I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
You're about a week behind. Take a look at today's front page and justify it.
As for the allegation itself, Labour's statement about the evidence they'll submit would seem to have shot that down, too.
Today’s Mail front page is magnificent in its hypocrisy. On 30th April, its front page headline was: “Police told to investigate Labour lies” Followed by this opening paragraph: “Cabinet ministers last night joined calls for a new probe into the ‘Beergate’ scandal engulfing Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner.” The Mail believes its readers are easily manipulated, not very bright and devoid of short-term memory. It seems to be a winning formula!
That dastardly Starmer is ruining the investigation by fully co-operating with it, and submitting evidence of what went on on the night in question...
Fully cooperating by lying about the presence of Angela Rayner for 4 months?
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
The cynicism/hypocrisy of the Mail has always been a thing, but flipping 180 degrees from saying partygate doesn’t matter and is a triviality to currygate being the end of the world is a new low even for them.
The chumocracy / clique of right wing outrider journalists and proprietors blurring with the Johnson administration is also eye opening. Favours for favours. You want channel4 and a weaker BBC, no problem!
The law should apply equally to all. An ill-defined law - one that has even led Starmer, a top lawyer, to be unsure whether he broke it - has 'got' Johnson and the Tories. It is perfectly fair to ask whether the law, not it has been used politically, should apply to the other side in a situation that looks potentially dodgy to anyone who is not utterly biased.
Nah. If the Mail had a consistent investigative campaign they would deserve respect. Instead they flipped 180 on the issue when it suited their partisan agenda. In which case, it’s just an offshoot of cchq and should be treated the same way as any propaganda.
Meanwhile if the law was bad or draconian, the fault lies with the government.
AIUI Starmer voted for the law. Anyone who voted for it in parliament has responsibility for the law - in the same way people who voted for the Iraq war have some responsibility for it.
And the law has to apply equally to all sides. If one sides gets 'done' by the law, it's fine to say : "What about this thing you did?"
That line is particularly weak. Offloading the governments responsibility for their laws onto opposition MPs, is just the sort of nonsense you get from the Johnson administration and its supporters. He takes responsibility for none of his errors. The buck is passed at super sonic speed. Meanwhile he takes the credit for the work of others if something goes right.
No it isn't weak. The Opposition have a responsibility to scrutinise and hold the government to account.
If the Opposition are voting for the Governments measures without amendment then either they're abdicating their own responsibility or they're endorsing what the Government is doing.
It isn't just hindsight, many were criticising Starmer at the time for not scrutinising the Government over this legislation.
Boris’ is running the ‘not me Gov’ administration. Everyone else is responsible.
I thought it was the general consensus that the PM was highly irresponsible……?
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
You're about a week behind. Take a look at today's front page and justify it.
As for the allegation itself, Labour's statement about the evidence they'll submit would seem to have shot that down, too.
Today’s Mail front page is magnificent in its hypocrisy. On 30th April, its front page headline was: “Police told to investigate Labour lies” Followed by this opening paragraph: “Cabinet ministers last night joined calls for a new probe into the ‘Beergate’ scandal engulfing Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner.” The Mail believes its readers are easily manipulated, not very bright and devoid of short-term memory. It seems to be a winning formula!
That dastardly Starmer is ruining the investigation by fully co-operating with it, and submitting evidence of what went on on the night in question...
Fully cooperating by lying about the presence of Angela Rayner for 4 months?
Love the Guardian's approach on the story this morning:
"Despite the huge political interest in the saga, the alleged breach is a relatively low-level matter for the police, who will want to ensure their investigation is proportionate but will survive scrutiny."
Not really the approach they took when BJ was in the dock, was it.....?
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
If they’ve broken the law they’ll be fined and they’ll resign. That’s not particularly virtuous if you’ve helped make the law, but it is an approach that stands in marked contrast to others.
Labour fixating again on the idea that it's the fine that counts not whether SKS is actually guilty of an offence. The fact that SKS refused to say if he would have resign if he is found guilty but didn't receive a fine suggests he knows he probably has done something wrong but is relying on Durham's stated policy of not issuing retrospective fines. It's a typical lawyer's wheeze. Not sure it will go down well with the public.
Thanks Josias for making the 'Iraq' comparison. I was thinking about that myself. The Conservatives supported Blair's disastrous Iraq policy but escaped condemnation for it. I think that's fairy nuff. They weren't the Government and they weren't making the rules.
Same applies with the infinitely more trivial beergate. It is somewhat less serious if you break rules made by somebody else, although of course it's still wrong.
Anyway it is starting to look like there will be no fine, so I hope we can soon all move on from this tedious subject.
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
You're about a week behind. Take a look at today's front page and justify it.
As for the allegation itself, Labour's statement about the evidence they'll submit would seem to have shot that down, too.
Today’s Mail front page is magnificent in its hypocrisy. On 30th April, its front page headline was: “Police told to investigate Labour lies” Followed by this opening paragraph: “Cabinet ministers last night joined calls for a new probe into the ‘Beergate’ scandal engulfing Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner.” The Mail believes its readers are easily manipulated, not very bright and devoid of short-term memory. It seems to be a winning formula!
That dastardly Starmer is ruining the investigation by fully co-operating with it, and submitting evidence of what went on on the night in question...
Fully cooperating by lying about the presence of Angela Rayner for 4 months?
How do you know he lied for four months?
Good point. The period of time of the deception is what matters. Not the deception itself.
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
If they’ve broken the law they’ll be fined and they’ll resign. That’s not particularly virtuous if you’ve helped make the law, but it is an approach that stands in marked contrast to others.
Labour fixating again on the idea that it's the fine that counts not whether SKS is actually guilty of an offence. The fact that SKS refused to say if he would have resign if he is found guilty but didn't receive a fine suggests he knows he probably has done something wrong but is relying on Durham's stated policy of not issuing retrospective fines. It's a typical lawyer's wheeze. Not sure it will go down well with the public.
If he’s guilty of an offence he’ll be fined.
No. A fine is not automatic as we saw with Cummings. He could be found guilty but not fined. In which case he stays.
It is like some production from the Theatre of the Absurd, reflecting on the pointlessness of it all.
Almost everyone sane has concluded that the Tories are much better off without Boris (serial liar) and Labour are much better off without Keir (a very limited politician).
But, the last of the Boris Loyalists are fighting it out to the death with the bedraggled remains of the Keir yeomanry over 'beer and curry' gate and 'cheese and wine' gate.
Haven't these people understood what everyone else knows?
The first party that changes its leader wins the next election.
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
The cynicism/hypocrisy of the Mail has always been a thing, but flipping 180 degrees from saying partygate doesn’t matter and is a triviality to currygate being the end of the world is a new low even for them.
The chumocracy / clique of right wing outrider journalists and proprietors blurring with the Johnson administration is also eye opening. Favours for favours. You want channel4 and a weaker BBC, no problem!
The law should apply equally to all. An ill-defined law - one that has even led Starmer, a top lawyer, to be unsure whether he broke it - has 'got' Johnson and the Tories. It is perfectly fair to ask whether the law, not it has been used politically, should apply to the other side in a situation that looks potentially dodgy to anyone who is not utterly biased.
Nah. If the Mail had a consistent investigative campaign they would deserve respect. Instead they flipped 180 on the issue when it suited their partisan agenda. In which case, it’s just an offshoot of cchq and should be treated the same way as any propaganda.
Meanwhile if the law was bad or draconian, the fault lies with the government.
AIUI Starmer voted for the law. Anyone who voted for it in parliament has responsibility for the law - in the same way people who voted for the Iraq war have some responsibility for it.
And the law has to apply equally to all sides. If one sides gets 'done' by the law, it's fine to say : "What about this thing you did?"
Indeed, as soon as Goering uttered the magic words, 'What about-', Maxwell Fyfe banged his gavel and there appeared Harry Truman in dock, clad in a prison jumpsuit.
A bit tongue in cheek, but it is categorically not a defence to ask 'What about this thing you did?' The two investigations are separate and should have nothing to do with each other. Durham police have received new information and Labour have submitted a dossier in rebuttal. Durham Police will decide if they think this gathering broke the law. If they do, then Starmer will resign.
Except he won't if he is found to have broken the law but doesn't receive a fine. In that case, he will stay.
Well, possibly true. He hasn't said he won't go in those circumstances. Probably because there are a range of outcomes possible, depending on what Durham Police say.
If BBC is right and Labour can prove they worked until 1AM, this has been possibly the greatest piece of politics from Labour in recent memory. Not such a bad team after all
Starmer having a beer and takeaway curry with the workers also normalises what can be seen as a rather fuddy duddy image. Its not a bad look to have.
dont know my left wing anti tory daughter is not impressed by Starmer and "beergate" . Most people I know think it confirms politicians are liars , hypocrites and love making laws for others to obey especially on virtue signalling stuff like protecting the NHS . At best Starmer comes out like one of those tax avoiders who dont break the law but bend it as much as it will go .
Did Starmer really stay in the spirit of the law ? Exactly like tax avoiders don't. Did parliament including him really frame the law wanting 30 plus people having a beer and curry? Nah ! He is the equivalent of a legal but not in the spirit of the law tax avoider by doing what he did
Starmer viewed though deep red goggles is as unappealing as through deep blue. We see that horshoe with BJO on here. Disaffected Corbynites hate him, and there isn't much he can do about it.
I am no Starmer fan, and won't be voting Labour next GE. If I were in a winnable marginal then maybe. There is a sizeable LD and Green vote, and probably half will not be squeezable, and the other half willing to tactically vote.
I would always vote for the (non right wing) party with the best chance of beating the Tories. With first past the post isn't anything else just a futile gesture?
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
The cynicism/hypocrisy of the Mail has always been a thing, but flipping 180 degrees from saying partygate doesn’t matter and is a triviality to currygate being the end of the world is a new low even for them.
The chumocracy / clique of right wing outrider journalists and proprietors blurring with the Johnson administration is also eye opening. Favours for favours. You want channel4 and a weaker BBC, no problem!
The law should apply equally to all. An ill-defined law - one that has even led Starmer, a top lawyer, to be unsure whether he broke it - has 'got' Johnson and the Tories. It is perfectly fair to ask whether the law, not it has been used politically, should apply to the other side in a situation that looks potentially dodgy to anyone who is not utterly biased.
Nah. If the Mail had a consistent investigative campaign they would deserve respect. Instead they flipped 180 on the issue when it suited their partisan agenda. In which case, it’s just an offshoot of cchq and should be treated the same way as any propaganda.
Meanwhile if the law was bad or draconian, the fault lies with the government.
AIUI Starmer voted for the law. Anyone who voted for it in parliament has responsibility for the law - in the same way people who voted for the Iraq war have some responsibility for it.
And the law has to apply equally to all sides. If one sides gets 'done' by the law, it's fine to say : "What about this thing you did?"
Indeed, as soon as Goering uttered the magic words, 'What about-', Maxwell Fyfe banged his gavel and there appeared Harry Truman in dock, clad in a prison jumpsuit.
A bit tongue in cheek, but it is categorically not a defence to ask 'What about this thing you did?' The two investigations are separate and should have nothing to do with each other. Durham police have received new information and Labour have submitted a dossier in rebuttal. Durham Police will decide if they think this gathering broke the law. If they do, then Starmer will resign.
No, he will only resign if issued with an FPN. They could find it ‘probably’ broke the law but not issue one. As they did with Cummings. In that case he’d on
It is like some production from the Theatre of the Absurd, reflecting on the pointlessness of it all.
Almost everyone sane has concluded that the Tories are much better off with Boris (serial liar) and Labour are much better off without Keir (a very limited politician).
But, the last of the Boris Loyalists are fighting it out to the death with the bedraggled remains of the Keir yeomanry over 'beer and curry' gate and 'cheese and wine' gate.
Haven't these people understood what everyone else knows?
The first party that changes its leader wins the next election.
It’s not that simple. Who the party chooses matters. Switching to Truss for example, is not a sure fire route to victory. The Tories have no clear winners.
Meanwhile for Labour, the the controversy around Corbyn bring risks for the campaign. The first question of the campaign will be, should Corbyn have the whip.
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
If they’ve broken the law they’ll be fined and they’ll resign. That’s not particularly virtuous if you’ve helped make the law, but it is an approach that stands in marked contrast to others.
Labour fixating again on the idea that it's the fine that counts not whether SKS is actually guilty of an offence. The fact that SKS refused to say if he would have resign if he is found guilty but didn't receive a fine suggests he knows he probably has done something wrong but is relying on Durham's stated policy of not issuing retrospective fines. It's a typical lawyer's wheeze. Not sure it will go down well with the public.
If he’s guilty of an offence he’ll be fined.
No. A fine is not automatic as we saw with Cummings. He could be found guilty but not fined. In which case he stays.
That's what Cummings did. Did you call for him to resign then?
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
The cynicism/hypocrisy of the Mail has always been a thing, but flipping 180 degrees from saying partygate doesn’t matter and is a triviality to currygate being the end of the world is a new low even for them.
The chumocracy / clique of right wing outrider journalists and proprietors blurring with the Johnson administration is also eye opening. Favours for favours. You want channel4 and a weaker BBC, no problem!
The law should apply equally to all. An ill-defined law - one that has even led Starmer, a top lawyer, to be unsure whether he broke it - has 'got' Johnson and the Tories. It is perfectly fair to ask whether the law, not it has been used politically, should apply to the other side in a situation that looks potentially dodgy to anyone who is not utterly biased.
Nah. If the Mail had a consistent investigative campaign they would deserve respect. Instead they flipped 180 on the issue when it suited their partisan agenda. In which case, it’s just an offshoot of cchq and should be treated the same way as any propaganda.
Meanwhile if the law was bad or draconian, the fault lies with the government.
AIUI Starmer voted for the law. Anyone who voted for it in parliament has responsibility for the law - in the same way people who voted for the Iraq war have some responsibility for it.
And the law has to apply equally to all sides. If one sides gets 'done' by the law, it's fine to say : "What about this thing you did?"
That line is particularly weak. Offloading the governments responsibility for their laws onto opposition MPs, is just the sort of nonsense you get from the Johnson administration and its supporters. He takes responsibility for none of his errors. The buck is passed at super sonic speed. Meanwhile he takes the credit for the work of others if something goes right.
I'm not a fan of Johnson, and I agree he doesn't take responsibility for his actions. In fact, I've been making that point since the Garden Bridge debacle.
But your attempt to suggest that Starmer has no 'responsibility' for a law he voted for is laughable. Particularly as LOTO, he has the ability to whip his side *not* to vote for the law, or to get amendments put into it.
And to be fair to both Starmer and the government, we were in a crisis. Things had to be done in a hurry. An interesting question is whether this law was actually needed. Was it an unnecessary stick?
You overestimate the power of the Leader of the Opposition when the government has an 80-seat majority.
As to whether the law was needed, the government did publish a review which iirc showed lockdown was effective. At the time of beergate, we were at step 2 out of lockdown.
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
If they’ve broken the law they’ll be fined and they’ll resign. That’s not particularly virtuous if you’ve helped make the law, but it is an approach that stands in marked contrast to others.
Labour fixating again on the idea that it's the fine that counts not whether SKS is actually guilty of an offence. The fact that SKS refused to say if he would have resign if he is found guilty but didn't receive a fine suggests he knows he probably has done something wrong but is relying on Durham's stated policy of not issuing retrospective fines. It's a typical lawyer's wheeze. Not sure it will go down well with the public.
Sorry, but that's a pretty desperate spin. And how can you be 'found guilty but not receive a fine' ? Except by the Mail, of course.
Proof if it were needed that Starmer's one event is more serious than Johnson's "up to a dozen". Let's hope Durham Police are as rigorous as they were with Cummings.
My understanding is Johnson, let alone be interviewed for "bring a bottle" isn't even getting a questionnaire.
I wonder if Durham now going in with their boots on will stir the Met into stop dancing around Johnson personally for fear of making political waves, as seems to be the case.
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
The rules were quite different in April 2021 to April 2020. By April 2021 half the population had been vaccinated for example.
Indeed though its funny how many people are saying that about Starmer's drinking session that he attended, but how few people were saying that when the drinking session that Downing Street staff had 'on the eve of Prince Philip's funeral' came out.
The latter was also April 2021.
To be fair, Mr R, I don't think that the general picture of Starmer's session ..... small plate of curry and a bottle of beer in a meeting hall...., is anything like the relaxed cheese and wine party in the garden of No 10 which is the picture we have of the at least one of the PM's sessions.
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
You're about a week behind. Take a look at today's front page and justify it.
As for the allegation itself, Labour's statement about the evidence they'll submit would seem to have shot that down, too.
Today’s Mail front page is magnificent in its hypocrisy. On 30th April, its front page headline was: “Police told to investigate Labour lies” Followed by this opening paragraph: “Cabinet ministers last night joined calls for a new probe into the ‘Beergate’ scandal engulfing Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner.” The Mail believes its readers are easily manipulated, not very bright and devoid of short-term memory. It seems to be a winning formula!
That dastardly Starmer is ruining the investigation by fully co-operating with it, and submitting evidence of what went on on the night in question...
Fully cooperating by lying about the presence of Angela Rayner for 4 months?
How do you know he lied for four months?
Good point. The period of time of the deception is what matters. Not the deception itself.
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
If they’ve broken the law they’ll be fined and they’ll resign. That’s not particularly virtuous if you’ve helped make the law, but it is an approach that stands in marked contrast to others.
Labour fixating again on the idea that it's the fine that counts not whether SKS is actually guilty of an offence. The fact that SKS refused to say if he would have resign if he is found guilty but didn't receive a fine suggests he knows he probably has done something wrong but is relying on Durham's stated policy of not issuing retrospective fines. It's a typical lawyer's wheeze. Not sure it will go down well with the public.
Sorry, but that's a pretty desperate spin. And how can you be 'found guilty but not receive a fine' ? Except by the Mail, of course.
On 12 April 2020, Mr Cummings drove approximately 26 miles from his father’s property to Barnard Castle with his wife and son. He stated on 25 May 2020 that the purpose of this drive was to test his resilience to drive to London the following day, including whether his eyesight was sufficiently recovered, his period of self-isolation having ended.
Durham constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR [automatic number plate recognition], witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.
Had a Durham constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken. In line with Durham constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public.
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
If they’ve broken the law they’ll be fined and they’ll resign. That’s not particularly virtuous if you’ve helped make the law, but it is an approach that stands in marked contrast to others.
Labour fixating again on the idea that it's the fine that counts not whether SKS is actually guilty of an offence. The fact that SKS refused to say if he would have resign if he is found guilty but didn't receive a fine suggests he knows he probably has done something wrong but is relying on Durham's stated policy of not issuing retrospective fines. It's a typical lawyer's wheeze. Not sure it will go down well with the public.
If he’s guilty of an offence he’ll be fined.
No. A fine is not automatic as we saw with Cummings. He could be found guilty but not fined. In which case he stays.
That's what Cummings did. Did you call for him to resign then?
https://twitter.com/rprose/status/1523910064871989248 "On this day, I'd like to wish everyone peace, health and happiness," says this LNR artillery commander before literally firing shells with May 9 cards at villages still held by Ukraine
Posted by Russian state-run RIA Novosti on Telegram
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
The cynicism/hypocrisy of the Mail has always been a thing, but flipping 180 degrees from saying partygate doesn’t matter and is a triviality to currygate being the end of the world is a new low even for them.
The chumocracy / clique of right wing outrider journalists and proprietors blurring with the Johnson administration is also eye opening. Favours for favours. You want channel4 and a weaker BBC, no problem!
The law should apply equally to all. An ill-defined law - one that has even led Starmer, a top lawyer, to be unsure whether he broke it - has 'got' Johnson and the Tories. It is perfectly fair to ask whether the law, not it has been used politically, should apply to the other side in a situation that looks potentially dodgy to anyone who is not utterly biased.
Nah. If the Mail had a consistent investigative campaign they would deserve respect. Instead they flipped 180 on the issue when it suited their partisan agenda. In which case, it’s just an offshoot of cchq and should be treated the same way as any propaganda.
Meanwhile if the law was bad or draconian, the fault lies with the government.
AIUI Starmer voted for the law. Anyone who voted for it in parliament has responsibility for the law - in the same way people who voted for the Iraq war have some responsibility for it.
And the law has to apply equally to all sides. If one sides gets 'done' by the law, it's fine to say : "What about this thing you did?"
That line is particularly weak. Offloading the governments responsibility for their laws onto opposition MPs, is just the sort of nonsense you get from the Johnson administration and its supporters. He takes responsibility for none of his errors. The buck is passed at super sonic speed. Meanwhile he takes the credit for the work of others if something goes right.
I'm not a fan of Johnson, and I agree he doesn't take responsibility for his actions. In fact, I've been making that point since the Garden Bridge debacle.
But your attempt to suggest that Starmer has no 'responsibility' for a law he voted for is laughable. Particularly as LOTO, he has the ability to whip his side *not* to vote for the law, or to get amendments put into it.
And to be fair to both Starmer and the government, we were in a crisis. Things had to be done in a hurry. An interesting question is whether this law was actually needed. Was it an unnecessary stick?
You overestimate the power of the Leader of the Opposition when the government has an 80-seat majority.
As to whether the law was needed, the government did publish a review which iirc showed lockdown was effective. At the time of beergate, we were at step 2 out of lockdown.
Did Labour vote for the law? Did they vote against the law? Did they try to get it amended?
The size of the majority is pretty irrelevant. If the opposition feels something is wrong, they should vote, or amend, accordingly.
If BBC is right and Labour can prove they worked until 1AM, this has been possibly the greatest piece of politics from Labour in recent memory. Not such a bad team after all
Starmer having a beer and takeaway curry with the workers also normalises what can be seen as a rather fuddy duddy image. Its not a bad look to have.
dont know my left wing anti tory daughter is not impressed by Starmer and "beergate" . Most people I know think it confirms politicians are liars , hypocrites and love making laws for others to obey especially on virtue signalling stuff like protecting the NHS . At best Starmer comes out like one of those tax avoiders who dont break the law but bend it as much as it will go .
Did Starmer really stay in the spirit of the law ? Exactly like tax avoiders don't. Did parliament including him really frame the law wanting 30 plus people having a beer and curry? Nah ! He is the equivalent of a legal but not in the spirit of the law tax avoider by doing what he did
Starmer viewed though deep red goggles is as unappealing as through deep blue. We see that horshoe with BJO on here. Disaffected Corbynites hate him, and there isn't much he can do about it.
I am no Starmer fan, and won't be voting Labour next GE. If I were in a winnable marginal then maybe. There is a sizeable LD and Green vote, and probably half will not be squeezable, and the other half willing to tactically vote.
I would always vote for the (non right wing) party with the best chance of beating the Tories. With first past the post isn't anything else just a futile gesture?
No, I live in a safe seat, as indeed all bar Loughborough in my County. It gives a freedom to vote for whoever I like as all votes are wasted votes, or votes for the incumbent around here.
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
The rules were quite different in April 2021 to April 2020. By April 2021 half the population had been vaccinated for example.
Indeed though its funny how many people are saying that about Starmer's drinking session that he attended, but how few people were saying that when the drinking session that Downing Street staff had 'on the eve of Prince Philip's funeral' came out.
The latter was also April 2021.
To be fair, Mr R, I don't think that the general picture of Starmer's session ..... small plate of curry and a bottle of beer in a meeting hall...., is anything like the relaxed cheese and wine party in the garden of No 10 which is the picture we have of the at least one of the PM's sessions.
One is mixing with food and alcohol indoors, the other is mixing with food and alcohol outdoors.
You're right, considering that meeting indoors was considered worse than meeting outdoors because the transmission is worse indoors than outdoors, I'm guessing you're saying Starmer's is worse?
Or have you got something against cheese? Or do you just prefer beer over wine?
It is like some production from the Theatre of the Absurd, reflecting on the pointlessness of it all.
Almost everyone sane has concluded that the Tories are much better off with Boris (serial liar) and Labour are much better off without Keir (a very limited politician).
But, the last of the Boris Loyalists are fighting it out to the death with the bedraggled remains of the Keir yeomanry over 'beer and curry' gate and 'cheese and wine' gate.
Haven't these people understood what everyone else knows?
The first party that changes its leader wins the next election.
It’s not that simple. Who the party chooses matters. Switching to Truss for example, is not a sure fire route to victory. The Tories have no clear winners.
Meanwhile for Labour, the the controversy around Corbyn bring risks for the campaign. The first question of the campaign will be, should Corbyn have the whip.
1. The Tories: I think it is hard to say --- remember Labour were gleeful in 1975 when the Tories elected Margaret Thatcher as leader. She is not a winner, Labour said. I personally would not vote for Truss, but I think she could win.
2. Labour: Corbyn should of course have the whip. The present position of Keir Starmer is vindictive.
I think we have seen from the Local Elections that (i) Boris is ratnered and won't win a majority; (ii) Keir is very limited and won't win a majority.
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
You're about a week behind. Take a look at today's front page and justify it.
As for the allegation itself, Labour's statement about the evidence they'll submit would seem to have shot that down, too.
Today’s Mail front page is magnificent in its hypocrisy. On 30th April, its front page headline was: “Police told to investigate Labour lies” Followed by this opening paragraph: “Cabinet ministers last night joined calls for a new probe into the ‘Beergate’ scandal engulfing Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner.” The Mail believes its readers are easily manipulated, not very bright and devoid of short-term memory. It seems to be a winning formula!
The Mail are corrrect - its readers ARE easily manipulated. And it has been the same for a long time. Back when I was doing my Journalism degree in the 90s I said that the Mail was the best newspaper. When asked to justify it I pointed out that it knew precisely who its readers were - their fears and prejudices - and expertly fuelled both of these to make people ANGRIER and thus likely to keep buying the paper.
So it doesn't matter that a week on from "WE CALL OUT THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE" that the headline is "CROOKED LABOUR PRESSURE THE POLICE". Or that Dan Hodges tweets that Starmer plans to "get away with not breaking the law". Or that the Brexit problems its readers face are the same things it implored its readers to vote for. Or that its noncey approach to young girls is mirrored with stuffy anti-woke "THIS IS DISGUSTING" reporting of non-noncey approaches by others.
People read it. And believe it. And trust it. As a propaganda tool it it outstanding.
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
You're about a week behind. Take a look at today's front page and justify it.
As for the allegation itself, Labour's statement about the evidence they'll submit would seem to have shot that down, too.
Today’s Mail front page is magnificent in its hypocrisy. On 30th April, its front page headline was: “Police told to investigate Labour lies” Followed by this opening paragraph: “Cabinet ministers last night joined calls for a new probe into the ‘Beergate’ scandal engulfing Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner.” The Mail believes its readers are easily manipulated, not very bright and devoid of short-term memory. It seems to be a winning formula!
That dastardly Starmer is ruining the investigation by fully co-operating with it, and submitting evidence of what went on on the night in question...
Hodges said he plans to "get away with not breaking the law". What a bastard!
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
The cynicism/hypocrisy of the Mail has always been a thing, but flipping 180 degrees from saying partygate doesn’t matter and is a triviality to currygate being the end of the world is a new low even for them.
The chumocracy / clique of right wing outrider journalists and proprietors blurring with the Johnson administration is also eye opening. Favours for favours. You want channel4 and a weaker BBC, no problem!
The law should apply equally to all. An ill-defined law - one that has even led Starmer, a top lawyer, to be unsure whether he broke it - has 'got' Johnson and the Tories. It is perfectly fair to ask whether the law, not it has been used politically, should apply to the other side in a situation that looks potentially dodgy to anyone who is not utterly biased.
Nah. If the Mail had a consistent investigative campaign they would deserve respect. Instead they flipped 180 on the issue when it suited their partisan agenda. In which case, it’s just an offshoot of cchq and should be treated the same way as any propaganda.
Meanwhile if the law was bad or draconian, the fault lies with the government.
AIUI Starmer voted for the law. Anyone who voted for it in parliament has responsibility for the law - in the same way people who voted for the Iraq war have some responsibility for it.
And the law has to apply equally to all sides. If one sides gets 'done' by the law, it's fine to say : "What about this thing you did?"
Indeed, as soon as Goering uttered the magic words, 'What about-', Maxwell Fyfe banged his gavel and there appeared Harry Truman in dock, clad in a prison jumpsuit.
A bit tongue in cheek, but it is categorically not a defence to ask 'What about this thing you did?' The two investigations are separate and should have nothing to do with each other. Durham police have received new information and Labour have submitted a dossier in rebuttal. Durham Police will decide if they think this gathering broke the law. If they do, then Starmer will resign.
No, he will only resign if issued with an FPN. They could find it ‘probably’ broke the law but not issue one. As they did with Cummings. In that case he’d on
Was it probably or might? In any case, Cummings was not subjected to the level of police investigation Starmer (and Johnson) are facing.
The threshold for guilty in criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt.
Very interesting comments by Macron. I wonder if anything will come of it.
Indeed. Would the U.K. government support it? Not sure about this administration. There might be a window after Boris goes and before Macron leaves. ..
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
If you feel so strongly about it, what’s stopping you? I look forward to your posts from afar. Seriously, if it’s so bad here, depart. Britain, England, Wales, Scotland, NI all have problems. Everywhere does. Yet it’s not such a bad place to live. For all the stresses the nhs is a magnificent institution. When you emigrate you’ll need to pay insurance in your new home to get what you get for free here.* When you live elsewhere, as I have done and I believe you have too, you realise that other places have issues too. Different ones for sure, but issues just the same. *I know we pay in taxes, but it really is free at the point of use ((for most stuff).
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
LOL, I did not have you down as a Heil contributor.
I'm not. I don't read it. I subscribe to the LRB and the Economist, and don't get newspapers - or generally read their websites unless linked to on places like here. I do read links - and the Guardian features much more prominently than (say) the Mail or Telegraph.
But the hate for the Mail from leftists is hilarious. Especially people who call it the 'Heil'.
(It'd be interesting to write a spider to crawl over PB's archive and see which newspapers or sites are most linked to, and how it changes over time. I guess Twitter might be first, then YouTube. Perhaps the Guardian as the 'top' newspaper?)
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
If they’ve broken the law they’ll be fined and they’ll resign. That’s not particularly virtuous if you’ve helped make the law, but it is an approach that stands in marked contrast to others.
Labour fixating again on the idea that it's the fine that counts not whether SKS is actually guilty of an offence. The fact that SKS refused to say if he would have resign if he is found guilty but didn't receive a fine suggests he knows he probably has done something wrong but is relying on Durham's stated policy of not issuing retrospective fines. It's a typical lawyer's wheeze. Not sure it will go down well with the public.
If he’s guilty of an offence he’ll be fined.
No. A fine is not automatic as we saw with Cummings. He could be found guilty but not fined. In which case he stays.
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
The rules were quite different in April 2021 to April 2020. By April 2021 half the population had been vaccinated for example.
Indeed though its funny how many people are saying that about Starmer's drinking session that he attended, but how few people were saying that when the drinking session that Downing Street staff had 'on the eve of Prince Philip's funeral' came out.
The latter was also April 2021.
Understood. When Downing Street staff were on the smash (literally) they were in fact finalising arrangements for Prince Philip's funeral a few hours later. Thanks for clearing that up.
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
The cynicism/hypocrisy of the Mail has always been a thing, but flipping 180 degrees from saying partygate doesn’t matter and is a triviality to currygate being the end of the world is a new low even for them.
The chumocracy / clique of right wing outrider journalists and proprietors blurring with the Johnson administration is also eye opening. Favours for favours. You want channel4 and a weaker BBC, no problem!
The law should apply equally to all. An ill-defined law - one that has even led Starmer, a top lawyer, to be unsure whether he broke it - has 'got' Johnson and the Tories. It is perfectly fair to ask whether the law, not it has been used politically, should apply to the other side in a situation that looks potentially dodgy to anyone who is not utterly biased.
Nah. If the Mail had a consistent investigative campaign they would deserve respect. Instead they flipped 180 on the issue when it suited their partisan agenda. In which case, it’s just an offshoot of cchq and should be treated the same way as any propaganda.
Meanwhile if the law was bad or draconian, the fault lies with the government.
AIUI Starmer voted for the law. Anyone who voted for it in parliament has responsibility for the law - in the same way people who voted for the Iraq war have some responsibility for it.
And the law has to apply equally to all sides. If one sides gets 'done' by the law, it's fine to say : "What about this thing you did?"
Indeed, as soon as Goering uttered the magic words, 'What about-', Maxwell Fyfe banged his gavel and there appeared Harry Truman in dock, clad in a prison jumpsuit.
A bit tongue in cheek, but it is categorically not a defence to ask 'What about this thing you did?' The two investigations are separate and should have nothing to do with each other. Durham police have received new information and Labour have submitted a dossier in rebuttal. Durham Police will decide if they think this gathering broke the law. If they do, then Starmer will resign.
No, he will only resign if issued with an FPN. They could find it ‘probably’ broke the law but not issue one. As they did with Cummings. In that case he’d on
Was it probably or might? In any case, Cummings was not subjected to the level of police investigation Starmer (and Johnson) are facing.
The threshold for guilty in criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt.
Durham Police went to the trouble of reviewing their ANPR cameras on Cummings. That seems quite substantial to me.
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
You're about a week behind. Take a look at today's front page and justify it.
As for the allegation itself, Labour's statement about the evidence they'll submit would seem to have shot that down, too.
Today’s Mail front page is magnificent in its hypocrisy. On 30th April, its front page headline was: “Police told to investigate Labour lies” Followed by this opening paragraph: “Cabinet ministers last night joined calls for a new probe into the ‘Beergate’ scandal engulfing Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner.” The Mail believes its readers are easily manipulated, not very bright and devoid of short-term memory. It seems to be a winning formula!
That dastardly Starmer is ruining the investigation by fully co-operating with it, and submitting evidence of what went on on the night in question...
Fully cooperating by lying about the presence of Angela Rayner for 4 months?
Yep. What really drives you nuts is that as the event was legal it doesn't matter if she was there or not. You are parroting Hodges "logic" that they lied to ensure she would get away with not breaking the law.
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
If they’ve broken the law they’ll be fined and they’ll resign. That’s not particularly virtuous if you’ve helped make the law, but it is an approach that stands in marked contrast to others.
Labour fixating again on the idea that it's the fine that counts not whether SKS is actually guilty of an offence. The fact that SKS refused to say if he would have resign if he is found guilty but didn't receive a fine suggests he knows he probably has done something wrong but is relying on Durham's stated policy of not issuing retrospective fines. It's a typical lawyer's wheeze. Not sure it will go down well with the public.
Sorry, but that's a pretty desperate spin. And how can you be 'found guilty but not receive a fine' ? Except by the Mail, of course.
On 12 April 2020, Mr Cummings drove approximately 26 miles from his father’s property to Barnard Castle with his wife and son. He stated on 25 May 2020 that the purpose of this drive was to test his resilience to drive to London the following day, including whether his eyesight was sufficiently recovered, his period of self-isolation having ended.
Durham constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR [automatic number plate recognition], witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.
Had a Durham constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken. In line with Durham constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public.
The bit in bold should be of concern to Starmer.
"There might have been a breach of regulations" is not being "found guilty". And expecting Starmer to indulge in the desperate parsing of 'what if' s in his very clear statement is frankly pathetic.
What's the spin going to be when Durham police find there was no breach at all, potential or otherwise ?
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
The rules were quite different in April 2021 to April 2020. By April 2021 half the population had been vaccinated for example.
Indeed though its funny how many people are saying that about Starmer's drinking session that he attended, but how few people were saying that when the drinking session that Downing Street staff had 'on the eve of Prince Philip's funeral' came out.
The latter was also April 2021.
Understood. When Downing Street staff were on the smash (literally) they were in fact finalising arrangements for Prince Philip's funeral a few hours later. Thanks for clearing that up.
I never said that.
What I did say when the Downing Street allegations came out was that the PM should go.
What you say when the Keir Starmer allegations came out for the same time as the Downing Street ones is "but the timing is different".
I'm guessing the exact date on April 2021 must matter seriously to you?
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
If they’ve broken the law they’ll be fined and they’ll resign. That’s not particularly virtuous if you’ve helped make the law, but it is an approach that stands in marked contrast to others.
Labour fixating again on the idea that it's the fine that counts not whether SKS is actually guilty of an offence. The fact that SKS refused to say if he would have resign if he is found guilty but didn't receive a fine suggests he knows he probably has done something wrong but is relying on Durham's stated policy of not issuing retrospective fines. It's a typical lawyer's wheeze. Not sure it will go down well with the public.
If he’s guilty of an offence he’ll be fined.
No. A fine is not automatic as we saw with Cummings. He could be found guilty but not fined. In which case he stays.
Cummings wasn’t found guilty.
Why not read the statement from Durham Police. They clearly think that Cummings did break the rules (although, they think driving to Barnard Castle was a fairly minor offence) but weren't going to issue a fine because they didn't want to treat him differently to anyone else.
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
You're about a week behind. Take a look at today's front page and justify it.
As for the allegation itself, Labour's statement about the evidence they'll submit would seem to have shot that down, too.
Today’s Mail front page is magnificent in its hypocrisy. On 30th April, its front page headline was: “Police told to investigate Labour lies” Followed by this opening paragraph: “Cabinet ministers last night joined calls for a new probe into the ‘Beergate’ scandal engulfing Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner.” The Mail believes its readers are easily manipulated, not very bright and devoid of short-term memory. It seems to be a winning formula!
That dastardly Starmer is ruining the investigation by fully co-operating with it, and submitting evidence of what went on on the night in question...
Fully cooperating by lying about the presence of Angela Rayner for 4 months?
And the relevance of Angela Rayner being at the event was what exactly?
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
You're about a week behind. Take a look at today's front page and justify it.
As for the allegation itself, Labour's statement about the evidence they'll submit would seem to have shot that down, too.
Today’s Mail front page is magnificent in its hypocrisy. On 30th April, its front page headline was: “Police told to investigate Labour lies” Followed by this opening paragraph: “Cabinet ministers last night joined calls for a new probe into the ‘Beergate’ scandal engulfing Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner.” The Mail believes its readers are easily manipulated, not very bright and devoid of short-term memory. It seems to be a winning formula!
That dastardly Starmer is ruining the investigation by fully co-operating with it, and submitting evidence of what went on on the night in question...
Fully cooperating by lying about the presence of Angela Rayner for 4 months?
Love the Guardian's approach on the story this morning:
"Despite the huge political interest in the saga, the alleged breach is a relatively low-level matter for the police, who will want to ensure their investigation is proportionate but will survive scrutiny."
Not really the approach they took when BJ was in the dock, was it.....?
Boris still is under investigation, along with the wider Number 10 operation, for a dozen or more assorted work events to celebrate various SpAds leaving, Christmas, and there being a Y in the day.
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
The rules were quite different in April 2021 to April 2020. By April 2021 half the population had been vaccinated for example.
Indeed though its funny how many people are saying that about Starmer's drinking session that he attended, but how few people were saying that when the drinking session that Downing Street staff had 'on the eve of Prince Philip's funeral' came out.
The latter was also April 2021.
To be fair, Mr R, I don't think that the general picture of Starmer's session ..... small plate of curry and a bottle of beer in a meeting hall...., is anything like the relaxed cheese and wine party in the garden of No 10 which is the picture we have of the at least one of the PM's sessions.
One is mixing with food and alcohol indoors, the other is mixing with food and alcohol outdoors.
You're right, considering that meeting indoors was considered worse than meeting outdoors because the transmission is worse indoors than outdoors, I'm guessing you're saying Starmer's is worse?
Or have you got something against cheese? Or do you just prefer beer over wine?
One was apparently a convivial social gathering, the other a few minutes during a work meeting. Would the problems have been less or more if they'd brought in sandwiches?
I wouldn't often drink wine with curry, although a light Pinot Noir can be a very suitable accompaniment. I prefer a beer. Probably an Asian lager-type one. When eating cheese, either is fine, although it does depend on the cheese. Cheddar, pickle and draught bitter go together very well IMHO.
There a hundred better countries in which to live than Britain.
And I intend to do so.
Care to name them?
I know Vladimir Putin hates Britain with a passion now because of our ardent support of Ukraine, but what reason would you have to despise Britain so much that you'd think there are a hundred better countries to live in?
The Nordics and the Netherlands are richer and have a better quality of life than we do. Ireland too. Among the larger European countries Germany certainly does too. I'd say France does too, certainly better work life balance and nicer weather too although the French don't seem very happy with it. Italy is messed up but the food and weather are a lot better. Switzerland has a lot going for it, as does Canada and New Zealand. I'm probably too invested here to move now, and there is still a lot I love about it despite the Tories' best efforts to ruin the place, but the idea that this is objectively the best country in the world to live in is laughable.
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
If they’ve broken the law they’ll be fined and they’ll resign. That’s not particularly virtuous if you’ve helped make the law, but it is an approach that stands in marked contrast to others.
Labour fixating again on the idea that it's the fine that counts not whether SKS is actually guilty of an offence. The fact that SKS refused to say if he would have resign if he is found guilty but didn't receive a fine suggests he knows he probably has done something wrong but is relying on Durham's stated policy of not issuing retrospective fines. It's a typical lawyer's wheeze. Not sure it will go down well with the public.
Sorry, but that's a pretty desperate spin. And how can you be 'found guilty but not receive a fine' ? Except by the Mail, of course.
On 12 April 2020, Mr Cummings drove approximately 26 miles from his father’s property to Barnard Castle with his wife and son. He stated on 25 May 2020 that the purpose of this drive was to test his resilience to drive to London the following day, including whether his eyesight was sufficiently recovered, his period of self-isolation having ended.
Durham constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR [automatic number plate recognition], witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.
Had a Durham constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken. In line with Durham constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public.
The bit in bold should be of concern to Starmer.
"There might have been a breach of regulations" is not being "found guilty". And expecting Starmer to indulge in the desperate parsing of 'what if' s in his very clear statement is frankly pathetic.
What's the spin going to be when Durham police find there was no breach at all, potential or otherwise ?
Hang on, Starmer's statement yesterday was very much about a "what if"!
Mr. Jonathan, well, it depends on what the detail is, (if we get to that stage) but I agree a government led by Boris Johnson will have nothing to do with it.
We'll see what the Germans and others have to say about it.
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
You're about a week behind. Take a look at today's front page and justify it.
As for the allegation itself, Labour's statement about the evidence they'll submit would seem to have shot that down, too.
Today’s Mail front page is magnificent in its hypocrisy. On 30th April, its front page headline was: “Police told to investigate Labour lies” Followed by this opening paragraph: “Cabinet ministers last night joined calls for a new probe into the ‘Beergate’ scandal engulfing Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner.” The Mail believes its readers are easily manipulated, not very bright and devoid of short-term memory. It seems to be a winning formula!
That dastardly Starmer is ruining the investigation by fully co-operating with it, and submitting evidence of what went on on the night in question...
Fully cooperating by lying about the presence of Angela Rayner for 4 months?
Love the Guardian's approach on the story this morning:
"Despite the huge political interest in the saga, the alleged breach is a relatively low-level matter for the police, who will want to ensure their investigation is proportionate but will survive scrutiny."
Not really the approach they took when BJ was in the dock, was it.....?
Boris still is under investigation, along with the wider Number 10 operation, for a dozen or more assorted work events to celebrate various SpAds leaving, Christmas, and there being a Y in the day.
The quantity of events is immaterial. It is Boolean, either people are willing to break the rules, or make a mistake about the rules or they don't.
If Starmer has broken the rules here then saying "but Boris has done so more times" is neither here nor there.
Especially given there's just been a months long investigation trawling over a couple of years worth events in Downing Street looking for any breaches. Had there been in the LOTOs office then, if he did break the rules in Durham do you credibly think that was a one off or did he do the same actions in other places too? Especially if he's saying that this was nothing out of the usual?
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
If they’ve broken the law they’ll be fined and they’ll resign. That’s not particularly virtuous if you’ve helped make the law, but it is an approach that stands in marked contrast to others.
Labour fixating again on the idea that it's the fine that counts not whether SKS is actually guilty of an offence. The fact that SKS refused to say if he would have resign if he is found guilty but didn't receive a fine suggests he knows he probably has done something wrong but is relying on Durham's stated policy of not issuing retrospective fines. It's a typical lawyer's wheeze. Not sure it will go down well with the public.
Sorry, but that's a pretty desperate spin. And how can you be 'found guilty but not receive a fine' ? Except by the Mail, of course.
On 12 April 2020, Mr Cummings drove approximately 26 miles from his father’s property to Barnard Castle with his wife and son. He stated on 25 May 2020 that the purpose of this drive was to test his resilience to drive to London the following day, including whether his eyesight was sufficiently recovered, his period of self-isolation having ended.
Durham constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR [automatic number plate recognition], witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.
Had a Durham constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken. In line with Durham constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public.
The bit in bold should be of concern to Starmer.
"There might have been a breach of regulations" is not being "found guilty". And expecting Starmer to indulge in the desperate parsing of 'what if' s in his very clear statement is frankly pathetic.
What's the spin going to be when Durham police find there was no breach at all, potential or otherwise ?
Hang on, Starmer's statement yesterday was very much about a "what if"!
Yes, simple and clear. You seem to expect him to have engaged in a lengthy consideration of various scenarios. Since his position is quite clear - that he didn't break the rules - that's just expecting him to brief against himself.
I said that about Starmer on one of yesterday's threads and was told "no"
So that is that sorted ...
And while I remember - "First!"
The FT is rarely right… they have a very specific worldview
The FT has the best politics team of any Fleet Street paper right now. They've made some very smart hires and are clearly determined to invest to expand beyond their traditional audience.
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
I dunno. I hear plenty of people (rightly) laughing at Polly Toynbee and Owen Jones, the Melanie Phillips and Richard Littlejohn of the left respectively. Happily the Grauniad is also training up a new generation of clueless columnists such as Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett and chums.
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
The cynicism/hypocrisy of the Mail has always been a thing, but flipping 180 degrees from saying partygate doesn’t matter and is a triviality to currygate being the end of the world is a new low even for them.
The chumocracy / clique of right wing outrider journalists and proprietors blurring with the Johnson administration is also eye opening. Favours for favours. You want channel4 and a weaker BBC, no problem!
The law should apply equally to all. An ill-defined law - one that has even led Starmer, a top lawyer, to be unsure whether he broke it - has 'got' Johnson and the Tories. It is perfectly fair to ask whether the law, not it has been used politically, should apply to the other side in a situation that looks potentially dodgy to anyone who is not utterly biased.
Nah. If the Mail had a consistent investigative campaign they would deserve respect. Instead they flipped 180 on the issue when it suited their partisan agenda. In which case, it’s just an offshoot of cchq and should be treated the same way as any propaganda.
Meanwhile if the law was bad or draconian, the fault lies with the government.
AIUI Starmer voted for the law. Anyone who voted for it in parliament has responsibility for the law - in the same way people who voted for the Iraq war have some responsibility for it.
And the law has to apply equally to all sides. If one sides gets 'done' by the law, it's fine to say : "What about this thing you did?"
That line is particularly weak. Offloading the governments responsibility for their laws onto opposition MPs, is just the sort of nonsense you get from the Johnson administration and its supporters. He takes responsibility for none of his errors. The buck is passed at super sonic speed. Meanwhile he takes the credit for the work of others if something goes right.
I'm not a fan of Johnson, and I agree he doesn't take responsibility for his actions. In fact, I've been making that point since the Garden Bridge debacle.
But your attempt to suggest that Starmer has no 'responsibility' for a law he voted for is laughable. Particularly as LOTO, he has the ability to whip his side *not* to vote for the law, or to get amendments put into it.
And to be fair to both Starmer and the government, we were in a crisis. Things had to be done in a hurry. An interesting question is whether this law was actually needed. Was it an unnecessary stick?
You overestimate the power of the Leader of the Opposition when the government has an 80-seat majority.
As to whether the law was needed, the government did publish a review which iirc showed lockdown was effective. At the time of beergate, we were at step 2 out of lockdown.
Did Labour vote for the law? Did they vote against the law? Did they try to get it amended?
The size of the majority is pretty irrelevant. If the opposition feels something is wrong, they should vote, or amend, accordingly.
You tell me. Parliamentary votes are recorded. Look it up. Though whether the regulations were voted on or made by the executive under primary legislation is something else.
ETA in any case, Labour's position is that it abided by the law, so I'm not sure where you are going with this.
Long and fascinating thread (for those interested in such stuff).
While a lot of their kit is semi-obsolete, Ukraine appears to have more advanced and far more effective artillery targeting systems than anyone in NATO.
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
Worthy of a like, though I'm not sure we're the best country in the world I don't recognise this idea that we're a mean spirited and angry like Heathener refers too.
We're pretty decent. I like the UK. It's a nice place to live.
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
The rules were quite different in April 2021 to April 2020. By April 2021 half the population had been vaccinated for example.
Indeed though its funny how many people are saying that about Starmer's drinking session that he attended, but how few people were saying that when the drinking session that Downing Street staff had 'on the eve of Prince Philip's funeral' came out.
The latter was also April 2021.
Understood. When Downing Street staff were on the smash (literally) they were in fact finalising arrangements for Prince Philip's funeral a few hours later. Thanks for clearing that up.
I never said that.
What I did say when the Downing Street allegations came out was that the PM should go.
What you say when the Keir Starmer allegations came out for the same time as the Downing Street ones is "but the timing is different".
I'm guessing the exact date on April 2021 must matter seriously to you?
I have posted repeatedly that if this campaign event broke the law then ALL of the campaign events broke the law. Is anyone saying this was Starmer's only campaign event in 2021? Or that Johnson didn't do any? There are stacks of them the Mail could go after, and yet there is absolute silence. When multiple crimes looks worse than a single crime. Nothing written.
Why?
Because the Mail knows this is crap. So focus on micro details to create the air of scandal. Because if they throw this open to "campaigning like this was illegal" it quickly gets shown that it was legal.
As for the Downing Street pissup before Phil's funeral, are you saying that was a campaign event? Because the exemptions for campaigning is the relevant part of the law in this case. You are - once again - saying the law was the same for all things at all times. Which you know as well as I do isn't true.
Yet like the Mail you post it anyway. Writing it. Knowing it to be factually wrong and logically incoherent.
It is like some production from the Theatre of the Absurd, reflecting on the pointlessness of it all.
Almost everyone sane has concluded that the Tories are much better off with Boris (serial liar) and Labour are much better off without Keir (a very limited politician).
But, the last of the Boris Loyalists are fighting it out to the death with the bedraggled remains of the Keir yeomanry over 'beer and curry' gate and 'cheese and wine' gate.
Haven't these people understood what everyone else knows?
The first party that changes its leader wins the next election.
It’s not that simple. Who the party chooses matters. Switching to Truss for example, is not a sure fire route to victory. The Tories have no clear winners.
Meanwhile for Labour, the the controversy around Corbyn bring risks for the campaign. The first question of the campaign will be, should Corbyn have the whip.
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
You're about a week behind. Take a look at today's front page and justify it.
As for the allegation itself, Labour's statement about the evidence they'll submit would seem to have shot that down, too.
Today’s Mail front page is magnificent in its hypocrisy. On 30th April, its front page headline was: “Police told to investigate Labour lies” Followed by this opening paragraph: “Cabinet ministers last night joined calls for a new probe into the ‘Beergate’ scandal engulfing Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner.” The Mail believes its readers are easily manipulated, not very bright and devoid of short-term memory. It seems to be a winning formula!
That dastardly Starmer is ruining the investigation by fully co-operating with it, and submitting evidence of what went on on the night in question...
Fully cooperating by lying about the presence of Angela Rayner for 4 months?
Love the Guardian's approach on the story this morning:
"Despite the huge political interest in the saga, the alleged breach is a relatively low-level matter for the police, who will want to ensure their investigation is proportionate but will survive scrutiny."
Not really the approach they took when BJ was in the dock, was it.....?
The mistake everyone is making is thinking the opposition wanted the police to be involved. They wanted the Sue Grey report. It was the intervention of the police that saved Johnson's career.
It delayed what was apparently a damning report for several weeks by which time Ukraine had happened and allowed Johnson to say he couldn't go because we were at war.
There a hundred better countries in which to live than Britain.
And I intend to do so.
Care to name them?
I know Vladimir Putin hates Britain with a passion now because of our ardent support of Ukraine, but what reason would you have to despise Britain so much that you'd think there are a hundred better countries to live in?
The Nordics and the Netherlands are richer and have a better quality of life than we do. Ireland too. Among the larger European countries Germany certainly does too. I'd say France does too, certainly better work life balance and nicer weather too although the French don't seem very happy with it. Italy is messed up but the food and weather are a lot better. Switzerland has a lot going for it, as does Canada and New Zealand. I'm probably too invested here to move now, and there is still a lot I love about it despite the Tories' best efforts to ruin the place, but the idea that this is objectively the best country in the world to live in is laughable.
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about ranking countries, which is subjective, but that's not remotely close to a hundred countries, so do you care to keep going or agree that "a hundred countries" better than the UK is ridiculous hyperbolic nonsense?
The UK is up there as one of the best, most developed countries to live in on almost any rational metric. As are most other west European nations, the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ and Japan depending upon what you prefer.
All have their strengths and foibles, some more than others, but to suggest there's a hundred nations better than any of them is just absurd nonsense.
I'm 90%+ certain that SKS will not get a FPN and agree with the header. I do hope that you are hammering away at the odds for Starmer for Next PM which, I suppose, is in effect getting over 5/1 on a No Overall Majority GE result (with LP not necessarily winning most seats).
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
If they’ve broken the law they’ll be fined and they’ll resign. That’s not particularly virtuous if you’ve helped make the law, but it is an approach that stands in marked contrast to others.
Labour fixating again on the idea that it's the fine that counts not whether SKS is actually guilty of an offence. The fact that SKS refused to say if he would have resign if he is found guilty but didn't receive a fine suggests he knows he probably has done something wrong but is relying on Durham's stated policy of not issuing retrospective fines. It's a typical lawyer's wheeze. Not sure it will go down well with the public.
If he’s guilty of an offence he’ll be fined.
No. A fine is not automatic as we saw with Cummings. He could be found guilty but not fined. In which case he stays.
Cummings wasn’t found guilty.
Why not read the statement from Durham Police. They clearly think that Cummings did break the rules (although, they think driving to Barnard Castle was a fairly minor offence) but weren't going to issue a fine because they didn't want to treat him differently to anyone else.
So now they are treating the Durham 15 (to 30) differently to anyone else. Consistency reigns.
There a hundred better countries in which to live than Britain.
And I intend to do so.
Care to name them?
I know Vladimir Putin hates Britain with a passion now because of our ardent support of Ukraine, but what reason would you have to despise Britain so much that you'd think there are a hundred better countries to live in?
The Nordics and the Netherlands are richer and have a better quality of life than we do. Ireland too. Among the larger European countries Germany certainly does too. I'd say France does too, certainly better work life balance and nicer weather too although the French don't seem very happy with it. Italy is messed up but the food and weather are a lot better. Switzerland has a lot going for it, as does Canada and New Zealand. I'm probably too invested here to move now, and there is still a lot I love about it despite the Tories' best efforts to ruin the place, but the idea that this is objectively the best country in the world to live in is laughable.
I think that I could quite happily live in any European country, bar current war zones, Canada, USA, most of Latin America, a fair chunk of Africa, SE or NE Asia, Australia or NZ, not nessicarily in that order. It must be over 100 countries. I prefer to live here though.
It is because I care about this country so much that I despise its government.
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
You're about a week behind. Take a look at today's front page and justify it.
As for the allegation itself, Labour's statement about the evidence they'll submit would seem to have shot that down, too.
Today’s Mail front page is magnificent in its hypocrisy. On 30th April, its front page headline was: “Police told to investigate Labour lies” Followed by this opening paragraph: “Cabinet ministers last night joined calls for a new probe into the ‘Beergate’ scandal engulfing Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner.” The Mail believes its readers are easily manipulated, not very bright and devoid of short-term memory. It seems to be a winning formula!
That dastardly Starmer is ruining the investigation by fully co-operating with it, and submitting evidence of what went on on the night in question...
Fully cooperating by lying about the presence of Angela Rayner for 4 months?
Love the Guardian's approach on the story this morning:
"Despite the huge political interest in the saga, the alleged breach is a relatively low-level matter for the police, who will want to ensure their investigation is proportionate but will survive scrutiny."
Not really the approach they took when BJ was in the dock, was it.....?
Boris still is under investigation, along with the wider Number 10 operation, for a dozen or more assorted work events to celebrate various SpAds leaving, Christmas, and there being a Y in the day.
The quantity of events is immaterial. It is Boolean, either people are willing to break the rules, or make a mistake about the rules or they don't.
If Starmer has broken the rules here then saying "but Boris has done so more times" is neither here nor there.
Especially given there's just been a months long investigation trawling over a couple of years worth events in Downing Street looking for any breaches. Had there been in the LOTOs office then, if he did break the rules in Durham do you credibly think that was a one off or did he do the same actions in other places too? Especially if he's saying that this was nothing out of the usual?
You are comparing chalk with cheese...and wine (and on multiple occasions).;
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
The rules were quite different in April 2021 to April 2020. By April 2021 half the population had been vaccinated for example.
Indeed though its funny how many people are saying that about Starmer's drinking session that he attended, but how few people were saying that when the drinking session that Downing Street staff had 'on the eve of Prince Philip's funeral' came out.
The latter was also April 2021.
Understood. When Downing Street staff were on the smash (literally) they were in fact finalising arrangements for Prince Philip's funeral a few hours later. Thanks for clearing that up.
I never said that.
What I did say when the Downing Street allegations came out was that the PM should go.
What you say when the Keir Starmer allegations came out for the same time as the Downing Street ones is "but the timing is different".
I'm guessing the exact date on April 2021 must matter seriously to you?
I have posted repeatedly that if this campaign event broke the law then ALL of the campaign events broke the law. Is anyone saying this was Starmer's only campaign event in 2021? Or that Johnson didn't do any? There are stacks of them the Mail could go after, and yet there is absolute silence. When multiple crimes looks worse than a single crime. Nothing written.
Why?
Because the Mail knows this is crap. So focus on micro details to create the air of scandal. Because if they throw this open to "campaigning like this was illegal" it quickly gets shown that it was legal.
As for the Downing Street pissup before Phil's funeral, are you saying that was a campaign event? Because the exemptions for campaigning is the relevant part of the law in this case. You are - once again - saying the law was the same for all things at all times. Which you know as well as I do isn't true.
Yet like the Mail you post it anyway. Writing it. Knowing it to be factually wrong and logically incoherent.
Exemptions for campaigning are not the relevant part of the law in this case, because the allegation isn't about campaigning it is about having a piss up after work.
Yes Starmer was allowed to campaign, nobody disputes that. But guess what, by your same logic the Downing Street staff were entitled to go to work in Downing Street because they were covered by the exemption too. They were working.
The allegation for both are comparable. That they were working earlier in the day, but then it became a drinking session afterwards. The afterwards bit is what the allegation is about, not what they were doing earlier in the day.
If Starmer and others were allowed to have food and get pissed with colleagues because he was working earlier in the day, then why weren't Downing Street staff allowed to get pissed with colleagues because they were working earlier in the day?
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
If they’ve broken the law they’ll be fined and they’ll resign. That’s not particularly virtuous if you’ve helped make the law, but it is an approach that stands in marked contrast to others.
Labour fixating again on the idea that it's the fine that counts not whether SKS is actually guilty of an offence. The fact that SKS refused to say if he would have resign if he is found guilty but didn't receive a fine suggests he knows he probably has done something wrong but is relying on Durham's stated policy of not issuing retrospective fines. It's a typical lawyer's wheeze. Not sure it will go down well with the public.
If he’s guilty of an offence he’ll be fined.
No. A fine is not automatic as we saw with Cummings. He could be found guilty but not fined. In which case he stays.
Cummings wasn’t found guilty.
Why not read the statement from Durham Police. They clearly think that Cummings did break the rules (although, they think driving to Barnard Castle was a fairly minor offence) but weren't going to issue a fine because they didn't want to treat him differently to anyone else.
So now they are treating the Durham 15 (to 30) differently to anyone else. Consistency reigns.
Sorry, what's different this time? If they dish out a load of fines, then I agree, it would be inconsistent, though I guess they might point to the precedent set by the Met. If I was them, I'd ignore the Met (always a good strategy) and just give an opinion on the appropriateness of what went on.
There a hundred better countries in which to live than Britain.
And I intend to do so.
Care to name them?
I know Vladimir Putin hates Britain with a passion now because of our ardent support of Ukraine, but what reason would you have to despise Britain so much that you'd think there are a hundred better countries to live in?
The Nordics and the Netherlands are richer and have a better quality of life than we do. Ireland too. Among the larger European countries Germany certainly does too. I'd say France does too, certainly better work life balance and nicer weather too although the French don't seem very happy with it. Italy is messed up but the food and weather are a lot better. Switzerland has a lot going for it, as does Canada and New Zealand. I'm probably too invested here to move now, and there is still a lot I love about it despite the Tories' best efforts to ruin the place, but the idea that this is objectively the best country in the world to live in is laughable.
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about ranking countries, which is subjective, but that's not remotely close to a hundred countries, so do you care to keep going or agree that "a hundred countries" better than the UK is ridiculous hyperbolic nonsense?
The UK is up there as one of the best, most developed countries to live in on almost any rational metric. As are most other west European nations, the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ and Japan depending upon what you prefer.
All have their strengths and foibles, some more than others, but to suggest there's a hundred nations better than any of them is just absurd nonsense.
The UK is the 16th* best country in the world. The Everton of the world. Much better than Stevenage or Stoke. Premier League but struggling in some ways.
*[Farooq et al, Journal of the Proceedings of Me, 2022]
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
If they’ve broken the law they’ll be fined and they’ll resign. That’s not particularly virtuous if you’ve helped make the law, but it is an approach that stands in marked contrast to others.
Labour fixating again on the idea that it's the fine that counts not whether SKS is actually guilty of an offence. The fact that SKS refused to say if he would have resign if he is found guilty but didn't receive a fine suggests he knows he probably has done something wrong but is relying on Durham's stated policy of not issuing retrospective fines. It's a typical lawyer's wheeze. Not sure it will go down well with the public.
If he’s guilty of an offence he’ll be fined.
No. A fine is not automatic as we saw with Cummings. He could be found guilty but not fined. In which case he stays.
Cummings wasn’t found guilty.
Why not read the statement from Durham Police. They clearly think that Cummings did break the rules (although, they think driving to Barnard Castle was a fairly minor offence) but weren't going to issue a fine because they didn't want to treat him differently to anyone else.
So now they are treating the Durham 15 (to 30) differently to anyone else. Consistency reigns.
Sorry, what's different this time? If they dish out a load of fines, then I agree, it would be inconsistent, though I guess they might point to the precedent set by the Met. If I was them, I'd ignore the Met (always a good strategy) and just give an opinion on the appropriateness of what went on.
And I should say that is very likely what they will do.
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Yes, no other countries have devisive politics or partisan media, thank goodness.
There a hundred better countries in which to live than Britain.
And I intend to do so.
Care to name them?
I know Vladimir Putin hates Britain with a passion now because of our ardent support of Ukraine, but what reason would you have to despise Britain so much that you'd think there are a hundred better countries to live in?
The Nordics and the Netherlands are richer and have a better quality of life than we do. Ireland too. Among the larger European countries Germany certainly does too. I'd say France does too, certainly better work life balance and nicer weather too although the French don't seem very happy with it. Italy is messed up but the food and weather are a lot better. Switzerland has a lot going for it, as does Canada and New Zealand. I'm probably too invested here to move now, and there is still a lot I love about it despite the Tories' best efforts to ruin the place, but the idea that this is objectively the best country in the world to live in is laughable.
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about ranking countries, which is subjective, but that's not remotely close to a hundred countries, so do you care to keep going or agree that "a hundred countries" better than the UK is ridiculous hyperbolic nonsense?
The UK is up there as one of the best, most developed countries to live in on almost any rational metric. As are most other west European nations, the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ and Japan depending upon what you prefer.
All have their strengths and foibles, some more than others, but to suggest there's a hundred nations better than any of them is just absurd nonsense.
Yes I wouldn't say 100. Maybe 10-20? The UN's Human Development Index ranks the UK at #13 which seems about right although their precise ranking wouldn't be exactly the same as mine.
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
You're about a week behind. Take a look at today's front page and justify it.
As for the allegation itself, Labour's statement about the evidence they'll submit would seem to have shot that down, too.
Today’s Mail front page is magnificent in its hypocrisy. On 30th April, its front page headline was: “Police told to investigate Labour lies” Followed by this opening paragraph: “Cabinet ministers last night joined calls for a new probe into the ‘Beergate’ scandal engulfing Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner.” The Mail believes its readers are easily manipulated, not very bright and devoid of short-term memory. It seems to be a winning formula!
That dastardly Starmer is ruining the investigation by fully co-operating with it, and submitting evidence of what went on on the night in question...
Fully cooperating by lying about the presence of Angela Rayner for 4 months?
Love the Guardian's approach on the story this morning:
"Despite the huge political interest in the saga, the alleged breach is a relatively low-level matter for the police, who will want to ensure their investigation is proportionate but will survive scrutiny."
Not really the approach they took when BJ was in the dock, was it.....?
Boris still is under investigation, along with the wider Number 10 operation, for a dozen or more assorted work events to celebrate various SpAds leaving, Christmas, and there being a Y in the day.
The quantity of events is immaterial. It is Boolean, either people are willing to break the rules, or make a mistake about the rules or they don't.
If Starmer has broken the rules here then saying "but Boris has done so more times" is neither here nor there.
Especially given there's just been a months long investigation trawling over a couple of years worth events in Downing Street looking for any breaches. Had there been in the LOTOs office then, if he did break the rules in Durham do you credibly think that was a one off or did he do the same actions in other places too? Especially if he's saying that this was nothing out of the usual?
Aiui Starmer was in Durham once for a campaign event loosely connected with the Hartlepool by-election. I could be wrong about that but in any case, he will not have been there very often.
And if Starmer has broken the rules, he will resign. So for him it is binary. Boris has already been fined but remains in office. For him it is not binary. Whether accumulated fines change this is open to doubt but it is ironic that the Conservative and Daily Mail campaign against Starmer has increased the pressure on Boris. Although they might count it as a win if they get both men out!
The Secret Barrister @BarristerSecret Lots of excitement about “might”.
The reason for this is that the police don’t determine breaches; they form an opinion. If that opinion is disputed, a court will decide.
In this context, “might” means the police concluded it *was*. Hence they say they would have sent him back.
So what ? The police's opinion, given that they took no action, carries no more legal weight than mine or yours.
Well if Starmer ends up in a similar position and rides it out, good luck to him. Quite how much damage it would do to him, I don't know. Here's what Starmer had to say after the Durham statement was issued:
On Thread: "IS THE FT RIGHT ABOUT BEERGATE GIVING STARMER A BOOST?"
Yes.
I just don't get this. If you're on the detail, like most PBers, then perhaps yes.
But for your average voter? Check out the Daily Mail comments for the level of nuance most people are operating at.
There was a clear, undeniable distinction between Johnson and Starmer before. Now the attitude reverts to "they're all at it".
On the contrary, Starmer is actually using the contrast between his approach and that of Johnson to spell out how some politicians are principled rather than being all the same type of scumbags. And getting that message across to a much wider audience in soundbites used in national reporting.
Torybots on Daily Mail comment pages can fume about this all that they like but they're about as unrepresentative a sample of of wider opinion as you can get.
Long and fascinating thread (for those interested in such stuff).
While a lot of their kit is semi-obsolete, Ukraine appears to have more advanced and far more effective artillery targeting systems than anyone in NATO.
I think this is right Mike and the FT. Having a beer and curry also shows he's not a robot.
It's the principle though, even though the Hate Mail are making a desperate attempt to portray it negatively.
If and when the Sue Gray report appears this will pile pressure on Johnson.
I’m a staunch opponent of the Mail, Express and other propaganda sheets, however, in this situation I think it’s very clear that the initiators of the story were the Labour Party’s own discontented left-wingers. They merely used the Mail as their vehicle. Very few journalists/propagandists turn down a good story. Ethics are as thin on the ground in England’s media as they are in her legislature.
Is that true? The video came from the son of right-wing writer James Delingpole, and doesn't much of the comment from inside the hall come from an independent councillor? Whilst there will be Labour people who would prefer a different leader, I'm not sure they are driving this, unless you mean Lord Mandelson.
Yes I think this line which Leon first proposed on here is probably dubious. The Corbynistas probably helped feed it though.
It's the Mail who are largely responsible. The story was already out there and had circulated for months. The Daily Mail decided that, no, we didn't need to know there's a war on after all. So rather than whingeing about all the nasty attacks on Dear lovable Boris when we should be watching bombs rain down on Donbass, what we really had to get vexed about was a working beer & curry 12 months ago. Starmer was Arch Hypocrite etc. etc.
It's a sign of how nasty things are going to be in the build up to the General Election. The Hate Mail is spilling poison into everything they can lay their hands on, deliberately invoking culture wars and stoking up violence and hatred across the board.
Frankly I can't wait to emigrate from this mean-spirited and angry country.
Whilst the Mail might be a pita, I am not sure this is an angry country. There are no riots on the street. Even the gangs taking it in turns to kill each other have slowed down. I do not know if there is some sort of international index but I'm pretty sure that, on any objective basis, Britain is the best country in the world. Chin up!
I laugh at all this hate for the Mail. Yes, it's not a 'good' newspaper - especially if you are of the left. But many newspapers are absolutely cr@p and utterly biased. But the hate on the Mail is not based on quality: it is based on their political bias. If they were leftist, there would be far fewer complaints...
And evidently the Mail were right: there was enough information for the police to reopen the investigation. Many on here apparently would be perfectly happy for it not to be investigated. Which *might* be fine in this case. But I bet they'd be saying the same about more severe cases as well.
If Labour are in trouble over this, then it's their own fault. Not the Mail's.
The cynicism/hypocrisy of the Mail has always been a thing, but flipping 180 degrees from saying partygate doesn’t matter and is a triviality to currygate being the end of the world is a new low even for them.
The chumocracy / clique of right wing outrider journalists and proprietors blurring with the Johnson administration is also eye opening. Favours for favours. You want channel4 and a weaker BBC, no problem!
Hypocrisy has always been a thing about The Mail; it's not easy to match their obsessions with family values and decency with their other obsession with starlets flaunting their curves. At least The Sun were upfront about Page 3.
That's now reached the ripe madness of The Mail carping about hypocrisy in a fairly hypocritical way.
The Daily Mail is a genius product, catering to the darker aspects of lower middle class prejudice and anxiety. I’m always impressed by how they can play both sides.
“Outrage at TV nudity, pictures on page 4, 6 & 8.” delivers for the prude, the prurient and everyone in between.
My dad gets the Mail but it does not make him happy because he will pick up on a story in it and fume about it inwardly . Its almost as if he likes to be like that- unhappy ,a bit paranoid , not liking anyone not like him or at least suspicious of them and their intentions. This is not a right wing problem as many on the committed left are like this as well - they just get different material to make them unhappy
Sadly this sort of cynicism is corrosive. You end up trusting no one. The truth is that most politicians and people in public life are no different than the rest of us, wrestling with personal and altruistic motivation, making mistakes, but doing some good along the way.
If we celebrated the good bits a little more, we would all be better off. Sadly it doesn’t sell, because the darker aspects of human nature that rags like the Mail tap into are potent.
Yes, I have no idea why anyone would want to be a top flight politician any more, or even a council leader. A large amount of the public just assume your are in moral and on the make, and you need to watch every tiny thing you say, and every decision you make, for fear of the ever present cry of “he’s a hypocrite”.
It encourages hypocrisy, since you'll get accused of it anyway. It's easier to fall to temptation if people call you fallen all the time. Still your choice, but we set people up to fail.
ONE: Police find the event was legal. Again. Starmer has drawn the line in the sand for standards and probity. Massive pressure now back onto Johnson as his FPNs pile in. TWO: Police say rules may have been broken, but like with Cummings its not sufficient to issue a fine. Less comfortable for Starmer, but "unlike you Prime Minister I haven't been given criminal penalty having been found to break the rules" THREE: Police issue FPNs. Starmer and Rayner resign. Surely as campaign events have now become illegal the spotlight now turns onto others - and we already have various Tory events under the spotlight on Twitter.
In scenario three Johnson has the best outcome, and could try a cut and run approach to the electorate by calling a snap election whilst Labour are leaderless and under a cloud. But it feels the least likely of the three...
Having travelled quite a bit, I wouldn’t say the UK is an angrier country than anywhere else. We’re certainly divided and we have our problems, but overall we’re a pretty typical western European country, with additional soft power acquired over a long period if time.
In fact, I’d argue we are maybe a bit too complacent, especially in the face of a government that very clearly has no regard for our established Parliamentary democracy or the rule of law. We are the country of “mustn’t grumble” and “it could be worse”. That gives chancers and rogues like the current PM all the scope they need to do their worst.
It would be nice to think that Starmer and Rayner doing what they’ve done might shine more of a contrasting light on Downing Street, but I doubt it.
how is having a mass work gathering and beer and curry in anyway virtuous given what the law at the time was trying to prevent and Starmer fully supported ?
The rules were quite different in April 2021 to April 2020. By April 2021 half the population had been vaccinated for example.
Indeed though its funny how many people are saying that about Starmer's drinking session that he attended, but how few people were saying that when the drinking session that Downing Street staff had 'on the eve of Prince Philip's funeral' came out.
The latter was also April 2021.
Understood. When Downing Street staff were on the smash (literally) they were in fact finalising arrangements for Prince Philip's funeral a few hours later. Thanks for clearing that up.
I never said that.
What I did say when the Downing Street allegations came out was that the PM should go.
What you say when the Keir Starmer allegations came out for the same time as the Downing Street ones is "but the timing is different".
I'm guessing the exact date on April 2021 must matter seriously to you?
I have posted repeatedly that if this campaign event broke the law then ALL of the campaign events broke the law. Is anyone saying this was Starmer's only campaign event in 2021? Or that Johnson didn't do any? There are stacks of them the Mail could go after, and yet there is absolute silence. When multiple crimes looks worse than a single crime. Nothing written.
Why?
Because the Mail knows this is crap. So focus on micro details to create the air of scandal. Because if they throw this open to "campaigning like this was illegal" it quickly gets shown that it was legal.
As for the Downing Street pissup before Phil's funeral, are you saying that was a campaign event? Because the exemptions for campaigning is the relevant part of the law in this case. You are - once again - saying the law was the same for all things at all times. Which you know as well as I do isn't true.
Yet like the Mail you post it anyway. Writing it. Knowing it to be factually wrong and logically incoherent.
Exemptions for campaigning are not the relevant part of the law in this case, because the allegation isn't about campaigning it is about having a piss up after work.
Yes Starmer was allowed to campaign, nobody disputes that. But guess what, by your same logic the Downing Street staff were entitled to go to work in Downing Street because they were covered by the exemption too. They were working.
The allegation for both are comparable. That they were working earlier in the day, but then it became a drinking session afterwards. The afterwards bit is what the allegation is about, not what they were doing earlier in the day.
If Starmer and others were allowed to have food and get pissed with colleagues because he was working earlier in the day, then why weren't Downing Street staff allowed to get pissed with colleagues because they were working earlier in the day?
Nooooo. Read all of the attack lines. The allegation is that you could not meet for campaigning - that they ate and drank proves it was not a campaign event but was social instead.
So, either campaigning was legal or it was not. Hence the "THEY LIED ABOUT RAYNER" fuss.
There a hundred better countries in which to live than Britain.
And I intend to do so.
Care to name them?
I know Vladimir Putin hates Britain with a passion now because of our ardent support of Ukraine, but what reason would you have to despise Britain so much that you'd think there are a hundred better countries to live in?
The Nordics and the Netherlands are richer and have a better quality of life than we do. Ireland too. Among the larger European countries Germany certainly does too. I'd say France does too, certainly better work life balance and nicer weather too although the French don't seem very happy with it. Italy is messed up but the food and weather are a lot better. Switzerland has a lot going for it, as does Canada and New Zealand. I'm probably too invested here to move now, and there is still a lot I love about it despite the Tories' best efforts to ruin the place, but the idea that this is objectively the best country in the world to live in is laughable.
I think that I could quite happily live in any European country, bar current war zones, Canada, USA, most of Latin America, a fair chunk of Africa, SE or NE Asia, Australia or NZ, not nessicarily in that order. It must be over 100 countries. I prefer to live here though.
It is because I care about this country so much that I despise its government.
Well move then if you hate this country and its government so much.
The fact you and Heathener think there are 100 countries better than the UK, when the UK is well above global average income, wealth, life expectancy and PISA education ranking says it all!
ONE: Police find the event was legal. Again. Starmer has drawn the line in the sand for standards and probity. Massive pressure now back onto Johnson as his FPNs pile in. TWO: Police say rules may have been broken, but like with Cummings its not sufficient to issue a fine. Less comfortable for Starmer, but "unlike you Prime Minister I haven't been given criminal penalty having been found to break the rules" THREE: Police issue FPNs. Starmer and Rayner resign. Surely as campaign events have now become illegal the spotlight now turns onto others - and we already have various Tory events under the spotlight on Twitter.
In scenario three Johnson has the best outcome, and could try a cut and run approach to the electorate by calling a snap election whilst Labour are leaderless and under a cloud. But it feels the least likely of the three...
The issue with Cummins wasn't a lack of evidence, it was that Durham Police had a policy of not dishing out fines to high profile people as it would be unfair to treat them differently.
There a hundred better countries in which to live than Britain.
And I intend to do so.
Care to name them?
I know Vladimir Putin hates Britain with a passion now because of our ardent support of Ukraine, but what reason would you have to despise Britain so much that you'd think there are a hundred better countries to live in?
The Nordics and the Netherlands are richer and have a better quality of life than we do. Ireland too. Among the larger European countries Germany certainly does too. I'd say France does too, certainly better work life balance and nicer weather too although the French don't seem very happy with it. Italy is messed up but the food and weather are a lot better. Switzerland has a lot going for it, as does Canada and New Zealand. I'm probably too invested here to move now, and there is still a lot I love about it despite the Tories' best efforts to ruin the place, but the idea that this is objectively the best country in the world to live in is laughable.
I think that I could quite happily live in any European country, bar current war zones, Canada, USA, most of Latin America, a fair chunk of Africa, SE or NE Asia, Australia or NZ, not nessicarily in that order. It must be over 100 countries. I prefer to live here though.
It is because I care about this country so much that I despise its government.
Well move then if you hate this country and its government so much.
The fact you and Heathener think there are 100 countries better than the UK, when the UK is well above global average income, wealth, life expectancy and PISA education ranking says it all!
There a hundred better countries in which to live than Britain.
And I intend to do so.
Care to name them?
I know Vladimir Putin hates Britain with a passion now because of our ardent support of Ukraine, but what reason would you have to despise Britain so much that you'd think there are a hundred better countries to live in?
The Nordics and the Netherlands are richer and have a better quality of life than we do. Ireland too. Among the larger European countries Germany certainly does too. I'd say France does too, certainly better work life balance and nicer weather too although the French don't seem very happy with it. Italy is messed up but the food and weather are a lot better. Switzerland has a lot going for it, as does Canada and New Zealand. I'm probably too invested here to move now, and there is still a lot I love about it despite the Tories' best efforts to ruin the place, but the idea that this is objectively the best country in the world to live in is laughable.
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about ranking countries, which is subjective, but that's not remotely close to a hundred countries, so do you care to keep going or agree that "a hundred countries" better than the UK is ridiculous hyperbolic nonsense?
The UK is up there as one of the best, most developed countries to live in on almost any rational metric. As are most other west European nations, the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ and Japan depending upon what you prefer.
All have their strengths and foibles, some more than others, but to suggest there's a hundred nations better than any of them is just absurd nonsense.
Heathener is not a troll, but the 100 thing was trolling to get this exact reaction given theres less than 200 nations total.
There a hundred better countries in which to live than Britain.
And I intend to do so.
Care to name them?
I know Vladimir Putin hates Britain with a passion now because of our ardent support of Ukraine, but what reason would you have to despise Britain so much that you'd think there are a hundred better countries to live in?
The Nordics and the Netherlands are richer and have a better quality of life than we do. Ireland too. Among the larger European countries Germany certainly does too. I'd say France does too, certainly better work life balance and nicer weather too although the French don't seem very happy with it. Italy is messed up but the food and weather are a lot better. Switzerland has a lot going for it, as does Canada and New Zealand. I'm probably too invested here to move now, and there is still a lot I love about it despite the Tories' best efforts to ruin the place, but the idea that this is objectively the best country in the world to live in is laughable.
I think that I could quite happily live in any European country, bar current war zones, Canada, USA, most of Latin America, a fair chunk of Africa, SE or NE Asia, Australia or NZ, not nessicarily in that order. It must be over 100 countries. I prefer to live here though.
It is because I care about this country so much that I despise its government.
Probably at least 50% of the population feel that way about the government at any given time. Even Tony Blair only attracted 44% of the vote in his 1997 landslide.
This government will almost certainly be out of office within 6 years or so, because it's difficult to imagine them winning that many elections in a row.
On Thread: "IS THE FT RIGHT ABOUT BEERGATE GIVING STARMER A BOOST?"
Yes.
I just don't get this. If you're on the detail, like most PBers, then perhaps yes.
But for your average voter? Check out the Daily Mail comments for the level of nuance most people are operating at.
There was a clear, undeniable distinction between Johnson and Starmer before. Now the attitude reverts to "they're all at it".
That's where CCHQ and The Mail messed up.
Putting out fragments, innuendos to keep Starmer under a cloud, that's one thing and could have been done indefinitely.
By forcing police involvement, the headline will become vindication or resignation. Probably the first. But even the second kills the story.
Over-excited amateurs.
People like Hodges shat the bed yesterday when they suddenly glimpsed that their actions have real world consequences. A harmless little light arson went beyond their control and now their own house has caught on fire too.
There a hundred better countries in which to live than Britain.
And I intend to do so.
Care to name them?
I know Vladimir Putin hates Britain with a passion now because of our ardent support of Ukraine, but what reason would you have to despise Britain so much that you'd think there are a hundred better countries to live in?
The Nordics and the Netherlands are richer and have a better quality of life than we do. Ireland too. Among the larger European countries Germany certainly does too. I'd say France does too, certainly better work life balance and nicer weather too although the French don't seem very happy with it. Italy is messed up but the food and weather are a lot better. Switzerland has a lot going for it, as does Canada and New Zealand. I'm probably too invested here to move now, and there is still a lot I love about it despite the Tories' best efforts to ruin the place, but the idea that this is objectively the best country in the world to live in is laughable.
I think that I could quite happily live in any European country, bar current war zones, Canada, USA, most of Latin America, a fair chunk of Africa, SE or NE Asia, Australia or NZ, not nessicarily in that order. It must be over 100 countries. I prefer to live here though.
It is because I care about this country so much that I despise its government.
Well move then if you hate this country and its government so much.
The fact you and Heathener think there are 100 countries better than the UK, when the UK is well above global average income, wealth, life expectancy and PISA education ranking says it all!
Yes, but for how much longer with you in charge?
Considerably longer, unemployment is still half the level Labour left in 2010 and the number of good schools is also up.
Plus if Foxy and Heathener left that would be 2 less non Tory voters to worry about too
Comments
"Despite the huge political interest in the saga, the alleged breach is a relatively low-level matter for the police, who will want to ensure their investigation is proportionate but will survive scrutiny."
Not really the approach they took when BJ was in the dock, was it.....?
Starmer was doing the exact opposite, even afterwards saying we'd have a summer crisis and opposing lifting the lockdown.
Thanks Josias for making the 'Iraq' comparison. I was thinking about that myself. The Conservatives supported Blair's disastrous Iraq policy but escaped condemnation for it. I think that's fairy nuff. They weren't the Government and they weren't making the rules.
Same applies with the infinitely more trivial beergate. It is somewhat less serious if you break rules made by somebody else, although of course it's still wrong.
Anyway it is starting to look like there will be no fine, so I hope we can soon all move on from this tedious subject.
He had a bad Covid.
Almost everyone sane has concluded that the Tories are much better off without Boris (serial liar) and Labour are much better off without Keir (a very limited politician).
But, the last of the Boris Loyalists are fighting it out to the death with the bedraggled remains of the Keir yeomanry over 'beer and curry' gate and 'cheese and wine' gate.
Haven't these people understood what everyone else knows?
The first party that changes its leader wins the next election.
But I take the point.
Meanwhile for Labour, the the controversy around Corbyn bring risks for the campaign. The first question of the campaign will be, should Corbyn have the whip.
As to whether the law was needed, the government did publish a review which iirc showed lockdown was effective. At the time of beergate, we were at step 2 out of lockdown.
And how can you be 'found guilty but not receive a fine' ? Except by the Mail, of course.
My understanding is Johnson, let alone be interviewed for "bring a bottle" isn't even getting a questionnaire.
I wonder if Durham now going in with their boots on will stir the Met into stop dancing around Johnson personally for fear of making political waves, as seems to be the case.
On 12 April 2020, Mr Cummings drove approximately 26 miles from his father’s property to Barnard Castle with his wife and son. He stated on 25 May 2020 that the purpose of this drive was to test his resilience to drive to London the following day, including whether his eyesight was sufficiently recovered, his period of self-isolation having ended.
Durham constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR [automatic number plate recognition], witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.
Had a Durham constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken. In line with Durham constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public.
The bit in bold should be of concern to Starmer.
Very interesting comments by Macron. I wonder if anything will come of it.
https://twitter.com/rprose/status/1523910064871989248
"On this day, I'd like to wish everyone peace, health and happiness," says this LNR artillery commander before literally firing shells with May 9 cards at villages still held by Ukraine
Posted by Russian state-run RIA Novosti on Telegram
The size of the majority is pretty irrelevant. If the opposition feels something is wrong, they should vote, or amend, accordingly.
You're right, considering that meeting indoors was considered worse than meeting outdoors because the transmission is worse indoors than outdoors, I'm guessing you're saying Starmer's is worse?
Or have you got something against cheese? Or do you just prefer beer over wine?
2. Labour: Corbyn should of course have the whip. The present position of Keir Starmer is vindictive.
I think we have seen from the Local Elections that (i) Boris is ratnered and won't win a majority; (ii) Keir is very limited and won't win a majority.
First to defenestrate wins.
So it doesn't matter that a week on from "WE CALL OUT THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE" that the headline is "CROOKED LABOUR PRESSURE THE POLICE". Or that Dan Hodges tweets that Starmer plans to "get away with not breaking the law". Or that the Brexit problems its readers face are the same things it implored its readers to vote for. Or that its noncey approach to young girls is mirrored with stuffy anti-woke "THIS IS DISGUSTING" reporting of non-noncey approaches by others.
People read it. And believe it. And trust it. As a propaganda tool it it outstanding.
The threshold for guilty in criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt.
Britain, England, Wales, Scotland, NI all have problems. Everywhere does. Yet it’s not such a bad place to live. For all the stresses the nhs is a magnificent institution. When you emigrate you’ll need to pay insurance in your new home to get what you get for free here.*
When you live elsewhere, as I have done and I believe you have too, you realise that other places have issues too. Different ones for sure, but issues just the same.
*I know we pay in taxes, but it really is free at the point of use ((for most stuff).
Yes.
And expecting Starmer to indulge in the desperate parsing of 'what if' s in his very clear statement is frankly pathetic.
What's the spin going to be when Durham police find there was no breach at all, potential or otherwise ?
What I did say when the Downing Street allegations came out was that the PM should go.
What you say when the Keir Starmer allegations came out for the same time as the Downing Street ones is "but the timing is different".
I'm guessing the exact date on April 2021 must matter seriously to you?
Having girls around make it a party? Cute!
I wouldn't often drink wine with curry, although a light Pinot Noir can be a very suitable accompaniment. I prefer a beer. Probably an Asian lager-type one.
When eating cheese, either is fine, although it does depend on the cheese. Cheddar, pickle and draught bitter go together very well IMHO.
We'll see what the Germans and others have to say about it.
If Starmer has broken the rules here then saying "but Boris has done so more times" is neither here nor there.
Especially given there's just been a months long investigation trawling over a couple of years worth events in Downing Street looking for any breaches. Had there been in the LOTOs office then, if he did break the rules in Durham do you credibly think that was a one off or did he do the same actions in other places too? Especially if he's saying that this was nothing out of the usual?
You seem to expect him to have engaged in a lengthy consideration of various scenarios. Since his position is quite clear - that he didn't break the rules - that's just expecting him to brief against himself.
As I said, pitiful.
But for your average voter? Check out the Daily Mail comments for the level of nuance most people are operating at.
There was a clear, undeniable distinction between Johnson and Starmer before. Now the attitude reverts to "they're all at it".
ETA in any case, Labour's position is that it abided by the law, so I'm not sure where you are going with this.
While a lot of their kit is semi-obsolete, Ukraine appears to have more advanced and far more effective artillery targeting systems than anyone in NATO.
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1523791056319377409
Sherstyuk's software package is reminiscent Uber or Lyft's taxi software in that assigns targets to the nearest gun, mortar, rocket launcher, Aerosvidzka drone or SF team.
This is nothing like the US Military's Tactical Fire Direction System (TACFIRE)...
We're pretty decent. I like the UK. It's a nice place to live.
Why?
Because the Mail knows this is crap. So focus on micro details to create the air of scandal. Because if they throw this open to "campaigning like this was illegal" it quickly gets shown that it was legal.
As for the Downing Street pissup before Phil's funeral, are you saying that was a campaign event? Because the exemptions for campaigning is the relevant part of the law in this case. You are - once again - saying the law was the same for all things at all times. Which you know as well as I do isn't true.
Yet like the Mail you post it anyway. Writing it. Knowing it to be factually wrong and logically incoherent.
It delayed what was apparently a damning report for several weeks by which time Ukraine had happened and allowed Johnson to say he couldn't go because we were at war.
The UK is up there as one of the best, most developed countries to live in on almost any rational metric. As are most other west European nations, the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ and Japan depending upon what you prefer.
All have their strengths and foibles, some more than others, but to suggest there's a hundred nations better than any of them is just absurd nonsense.
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1265986473955819520
The Secret Barrister
@BarristerSecret
Lots of excitement about “might”.
The reason for this is that the police don’t determine breaches; they form an opinion. If that opinion is disputed, a court will decide.
In this context, “might” means the police concluded it *was*. Hence they say they would have sent him back.
https://order-order.com/2022/05/09/imran-ahmad-khans-exciting-new-job/
The police's opinion, given that they took no action, carries no more legal weight than mine or yours.
It is because I care about this country so much that I despise its government.
Yes Starmer was allowed to campaign, nobody disputes that. But guess what, by your same logic the Downing Street staff were entitled to go to work in Downing Street because they were covered by the exemption too. They were working.
The allegation for both are comparable. That they were working earlier in the day, but then it became a drinking session afterwards. The afterwards bit is what the allegation is about, not what they were doing earlier in the day.
If Starmer and others were allowed to have food and get pissed with colleagues because he was working earlier in the day, then why weren't Downing Street staff allowed to get pissed with colleagues because they were working earlier in the day?
*[Farooq et al, Journal of the Proceedings of Me, 2022]
And if Starmer has broken the rules, he will resign. So for him it is binary. Boris has already been fined but remains in office. For him it is not binary. Whether accumulated fines change this is open to doubt but it is ironic that the Conservative and Daily Mail campaign against Starmer has increased the pressure on Boris. Although they might count it as a win if they get both men out!
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1266034795173367808
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Boris Johnson should have drawn a line under the Dominic Cummings saga but was too weak to act.
The public have sacrificed so much for the health of our nation - which he's now undermined.
And sent a message that there's one rule for them and another for the British people.
Torybots on Daily Mail comment pages can fume about this all that they like but they're about as unrepresentative a sample of of wider opinion as you can get.
ONE: Police find the event was legal. Again. Starmer has drawn the line in the sand for standards and probity. Massive pressure now back onto Johnson as his FPNs pile in.
TWO: Police say rules may have been broken, but like with Cummings its not sufficient to issue a fine. Less comfortable for Starmer, but "unlike you Prime Minister I haven't been given criminal penalty having been found to break the rules"
THREE: Police issue FPNs. Starmer and Rayner resign. Surely as campaign events have now become illegal the spotlight now turns onto others - and we already have various Tory events under the spotlight on Twitter.
In scenario three Johnson has the best outcome, and could try a cut and run approach to the electorate by calling a snap election whilst Labour are leaderless and under a cloud. But it feels the least likely of the three...
The only story the papers are going to cover over the next few days is the Wagatha Christie case which starts today.
I hate myself that I am so invested in this story.
Read it is going to cost £3 million in legal fees.
So, either campaigning was legal or it was not. Hence the "THEY LIED ABOUT RAYNER" fuss.
The fact you and Heathener think there are 100 countries better than the UK, when the UK is well above global average income, wealth, life expectancy and PISA education ranking says it all!
Putting out fragments, innuendos to keep Starmer under a cloud, that's one thing and could have been done indefinitely.
By forcing police involvement, the headline will become vindication or resignation. Probably the first. But even the second kills the story.
Over-excited amateurs.
Having whined for days that the police must do something, and that Starmer must do something, he is now whining that maybe MPs can do something.
They don’t half pick ‘em, these footballers.
This government will almost certainly be out of office within 6 years or so, because it's difficult to imagine them winning that many elections in a row.
https://gizmodo.com/webb-telescope-sharp-images-nasa-1848899825
Plus if Foxy and Heathener left that would be 2 less non Tory voters to worry about too