for one potential indiscretion, Johnson is under investigation for up to 12. For you that is an asymmetry in Johnson's favour. Up to a dozen is nowhere near as bad as one.
I'm not lying, plenty have been banging on that there's nothing to see. Heck look at Roger's post at 7:44am and after reading that perhaps think if you owe me an apology for saying its a lie.
Of course Max, myself, Big G and plenty of other ex-Tories were saying Boris should go before the Police issued the FPN. From memory only HYUFD has been defending him, whereas as far as I can see only you are requesting he goes now whereas we were all where only you are now when the rosette has changed colour.
Another fib, I don't recall many of the faithful demanding Johnson go on news of the investigation. "Wait and see" was the clarion cry.
Neither were fibs. As well as Roger at 7:44, @RochdalePioneers has literally said "nothing to see here" at 8:21am and Stuart liked it so that's at least 3. So will you apologise for claiming I lied in saying people were saying "nothing to see here" on PB about Starmer?
2019 Tories (from the best of my memory) calling for Boris to go before the FPN was issued: Big_G, MaxPB, CasinoRoyale, DavidL, rcs1000 and myself. And probably many more not coming to memory.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
Well indeed. Many Tory voters expressed for months (before the FPN was issue) expressed their disgust, including myself.
Seeing a parade of Labour voters here insist "nothing to see here" when the situation is just as bad as it was, for what disgusted me about Boris, is very interesting.
One difference perhaps though is that many of the disgusted ex-Tory voters like myself, Max, Topping and many more were vehemently opposed by the end to the restrictions being imposed, so seeing politicians imposing these restrictions on us while not respecting them themselves is an aggravating factor.
Many of those who insist now "nothing to see here" about Starmer, were at the time justifying restrictions, but seem to be OK with restrictions being broken so long as its done with a red rosette.
You are lying about Labour voters on PB saying "nothing to see". I believe without exception all have called for his resignation on a receipt of an FPN, others, like myself have requested he goes now.
Nonetheless, the Starmer investigation is for one potential indiscretion, Johnson is under investigation for up to 12. For you that is an asymmetry in Johnson's favour. Up to a dozen is nowhere near as bad as one.
I'm not lying, plenty have been banging on that there's nothing to see. Heck look at Roger's post at 7:44am and after reading that perhaps think if you owe me an apology for saying its a lie.
Of course Max, myself, Big G and plenty of other ex-Tories were saying Boris should go before the Police issued the FPN. From memory only HYUFD has been defending him, whereas as far as I can see only you are requesting he goes now whereas we were all where only you are now when the rosette has changed colour.
Another fib, I don't recall many of the faithful demanding Johnson go on news of the investigation. "Wait and see" was the clarion cry.
Neither were fibs. As well as Roger at 7:44, @RochdalePioneers has literally said "nothing to see here" at 8:21am and Stuart liked it so that's at least 3. So will you apologise for claiming I lied in saying people were saying "nothing to see here" on PB about Starmer?
2019 Tories (from the best of my memory) calling for Boris to go before the FPN was issued: Big_G, MaxPB, CasinoRoyale, DavidL, rcs1000 and myself. And probably many more not coming to memory.
Rochdale has no skin in this game, he is a LD.
And Stuart and Roger?
Are you still insisting I'm lying about people saying "nothing to see here" when people are quite literally writing "nothing to see here" and its being liked by other people?
And the claim it was a fib that others were calling for Boris to go before the FPN when I myself and others I've named were literally doing that?
If you're going to accuse other site members of telling lies, at least get your facts straight. Its really offensive.
PS Richard_Tyndall is another name that's come to mind that also thought Boris should go and that lawmakers can't be law breakers before the FPN was issued. I'm pretty sure there's many more, its been the overwhelming attitude I've witnessed from my fellow ex-Tories with just about only HYUFD left as the self-styled "only Tory in the village".
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
Well indeed. Many Tory voters expressed for months (before the FPN was issue) expressed their disgust, including myself.
Seeing a parade of Labour voters here insist "nothing to see here" when the situation is just as bad as it was, for what disgusted me about Boris, is very interesting.
One difference perhaps though is that many of the disgusted ex-Tory voters like myself, Max, Topping and many more were vehemently opposed by the end to the restrictions being imposed, so seeing politicians imposing these restrictions on us while not respecting them themselves is an aggravating factor.
Many of those who insist now "nothing to see here" about Starmer, were at the time justifying restrictions, but seem to be OK with restrictions being broken so long as its done with a red rosette.
You are lying about Labour voters on PB saying "nothing to see". I believe without exception all have called for his resignation on a receipt of an FPN, others, like myself have requested he goes now.
Nonetheless, the Starmer investigation is for one potential indiscretion, Johnson is under investigation for up to 12. For you that is an asymmetry in Johnson's favour. Up to a dozen is nowhere near as bad as one.
I'm not lying, plenty have been banging on that there's nothing to see. Heck look at Roger's post at 7:44am and after reading that perhaps think if you owe me an apology for saying its a lie.
Of course Max, myself, Big G and plenty of other ex-Tories were saying Boris should go before the Police issued the FPN. From memory only HYUFD has been defending him, whereas as far as I can see only you are requesting he goes now whereas we were all where only you are now when the rosette has changed colour.
Another fib, I don't recall many of the faithful demanding Johnson go on news of the investigation. "Wait and see" was the clarion cry.
Neither were fibs. As well as Roger at 7:44, @RochdalePioneers has literally said "nothing to see here" at 8:21am and Stuart liked it so that's at least 3. So will you apologise for claiming I lied in saying people were saying "nothing to see here" on PB about Starmer?
2019 Tories (from the best of my memory) calling for Boris to go before the FPN was issued: Big_G, MaxPB, CasinoRoyale, DavidL, rcs1000 and myself. And probably many more not coming to memory.
Rochdale has no skin in this game, he is a LD.
And Stuart and Roger?
Are you still insisting I'm lying about people saying "nothing to see here" when people are quite literally writing "nothing to see here" and its being liked by other people?
And the claim it was a fib that others were calling for Boris to go before the FPN when I myself and others I've named were literally doing that?
If you're going to accuse other site members of telling lies, at least get your facts straight. Its really offensive.
I said "nothing to see here" literally quoting your line back to you. I'm confident that Labour - and the Tories - did nothing illegal putting activists into rooms with Starmer and Michael Gove etc etc but its hardly nothing to see here. Its a glorious political shit show of epic comedy cock-ups.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
Well indeed. Many Tory voters expressed for months (before the FPN was issue) expressed their disgust, including myself.
Seeing a parade of Labour voters here insist "nothing to see here" when the situation is just as bad as it was, for what disgusted me about Boris, is very interesting.
One difference perhaps though is that many of the disgusted ex-Tory voters like myself, Max, Topping and many more were vehemently opposed by the end to the restrictions being imposed, so seeing politicians imposing these restrictions on us while not respecting them themselves is an aggravating factor.
Many of those who insist now "nothing to see here" about Starmer, were at the time justifying restrictions, but seem to be OK with restrictions being broken so long as its done with a red rosette.
You are lying about Labour voters on PB saying "nothing to see". I believe without exception all have called for his resignation on a receipt of an FPN, others, like myself have requested he goes now.
Nonetheless, the Starmer investigation is for one potential indiscretion, Johnson is under investigation for up to 12. For you that is an asymmetry in Johnson's favour. Up to a dozen is nowhere near as bad as one.
I'm not lying, plenty have been banging on that there's nothing to see. Heck look at Roger's post at 7:44am and after reading that perhaps think if you owe me an apology for saying its a lie.
Of course Max, myself, Big G and plenty of other ex-Tories were saying Boris should go before the Police issued the FPN. From memory only HYUFD has been defending him, whereas as far as I can see only you are requesting he goes now whereas we were all where only you are now when the rosette has changed colour.
Another fib, I don't recall many of the faithful demanding Johnson go on news of the investigation. "Wait and see" was the clarion cry.
Neither were fibs. As well as Roger at 7:44, @RochdalePioneers has literally said "nothing to see here" at 8:21am and Stuart liked it so that's at least 3. So will you apologise for claiming I lied in saying people were saying "nothing to see here" on PB about Starmer?
2019 Tories (from the best of my memory) calling for Boris to go before the FPN was issued: Big_G, MaxPB, CasinoRoyale, DavidL, rcs1000 and myself. And probably many more not coming to memory.
Rochdale has no skin in this game, he is a LD.
And Stuart and Roger?
Are you still insisting I'm lying about people saying "nothing to see here" when people are quite literally writing "nothing to see here" and its being liked by other people?
And the claim it was a fib that others were calling for Boris to go before the FPN when I myself and others I've named were literally doing that?
If you're going to accuse other site members of telling lies, at least get your facts straight. Its really offensive.
I said "nothing to see here" literally quoting your line back to you. I'm confident that Labour - and the Tories - did nothing illegal putting activists into rooms with Starmer and Michael Gove etc etc but its hardly nothing to see here. Its a glorious political shit show of epic comedy cock-ups.
Indeed but 'nothing to see here' as I originally wrote was quoting your own attitude since all this began. You've been saying they did nothing wrong since all this began.
It certainly is epically comedic though, I agree with that!
"More now on Vladimir Putin's speech. He said the West did not want to listen to Russia, and they had other plans.
Speaking in Red Square in Moscow, he said the West was "preparing for the invasion of our land, including Crimea"."
I mean, FFS. He's totally lost it.
Has he? Notice the reference to Crimea which used to be part of Ukraine till Russia annexed it. Is Putin offering the basis for an armistice? Pre-currygate borders?
General Dannatt suggests that a truce will be agreed and Ukraine will have to concede some territory to Russia, but Mariupol and other cities need billions in reconstruction costs and why would Ukraine take on that debt only for Russia to threaten again, when Russia would have the cost of reconstructing their own scorched earth destruction
Putin busy equating his invasion of Ukr with the Patriotic War of 1940s.
To be fair, Ben Wallace seems to have started that.
Baldy Ben seems to have staked out a more hawkish position than Zelensky who has said he'd accept a ceasefire on the January 2022 borders. If that's his starting point, presumably he'd settle for less.
Not necessarily. He might simply be stating his bottom line at the outset - as we did in WWII.
I think that Zelensky's statement about January 2022 borders was to reassure governments in the Western alliance that Ukraine will be restrained in the event of a Russian military collapse.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
If something is true how can it be a smear?
Because of the inference. Its true that Starmer didn't wear a mask. Its also true that Starmer didn't need to wear a mask. So the S*n are making a scandal out of someone obeying the law.
The problem we have with sections of the media is that their editorial teams are very skilled at churning out bullshit to gaslight people who they have made vulnerable to this kind of shit. Otherwise intelligent people rendered stupid by the newspapers they read.
If "need" refers to the law, then this is correct. But "need" can also refer to the rules of the tip.
Given how much SKS agitated for more and harder restrictions, and given how his entire party virtue signalled by wearing masks in the Commons when it wasn't legally required, he doesn't have a fucking leg to stand on here.
The thing I find unacceptable is the notion that 8:40 is an appropriate time for food to arrive, with people still munching away at 10 o'clock. They should have arranged it earlier so that everyone had finished eating by 8 o'clock, to give it time to digest before bed time.
It’s desperate stuff . Nothing illegal took place , the event was later cancelled because London moved into Tier 3 restrictions.
But it all adds to the narrative that they were all at it, so the bring a bottle karaoke parties were all part of Westminster life.
Labour's ineptitude at not slapping this down is of enormous proportions. Starmer should be sacked simply for foolishness. Starmer pleading "nothing to see" for ten days instead of going in with his boots on and highlighting Johnson's pub celebration in Hartlepool and Conservative campaigning is unforgiveable. He has given Johnson a get out of jail free card.
The really unforgivable bit is Starmer lost the Hartlepool by election anyway, so all his woes were for nought.
Putin busy equating his invasion of Ukr with the Patriotic War of 1940s.
To be fair, Ben Wallace seems to have started that.
Baldy Ben seems to have staked out a more hawkish position than Zelensky who has said he'd accept a ceasefire on the January 2022 borders. If that's his starting point, presumably he'd settle for less.
Not necessarily. He might simply be stating his bottom line at the outset - as we did in WWII.
I think that Zelensky's statement about January 2022 borders was to reassure governments in the Western alliance that Ukraine will be restrained in the event of a Russian military collapse.
January 2022 as defined by who though? Officially all of Donbas and Crimea is within Ukraine's 2022 borders.
If Russia's military collapses, as seems plausible, then we should be seeking to displace Russia from all of Crimea and Donbas - but not necessarily punitively claim any territory as recompense beyond those borders.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
If something is true how can it be a smear?
Because of the inference. Its true that Starmer didn't wear a mask. Its also true that Starmer didn't need to wear a mask. So the S*n are making a scandal out of someone obeying the law.
The problem we have with sections of the media is that their editorial teams are very skilled at churning out bullshit to gaslight people who they have made vulnerable to this kind of shit. Otherwise intelligent people rendered stupid by the newspapers they read.
If "need" refers to the law, then this is correct. But "need" can also refer to the rules of the tip.
Given how much SKS agitated for more and harder restrictions, and given how his entire party virtue signalled by wearing masks in the Commons when it wasn't legally required, he doesn't have a fucking leg to stand on here.
Erm, Johnson saying "you wanted to lock us down forever" is just rhetoric. It isn't reality. You can tell the difference between the two?
"More now on Vladimir Putin's speech. He said the West did not want to listen to Russia, and they had other plans.
Speaking in Red Square in Moscow, he said the West was "preparing for the invasion of our land, including Crimea"."
I mean, FFS. He's totally lost it.
Has he? Notice the reference to Crimea which used to be part of Ukraine till Russia annexed it. Is Putin offering the basis for an armistice? Pre-currygate borders?
General Dannatt suggests that a truce will be agreed and Ukraine will have to concede some territory to Russia, but Mariupol and other cities need billions in reconstruction costs and why would Ukraine take on that debt only for Russia to threaten again, when Russia would have the cost of reconstructing their own scorched earth destruction
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
Well indeed. Many Tory voters expressed for months (before the FPN was issue) expressed their disgust, including myself.
Seeing a parade of Labour voters here insist "nothing to see here" when the situation is just as bad as it was, for what disgusted me about Boris, is very interesting.
One difference perhaps though is that many of the disgusted ex-Tory voters like myself, Max, Topping and many more were vehemently opposed by the end to the restrictions being imposed, so seeing politicians imposing these restrictions on us while not respecting them themselves is an aggravating factor.
Many of those who insist now "nothing to see here" about Starmer, were at the time justifying restrictions, but seem to be OK with restrictions being broken so long as its done with a red rosette.
You are lying about Labour voters on PB saying "nothing to see". I believe without exception all have called for his resignation on a receipt of an FPN, others, like myself have requested he goes now.
Nonetheless, the Starmer investigation is for one potential indiscretion, Johnson is under investigation for up to 12. For you that is an asymmetry in Johnson's favour. Up to a dozen is nowhere near as bad as one.
I'm not lying, plenty have been banging on that there's nothing to see. Heck look at Roger's post at 7:44am and after reading that perhaps think if you owe me an apology for saying its a lie.
Of course Max, myself, Big G and plenty of other ex-Tories were saying Boris should go before the Police issued the FPN. From memory only HYUFD has been defending him, whereas as far as I can see only you are requesting he goes now whereas we were all where only you are now when the rosette has changed colour.
Another fib, I don't recall many of the faithful demanding Johnson go on news of the investigation. "Wait and see" was the clarion cry.
Neither were fibs. As well as Roger at 7:44, @RochdalePioneers has literally said "nothing to see here" at 8:21am and Stuart liked it so that's at least 3. So will you apologise for claiming I lied in saying people were saying "nothing to see here" on PB about Starmer?
2019 Tories (from the best of my memory) calling for Boris to go before the FPN was issued: Big_G, MaxPB, CasinoRoyale, DavidL, rcs1000 and myself. And probably many more not coming to memory.
Rochdale has no skin in this game, he is a LD.
He was a former labour councillor though and active Labour Party member.
What happened at the Starmer curry? Here's a person familiar:
— 'working dinner' pre-arranged — but takeaway arrived late, after work had finished — 15 people stayed to eat & drink anyway — it therefore "crossed the line" — they'll speak to cops — 2 "redthroats" talking to media
This seems awfully flimsy.
No work afterwards they were aware of doesn’t sound like they know a lot really, that’s doing a lot of heavy lifting. If they do have strong evidence then hand it to the police and Starmer can rightly be fined and quit
Very interesting. A gathering, reasonably necessary for work purposes, is intended to occur and food ordered. The food is late. Is it reasonable to expect, with delicious curry imminent, that people would leave hungry? With that curry on my mind, at the end of a long day, for which I would have been 'saving myself', the police would have to carry me out crying.
I then wonder if this falls under “reasonably necessary”. Because at that time the hotel would have stopped serving food so they would have all had to go back to their hotel rooms and not eat until breakfast.
One for a legal eagle
The hotel served until 9.00pm and then room service was available
Furthermore there were several eating establishments in the area open anyway
I think you are right, the guiltier we paint Starmer the more that offsets Johnson's misdemeanors. A sort of carbon credits with curry if you like.
Boris is already guilty under the law and nothing will change that but it is fair to say this has been an unexpected turn of events and has undermined Starmer and labour's ability to make political capital over it
A week is a long time in politics and in this case nobody could have foreseen this change of events and I have no idea how this would have gone down if Durham Police had confirmed their investigation during the local elections rather than waiting for the 6th May
Shoigu looks awful and Gerasimov missing... No fly past... Unable to announce conscription call up. This discount parade in Moscow asks quite a few interesting questions. If Izyum is indeed now cut off, then a second defeat for Russia on the scale of the Battle of Kyiv could be on the cards within the next few days.
Maybe, but I think the reliable dictum in domestic politics of "Always discount news reports of imminent major developments" applies here too. In advance of Putin's speech, there was speculation that he'd either mobilise (escalate the conflict) or declare victory (de-escalate the conflict). He did neither. A couple of weeks ago, there was speculation that a huge Ukrainian counter-offensive was imminent until the Ukrainians said that they wouldn't be doing anything major before July (which makes sense as the Western arms deliveries build up). "Nothing much is changing" is a crap news story, so we always get expectation bias to drama.
Probably we should simply expect a long war of attrition until it becomes obvious that the front is deadlocked at one point or another. There will be tactical advances and retreats, but neither side seems disposed to call it a day any time soon.
What happened at the Starmer curry? Here's a person familiar:
— 'working dinner' pre-arranged — but takeaway arrived late, after work had finished — 15 people stayed to eat & drink anyway — it therefore "crossed the line" — they'll speak to cops — 2 "redthroats" talking to media
This seems awfully flimsy.
No work afterwards they were aware of doesn’t sound like they know a lot really, that’s doing a lot of heavy lifting. If they do have strong evidence then hand it to the police and Starmer can rightly be fined and quit
Very interesting. A gathering, reasonably necessary for work purposes, is intended to occur and food ordered. The food is late. Is it reasonable to expect, with delicious curry imminent, that people would leave hungry? With that curry on my mind, at the end of a long day, for which I would have been 'saving myself', the police would have to carry me out crying.
I then wonder if this falls under “reasonably necessary”. Because at that time the hotel would have stopped serving food so they would have all had to go back to their hotel rooms and not eat until breakfast.
One for a legal eagle
The hotel served until 9.00pm and then room service was available
Furthermore there were several eating establishments in the area open anyway
I think you are right, the guiltier we paint Starmer the more that offsets Johnson's misdemeanors. A sort of carbon credits with curry if you like.
Boris is already guilty under the law and nothing will change that but it is fair to say this has been an unexpected turn of events and has undermined Starmer and labour's ability to make political capital over it
A week is a long time in politics and in this case nobody could have foreseen this change of events and I have no idea how this would have gone down if Durham Police had confirmed their investigation during the local elections rather than waiting for the 6th May
The Met set a precedent by not giving more updates until after the local elections so Durham police just followed that lead .
"More now on Vladimir Putin's speech. He said the West did not want to listen to Russia, and they had other plans.
Speaking in Red Square in Moscow, he said the West was "preparing for the invasion of our land, including Crimea"."
I mean, FFS. He's totally lost it.
Has he? Notice the reference to Crimea which used to be part of Ukraine till Russia annexed it. Is Putin offering the basis for an armistice? Pre-currygate borders?
General Dannatt suggests that a truce will be agreed and Ukraine will have to concede some territory to Russia, but Mariupol and other cities need billions in reconstruction costs and why would Ukraine take on that debt only for Russia to threaten again, when Russia would have the cost of reconstructing their own scorched earth destruction
Very good point to be fair
On that basis, why not give away everything the Russians have touched?
It's a rather weird argument, given that Ukrainian people live there.
If Starmer was convinced that beer and bhaji bonanzas were absolutely legal because it was of course reasonably necessary for party workers outside his bubble to meet him face to face, why would this event have been a one-off?
Exactly. It won't have been a one-off as campaigning was legal. And outrageously enough those will have been planned as well like every single senior politician's movements are. So I do wonder why the Wail hasn't gone digging for those? Yes it would expose the Tories who did the exact same thing but as the shouty part of the press simply chooses not to report those they probably would get away with it.
Campaigning had guidelines that did not allow any indoor meeting other than leaflet collection.
We're not interested in guidelines though, only the law. The opportunity to say "Starmer ignored the guidelines" has passed - they went all in for "broke the law". And as I keep pointing out, the "proof" that Tory tweets keep posting only reinforces that such events were legal. Against the guidance, but not against the law.
Except that in determining the legal test of what is "reasonably necessary", the guidance needs to be considered.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
Well indeed. Many Tory voters expressed for months (before the FPN was issue) expressed their disgust, including myself.
Seeing a parade of Labour voters here insist "nothing to see here" when the situation is just as bad as it was, for what disgusted me about Boris, is very interesting.
One difference perhaps though is that many of the disgusted ex-Tory voters like myself, Max, Topping and many more were vehemently opposed by the end to the restrictions being imposed, so seeing politicians imposing these restrictions on us while not respecting them themselves is an aggravating factor.
Many of those who insist now "nothing to see here" about Starmer, were at the time justifying restrictions, but seem to be OK with restrictions being broken so long as its done with a red rosette.
You are lying about Labour voters on PB saying "nothing to see". I believe without exception all have called for his resignation on a receipt of an FPN, others, like myself have requested he goes now.
Nonetheless, the Starmer investigation is for one potential indiscretion, Johnson is under investigation for up to 12. For you that is an asymmetry in Johnson's favour. Up to a dozen is nowhere near as bad as one.
I'm not lying, plenty have been banging on that there's nothing to see. Heck look at Roger's post at 7:44am and after reading that perhaps think if you owe me an apology for saying its a lie.
Of course Max, myself, Big G and plenty of other ex-Tories were saying Boris should go before the Police issued the FPN. From memory only HYUFD has been defending him, whereas as far as I can see only you are requesting he goes now whereas we were all where only you are now when the rosette has changed colour.
Another fib, I don't recall many of the faithful demanding Johnson go on news of the investigation. "Wait and see" was the clarion cry.
Neither were fibs. As well as Roger at 7:44, @RochdalePioneers has literally said "nothing to see here" at 8:21am and Stuart liked it so that's at least 3. So will you apologise for claiming I lied in saying people were saying "nothing to see here" on PB about Starmer?
2019 Tories (from the best of my memory) calling for Boris to go before the FPN was issued: Big_G, MaxPB, CasinoRoyale, DavidL, rcs1000 and myself. And probably many more not coming to memory.
Rochdale has no skin in this game, he is a LD.
He was a former labour councillor though and active Labour Party member.
I was. But then again Tim Farron is the ext LD leader and has been tweeting a very similar position as I have been expressing. This isn't party political its about right and wrong. Rules either apply equally or they don't, and the people targeting Starmer are doing so in a way that doesn't treat everyone the same. The whole point about the Johnson fine and fines to come is that the rules apply to all - they seem to want a different application for Starmer and will say anything to make it stick.
As I have said, it will be very very funny if he has to quit having painted himself into a corner. Would be egregiously unfair, but Starmer chose where to paint...
What happened at the Starmer curry? Here's a person familiar:
— 'working dinner' pre-arranged — but takeaway arrived late, after work had finished — 15 people stayed to eat & drink anyway — it therefore "crossed the line" — they'll speak to cops — 2 "redthroats" talking to media
This seems awfully flimsy.
No work afterwards they were aware of doesn’t sound like they know a lot really, that’s doing a lot of heavy lifting. If they do have strong evidence then hand it to the police and Starmer can rightly be fined and quit
Very interesting. A gathering, reasonably necessary for work purposes, is intended to occur and food ordered. The food is late. Is it reasonable to expect, with delicious curry imminent, that people would leave hungry? With that curry on my mind, at the end of a long day, for which I would have been 'saving myself', the police would have to carry me out crying.
It's reasonable to expect they would have taken it to their hotel room and eaten it there.
"More now on Vladimir Putin's speech. He said the West did not want to listen to Russia, and they had other plans.
Speaking in Red Square in Moscow, he said the West was "preparing for the invasion of our land, including Crimea"."
I mean, FFS. He's totally lost it.
Has he? Notice the reference to Crimea which used to be part of Ukraine till Russia annexed it. Is Putin offering the basis for an armistice? Pre-currygate borders?
General Dannatt suggests that a truce will be agreed and Ukraine will have to concede some territory to Russia, but Mariupol and other cities need billions in reconstruction costs and why would Ukraine take on that debt only for Russia to threaten again, when Russia would have the cost of reconstructing their own scorched earth destruction
Very good point to be fair
On that basis, why not give away everything the Russians have touched?
It's a rather weird argument, given that Ukrainian people live there.
Not any more they don't and who the fuck is going to go back there?
Neither side can force a decisive outcome so there is going to have to be a deal and the only question of any significance is where the new border will be. Putin's Plan A of getting Donansk and Luhets special status inside Ukraine to pull them in a more pro-Russian direction has gone up in flames.
This war is perfect for Johnson. He gets to play at being a big dick baller and chat shit about glorious victory but doesn't have any negative consequences like watching British "Cargo 200s" arriving at BZZ. And he can do it all with other people's money (the tax payer).
If you weren’t staying in the hotel you had to go home hungry and not eat until breakfast
And you're accusing others of "overegging the pudding" - people who went home could have taken their curry with them or (here's a thing) eaten other food that they had at home.
15 of the 30 people who were there seem to have done the right thing and left.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
Well indeed. Many Tory voters expressed for months (before the FPN was issue) expressed their disgust, including myself.
Seeing a parade of Labour voters here insist "nothing to see here" when the situation is just as bad as it was, for what disgusted me about Boris, is very interesting.
One difference perhaps though is that many of the disgusted ex-Tory voters like myself, Max, Topping and many more were vehemently opposed by the end to the restrictions being imposed, so seeing politicians imposing these restrictions on us while not respecting them themselves is an aggravating factor.
Many of those who insist now "nothing to see here" about Starmer, were at the time justifying restrictions, but seem to be OK with restrictions being broken so long as its done with a red rosette.
You are lying about Labour voters on PB saying "nothing to see". I believe without exception all have called for his resignation on a receipt of an FPN, others, like myself have requested he goes now.
Nonetheless, the Starmer investigation is for one potential indiscretion, Johnson is under investigation for up to 12. For you that is an asymmetry in Johnson's favour. Up to a dozen is nowhere near as bad as one.
I'm not lying, plenty have been banging on that there's nothing to see. Heck look at Roger's post at 7:44am and after reading that perhaps think if you owe me an apology for saying its a lie.
Of course Max, myself, Big G and plenty of other ex-Tories were saying Boris should go before the Police issued the FPN. From memory only HYUFD has been defending him, whereas as far as I can see only you are requesting he goes now whereas we were all where only you are now when the rosette has changed colour.
Another fib, I don't recall many of the faithful demanding Johnson go on news of the investigation. "Wait and see" was the clarion cry.
Neither were fibs. As well as Roger at 7:44, @RochdalePioneers has literally said "nothing to see here" at 8:21am and Stuart liked it so that's at least 3. So will you apologise for claiming I lied in saying people were saying "nothing to see here" on PB about Starmer?
2019 Tories (from the best of my memory) calling for Boris to go before the FPN was issued: Big_G, MaxPB, CasinoRoyale, DavidL, rcs1000 and myself. And probably many more not coming to memory.
"More now on Vladimir Putin's speech. He said the West did not want to listen to Russia, and they had other plans.
Speaking in Red Square in Moscow, he said the West was "preparing for the invasion of our land, including Crimea"."
I mean, FFS. He's totally lost it.
Has he? Notice the reference to Crimea which used to be part of Ukraine till Russia annexed it. Is Putin offering the basis for an armistice? Pre-currygate borders?
General Dannatt suggests that a truce will be agreed and Ukraine will have to concede some territory to Russia, but Mariupol and other cities need billions in reconstruction costs and why would Ukraine take on that debt only for Russia to threaten again, when Russia would have the cost of reconstructing their own scorched earth destruction
Very good point to be fair
On that basis, why not give away everything the Russians have touched?
It's a rather weird argument, given that Ukrainian people live there.
Not any more they don't and who the fuck is going to go back there?
Neither side can force a decisive outcome so there is going to have to be a deal and the only question of any significance is where the new border will be. Putin's Plan A of getting Donansk and Luhets special status inside Ukraine to pull them in a more pro-Russian direction has gone up in flames.
This war is perfect for Johnson. He gets to play at being a big dick baller and chat shit about glorious victory but doesn't have any negative consequences like watching British "Cargo 200s" arriving at BZZ. And he can do it all with other people's money (the tax payer).
I think you underestimate the enthusiasm in Ukraine for keeping/getting back territory that Russia has... err... borrowed.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
If something is true how can it be a smear?
Because of the inference. Its true that Starmer didn't wear a mask. Its also true that Starmer didn't need to wear a mask. So the S*n are making a scandal out of someone obeying the law.
The problem we have with sections of the media is that their editorial teams are very skilled at churning out bullshit to gaslight people who they have made vulnerable to this kind of shit. Otherwise intelligent people rendered stupid by the newspapers they read.
If "need" refers to the law, then this is correct. But "need" can also refer to the rules of the tip.
Given how much SKS agitated for more and harder restrictions, and given how his entire party virtue signalled by wearing masks in the Commons when it wasn't legally required, he doesn't have a fucking leg to stand on here.
Erm, Johnson saying "you wanted to lock us down forever" is just rhetoric. It isn't reality. You can tell the difference between the two?
I remember that whatever pointless destructive restrictions the government proposed, SKS wanted more, harder, sooner and for longer.
Shoigu looks awful and Gerasimov missing... No fly past... Unable to announce conscription call up. This discount parade in Moscow asks quite a few interesting questions. If Izyum is indeed now cut off, then a second defeat for Russia on the scale of the Battle of Kyiv could be on the cards within the next few days.
Maybe, but I think the reliable dictum in domestic politics of "Always discount news reports of imminent major developments" applio es here too. In advance of Putin's speech, there was speculation that he'd either mobilise (escalate the conflict) or declare victory (de-escalate the conflict). He did neither. A couple of weeks ago, there was speculation that a huge Ukrainian counter-offensive was imminent until the Ukrainians said that they wouldn't be doing anything major before July (which makes sense as the Western arms deliveries build up). "Nothing much is changing" is a crap news story, so we always get expectation bias to drama.
Probably we should simply expect a long war of attrition until it becomes obvious that the front is deadlocked at one point or another. There will be tactical advances and retreats, but neither side seems disposed to call it a day any time soon.
I did mention that a conscription announcement would be a major risk for Putin, but many young men have received their papers nevertheless, despite there being no public announcement. I think that Russia, at least as much as Ukraine, is constrained in their freedom of action. As you know the current intelligence assessment is indeed for such a drawn out war of attrition. However, when fronts collapse they tend to do so quite quickly, so we should be prepared for several eventualities. The Russian casualties are simply unsustainable, and although Ukraine has also had a couple of bad weeks, they are getting better kit and fresh troops, whereas Russia is getting worse troops and by committing troops that have still not recovered from the Kyiv defeat, they are creating serious morale problems for themselves on top of that. I think Putin is not able to up the ante, although he wishes to do so, I think the deadlock is therefore in the Kremlin itself. The Russian attack is failing and the probing counter attacks by the Ukrainians seem to be creating real problems for the coherrence of the Russian forces around Izyum. Therefore, although the Ukrainian commanders will be cautious, another opportunity could open up before July. We will see.
The extent to which the Starmer Memo bolsters his Partygate defence - as claimed in the Guardian - is perfectly underlined by the fact he kept its existence secret for months, and has now pulled out of a major speaking event in the immediate aftermath of its publication...
Given currygate was not being investigated "for months" why on earth does Hodges imagine Starmer would have dug out this memo?
Surely you try to control the narrative? You get your story straight and get it out there. Look at the cracks in the narrative and work out how to plaster them over. You ask yourselves a series of questions, such as What happened? What will people make of it? Were photos taken? Videos? Who was there? Why were they there? What was the law at the time? etc, etc.
What you don't do is deny someone was there, only for them to magically have been there, and let your opposition control the narrative by releasing real information in dribs and drabs.
Even if the information is bad for you, it can be better for you to release it all in one go - or at times of your choosing - rather than letting your opposition do it.
(This is true for both Labour and the Conservatives. Not the Lib Dems, as no-one in the media seems to care about them...)
There was no narrative "for months". That's the point. The Durham rozzers cleared the event months ago and only in the past fortnight has it resurfaced.
The police cleared the event because they did not get all the information - which Labour would have blooming well known. The police may still clear the event, but because of Labour's mismanagement of the story it has come to stink.
Labour were going hard on Boris over the parties - and rightly so. But they were too effing incompetent to realise that their own behaviour would come back and smack themselves in the face.
If they're not guilty, they've mismanaged it to a degree where they look as guilty as sin.
It's absolutely hilarious.
If we start looking into April 2021 campaign events we're going to get awfully bogged down. As an example:
Can we see the Gove planning memo? Did they eat? Was there a lunchtime beverage before delivery started? How about afterwards?
As campaigning events like this one and the Durham one were legal, there will be a long list of examples to go after. So if we're now switching to "nope they were illegal" we could be here all year.
Oh indeed, and I daresay you could find LD examples as well.
But the point is this: Labour went in big and hard on Johnson over this. They made it out to be the worst crime ever; a cause for resignation if it was even investigated. They have to hold themselves to the same standard.
If they'd not gone in so heavily on Johnson then they wouldn't be hurting now. Having decided to go in so hard, they should have considered the potential blowback.
It's pure incompetence on Labour's part. And it's hilarious.
If Starmer was convinced that beer and bhaji bonanzas were absolutely legal because it was of course reasonably necessary for party workers outside his bubble to meet him face to face, why would this event have been a one-off?
Exactly. It won't have been a one-off as campaigning was legal. And outrageously enough those will have been planned as well like every single senior politician's movements are. So I do wonder why the Wail hasn't gone digging for those? Yes it would expose the Tories who did the exact same thing but as the shouty part of the press simply chooses not to report those they probably would get away with it.
Campaigning had guidelines that did not allow any indoor meeting other than leaflet collection.
We're not interested in guidelines though, only the law. The opportunity to say "Starmer ignored the guidelines" has passed - they went all in for "broke the law". And as I keep pointing out, the "proof" that Tory tweets keep posting only reinforces that such events were legal. Against the guidance, but not against the law.
Except that in determining the legal test of what is "reasonably necessary", the guidance needs to be considered.
Guidance is just that . It’s irrelevant to what happened in Durham . The memo confirms that this was a work event in relation to the campaign, whether the curry and drinks then turned it into an unnecessary social gathering is all that matters .
If you weren’t staying in the hotel you had to go home hungry and not eat until breakfast
And you're accusing others of "overegging the pudding" - people who went home could have taken their curry with them or (here's a thing) eaten other food that they had at home.
15 of the 30 people who were there seem to have done the right thing and left.
It's 15 people. This is confirmed by numerous sources. There weren't 30 there.
I think Labour are handling this in a way that suggests there’s more to hide and instead of being a bystander as the right wing press wade in they need to take over the story and ensure the public can clearly see the distinction between Durham and the goings on in no 10.
Starmer should call a news conference , come out fighting , say he won’t be lectured to by the Tories , draw that distinction .
There are only 2 outcomes here , he gets cleared or gets a FPN . If it’s the latter he goes , if it’s the former then coming out fighting looks good. If he gets a FPN he goes anyway so instead of sheepishly trying to avoid this for the next few weeks he needs to take control of the narrative .
If you weren’t staying in the hotel you had to go home hungry and not eat until breakfast
And you're accusing others of "overegging the pudding" - people who went home could have taken their curry with them or (here's a thing) eaten other food that they had at home.
15 of the 30 people who were there seem to have done the right thing and left.
How would people at the hotel eat? They'd stopped serving - are you saying they should have waited until breakfast?
The extent to which the Starmer Memo bolsters his Partygate defence - as claimed in the Guardian - is perfectly underlined by the fact he kept its existence secret for months, and has now pulled out of a major speaking event in the immediate aftermath of its publication...
Given currygate was not being investigated "for months" why on earth does Hodges imagine Starmer would have dug out this memo?
Surely you try to control the narrative? You get your story straight and get it out there. Look at the cracks in the narrative and work out how to plaster them over. You ask yourselves a series of questions, such as What happened? What will people make of it? Were photos taken? Videos? Who was there? Why were they there? What was the law at the time? etc, etc.
What you don't do is deny someone was there, only for them to magically have been there, and let your opposition control the narrative by releasing real information in dribs and drabs.
Even if the information is bad for you, it can be better for you to release it all in one go - or at times of your choosing - rather than letting your opposition do it.
(This is true for both Labour and the Conservatives. Not the Lib Dems, as no-one in the media seems to care about them...)
There was no narrative "for months". That's the point. The Durham rozzers cleared the event months ago and only in the past fortnight has it resurfaced.
The police cleared the event because they did not get all the information - which Labour would have blooming well known. The police may still clear the event, but because of Labour's mismanagement of the story it has come to stink.
Labour were going hard on Boris over the parties - and rightly so. But they were too effing incompetent to realise that their own behaviour would come back and smack themselves in the face.
If they're not guilty, they've mismanaged it to a degree where they look as guilty as sin.
It's absolutely hilarious.
If we start looking into April 2021 campaign events we're going to get awfully bogged down. As an example:
Can we see the Gove planning memo? Did they eat? Was there a lunchtime beverage before delivery started? How about afterwards?
As campaigning events like this one and the Durham one were legal, there will be a long list of examples to go after. So if we're now switching to "nope they were illegal" we could be here all year.
Oh indeed, and I daresay you could find LD examples as well.
But the point is this: Labour went in big and hard on Johnson over this. They made it out to be the worst crime ever; a cause for resignation if it was even investigated. They have to hold themselves to the same standard.
If they'd not gone in so heavily on Johnson then they wouldn't be hurting now. Having decided to go in so hard, they should have considered the potential blowback.
It's pure incompetence on Labour's part. And it's hilarious.
All sorts round this issue are there not. but two stand out. 1. Starmer went after Johnson for BOTH Parties AND lying to the House 2. Labour really need an Alistair Campbell type in their Press Office. Even the LD's is better.
If you weren’t staying in the hotel you had to go home hungry and not eat until breakfast
And you're accusing others of "overegging the pudding" - people who went home could have taken their curry with them or (here's a thing) eaten other food that they had at home.
15 of the 30 people who were there seem to have done the right thing and left.
How would people at the hotel eat? They'd stopped serving - are you saying they should have waited until breakfast?
They pick up their takeaway and go back to hotel rooms. Easy. No need to have a big gathering.
Whilst it obviously wasn't a party as such (although there obviously a chance that someone there had a birthday), I'm still failing to see how this is materially different to Rishi being fined for turning up just before a meeting and finding a cake was being passed round.
I think the issue here is really the Met. The cakedoers should not really have been fined.
If like me you believe that Starmer did nothing at all wrong and is being bullied by the nastiest of all right wing tabloids in support of what has become the 'Nasty Party' again then this is the moment to fight back.
He has to first of all be completely exonerated by the police. Then come out fighting..... First do a number on the two 'unnamed students' posing as photographers. Who are they and how much were they paid by the Mail? Then go all out on Partygate,.....Gloves off.
Reveal Johnson to be the nasty piece of work we all know him to be. (Where's Eddie Mair when you need him?) There's a back catalogue as long as your arm. It just needs presenting. It's time to get a high profile 'Alastair Campbell' in his corner who knows how you put the boot in.
Starmer's 'niceness' has allowed Johnson a free ride. The Mail are just his latest bag carriers. Lisa Nandy started to show the way yesterday but she's got her day job.
To have allowed Johnson to equate his decades of louche debauchery and indolence with having a curry after work is criminal. It should be making decent people angry.
Now is the moment....No More Mr Nice Guy.
Time to take your blinkers off and understand that this situation has arisen by attendees at the event making accusations of rule breaking and the independent Durham Councillor who lost his mother made the formal complaint to Durham Police which has prompted the police to undertake a MET style investigation into potential law breaking
This has all the hallmarks of disaffected left labourites making trouble for Starmer who has moved labour towards the centre
Dianne Abbott was out of the traps yesterday saying Starmer should consider his position if he receives a FPN and others followed
The Mail has been prominent in this story but it is not the conservatives who are the cause of this disaster for Starmer but those disaffected labourites who are using the Mail to further their cause
Starmer pulling out of an important pre Queen's Speech event tonight just looks terrible and goodness knows how he is going to fair in his response to the speech in the HOC tomorrow
I think you are looking for a conspiracy where there is no evidence that it exists. From what I've read the story was supplied to the Mail by two student photographers. It's not uncommon for photographic students to ask if they can attach themselves to an event and be allowed to photograph it. Everyone wants to be a Martin Parr.
My guess is that they were granted access and then for whatever reason decided they might with a little imagination have a 'story'. I doubt they had an axe to grind just a future career to think about.
Whether one or two old Corbynites thought that this was a chance to stick one on Starmer I have no idea. They are a sad berdraggled bunch living in their own imagination and therefore a complete irrelevance.
As for lying low for a few days it's a wise decision. He needs to be exonerated before he can move on or the story will get legs. But when he is exonerated his vengiance should be massive. We've already seen Raab and Rees Mogg being asked 'Should Starmer resign?'. An which of course neither can answer for obvious reasons.
It's when he emerges smelling of roses that he should start lettibg loose and at last we might see his inner George Carmen
My take. England LD's. Big winners. I was more bullish on them than most, but I underestimated it. They are back as a serious force in certain counties. Greens did damn well. Also in specific places. Labour. Meh. SKS just isn't very good at politics. Be careful what Tories wish for. He hasn't cut through, and there is no chance of a Corbynite replacement. Tories was an off the scale disaster. They are facing an electoral pincer movement of tactical voting. I expected 200 losses UK wide. They've far exceeded that in England alone. Scotland. A bit meh all round really. Labour coming second is of symbolic importance mind. LD's did well. Wales. A super result for Llafur. Tories have chucked away a decade of hard graft. Dismal. NI. Could have been much worse
LDs need to be wary though. They were back as serious players under Swinson post Euro triumph 2019 and after Change UK blew it and became Twitter whiners. Then she got ideas of grandeur. Ed Davey will struggle to get airtime apart from a quick cheesy by election piece to camera with a load of grinning sandalistas holding lib dem diamonds and breaking a cardboard box blue wall with an orange magic lib dem hammer and the electorate will gradually forget his successes over the next 2 years. The extra feet on the ground with the gains will help but it's a long way back to anything over 20 seats I think. A first step but still in precarious territory.
They just need to seem generally likeable, and have a likeable leader. And for the Labour leader at the time to be unfrightening. That will be enough to score 13 or 14% in a GE and win multiple blue wall seats.
Davey is likeable. I'd certainly have a small lager and lime with him if he was buying.
A chunkier, more urban Lembit Opik. Norman Lamb with a seat.
I don't really see where the Lembit comparisons come in to it, Davey is, well, normal.
Lembit was everything you'd expect a Mid Welsh Liberal Democrat to be.
Thesedays that appears to be 'non-existent'.
Not quite - they are the largest party in Powys after Thursday.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
Well indeed. Many Tory voters expressed for months (before the FPN was issue) expressed their disgust, including myself.
Seeing a parade of Labour voters here insist "nothing to see here" when the situation is just as bad as it was, for what disgusted me about Boris, is very interesting.
One difference perhaps though is that many of the disgusted ex-Tory voters like myself, Max, Topping and many more were vehemently opposed by the end to the restrictions being imposed, so seeing politicians imposing these restrictions on us while not respecting them themselves is an aggravating factor.
Many of those who insist now "nothing to see here" about Starmer, were at the time justifying restrictions, but seem to be OK with restrictions being broken so long as its done with a red rosette.
You are lying about Labour voters on PB saying "nothing to see". I believe without exception all have called for his resignation on a receipt of an FPN, others, like myself have requested he goes now.
Nonetheless, the Starmer investigation is for one potential indiscretion, Johnson is under investigation for up to 12. For you that is an asymmetry in Johnson's favour. Up to a dozen is nowhere near as bad as one.
I'm not lying, plenty have been banging on that there's nothing to see. Heck look at Roger's post at 7:44am and after reading that perhaps think if you owe me an apology for saying its a lie.
Of course Max, myself, Big G and plenty of other ex-Tories were saying Boris should go before the Police issued the FPN. From memory only HYUFD has been defending him, whereas as far as I can see only you are requesting he goes now whereas we were all where only you are now when the rosette has changed colour.
Another fib, I don't recall many of the faithful demanding Johnson go on news of the investigation. "Wait and see" was the clarion cry.
'Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.'
Comments
I often criticize the left for being too nice and playing by rules that the other side doesn't respect.
But sometimes I think you have to acknowledge that even though your act of decency wouldn't be reciprocated, you've still got to do the right thing.
This was demented from the February start.
That the following is probably not invented shows just how demented.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1523442550102581249
Warning - Don't follow the link if you're troubled by accounts of extreme brutality.
2019 Tories (from the best of my memory) calling for Boris to go before the FPN was issued: Big_G, MaxPB, CasinoRoyale, DavidL, rcs1000 and myself. And probably many more not coming to memory.
They are really starting to over-egg the pudding
Of course Crimea is not their land.
The Nandy line yesterday I thought was good . Starmer needs to take control of this and not just be a punch bag for the Daily Mail .
Are you still insisting I'm lying about people saying "nothing to see here" when people are quite literally writing "nothing to see here" and its being liked by other people?
And the claim it was a fib that others were calling for Boris to go before the FPN when I myself and others I've named were literally doing that?
If you're going to accuse other site members of telling lies, at least get your facts straight. Its really offensive.
PS Richard_Tyndall is another name that's come to mind that also thought Boris should go and that lawmakers can't be law breakers before the FPN was issued. I'm pretty sure there's many more, its been the overwhelming attitude I've witnessed from my fellow ex-Tories with just about only HYUFD left as the self-styled "only Tory in the village".
It certainly is epically comedic though, I agree with that!
Very good point to be fair
Given how much SKS agitated for more and harder restrictions, and given how his entire party virtue signalled by wearing masks in the Commons when it wasn't legally required, he doesn't have a fucking leg to stand on here.
This reflects badly on the Labour leadership.
Labour's ineptitude at not slapping this down is of enormous proportions. Starmer should be sacked simply for foolishness. Starmer pleading "nothing to see" for ten days instead of going in with his boots on and highlighting Johnson's pub celebration in Hartlepool and Conservative campaigning is unforgiveable. He has given Johnson a get out of jail free card.
The really unforgivable bit is Starmer lost the Hartlepool by election anyway, so all his woes were for nought.
If Russia's military collapses, as seems plausible, then we should be seeking to displace Russia from all of Crimea and Donbas - but not necessarily punitively claim any territory as recompense beyond those borders.
Polls close 12 noon BST, Marcos expected to win in landslide, FPTP.
youtube.com/watch?v=pM7jPTtPZf4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwnJbK4Hf0
Thanks
DC
A week is a long time in politics and in this case nobody could have foreseen this change of events and I have no idea how this would have gone down if Durham Police had confirmed their investigation during the local elections rather than waiting for the 6th May
Probably we should simply expect a long war of attrition until it becomes obvious that the front is deadlocked at one point or another. There will be tactical advances and retreats, but neither side seems disposed to call it a day any time soon.
It's a rather weird argument, given that Ukrainian people live there.
As I have said, it will be very very funny if he has to quit having painted himself into a corner. Would be egregiously unfair, but Starmer chose where to paint...
Neither side can force a decisive outcome so there is going to have to be a deal and the only question of any significance is where the new border will be. Putin's Plan A of getting Donansk and Luhets special status inside Ukraine to pull them in a more pro-Russian direction has gone up in flames.
This war is perfect for Johnson. He gets to play at being a big dick baller and chat shit about glorious victory but doesn't have any negative consequences like watching British "Cargo 200s" arriving at BZZ. And he can do it all with other people's money (the tax payer).
15 of the 30 people who were there seem to have done the right thing and left.
But the point is this: Labour went in big and hard on Johnson over this. They made it out to be the worst crime ever; a cause for resignation if it was even investigated. They have to hold themselves to the same standard.
If they'd not gone in so heavily on Johnson then they wouldn't be hurting now. Having decided to go in so hard, they should have considered the potential blowback.
It's pure incompetence on Labour's part. And it's hilarious.
Starmer should call a news conference , come out fighting , say he won’t be lectured to by the Tories , draw that distinction .
There are only 2 outcomes here , he gets cleared or gets a FPN . If it’s the latter he goes , if it’s the former then coming out fighting looks good. If he gets a FPN he goes anyway so instead of sheepishly trying to avoid this for the next few weeks he needs to take control of the narrative .
1. Starmer went after Johnson for BOTH Parties AND lying to the House
2. Labour really need an Alistair Campbell type in their Press Office. Even the LD's is better.
Whilst it obviously wasn't a party as such (although there obviously a chance that someone there had a birthday), I'm still failing to see how this is materially different to Rishi being fined for turning up just before a meeting and finding a cake was being passed round.
I think the issue here is really the Met. The cakedoers should not really have been fined.
A karaoke, well, fine, throw the book.
My guess is that they were granted access and then for whatever reason decided they might with a little imagination have a 'story'. I doubt they had an axe to grind just a future career to think about.
Whether one or two old Corbynites thought that this was a chance to stick one on Starmer I have no idea. They are a sad berdraggled bunch living in their own imagination and therefore a complete irrelevance.
As for lying low for a few days it's a wise decision. He needs to be exonerated before he can move on or the story will get legs. But when he is exonerated his vengiance should be massive. We've already seen Raab and Rees Mogg being asked 'Should Starmer resign?'. An which of course neither can answer for obvious reasons.
It's when he emerges smelling of roses that he should start lettibg loose and at last we might see his inner George Carmen
Starmer’s tweet on January 31