So, we now know that all the government ministers who said the PM was ambushed by cake and no alcohol was consumed at his birthday party were not telling the truth.
Are you sure? The ones i have seen just show orange and apple juice and a tray of sandwiches.
You've not seen the one of the PM raising a toast with a can of Estrella then?
My first thought was "Its a can of coke, no?" but its so blurred it could be a 330 ml Estrella.
I thought it was, too, at first, but it isn't. If you zoom in you can see the star:
And Coke hasn't been sold in packaging like this for a long time, if ever:
There's a "substantial meal" on the table though. Sandwiches have been legally a "substantial meal" since 1955.
That's a lunch at work. How the f**k is that an illegal gathering?
Preposterous.
If that's it, that's a less damning photo than Starmer with his beer, but that shouldn't get a fine either.
The police do not agree. Because the regulations at the time did not agree.
Sandwiches available for people who are working? Sure. But it wasn't lunch. "For the PM's birthday today we are having sandwiches and cake in the Cabinet room so do come along and wish the PM happy birthday."
It really doesn't matter what you think should have been "reasonably necessary for work purposes". This wasn't billed by the organisers as such and not deemed as such by the police who looked at it, nor accepted as such by the Cabinet Office looking at the detail.
It really does matter. If this was illegal, then everyone responsible for the regulations that made it illegal should go, because they were preposterous.
Thats a separate argument, and TBH I have some sympathy with it. Regulations and the implementation of regulations was at times contradictory and punative.
But they were the regulations. Passed by Downing Street. And then ignored by Downing Street. Who discuss with each other how they should not be doing these things. And berate security and cleaning staff for raising the same questions.
So, we now know that all the government ministers who said the PM was ambushed by cake and no alcohol was consumed at his birthday party were not telling the truth.
Are you sure? The ones i have seen just show orange and apple juice and a tray of sandwiches.
You've not seen the one of the PM raising a toast with a can of Estrella then?
My first thought was "Its a can of coke, no?" but its so blurred it could be a 330 ml Estrella.
I thought it was, too, at first, but it isn't. If you zoom in you can see the star:
And Coke hasn't been sold in packaging like this for a long time, if ever:
There's a "substantial meal" on the table though. Sandwiches have been legally a "substantial meal" since 1955.
That's a lunch at work. How the f**k is that an illegal gathering?
Preposterous.
If that's it, that's a less damning photo than Starmer with his beer, but that shouldn't get a fine either.
Keep spinning Bart. You want your idol to remain in place. No-one believes your protestations about no longer supporting him anymore than any of us believed your post yesterday about having an "employee" that you had to fire.
No one believed his posts yesterday about his employee?
It was a Walter Mitty post. He was having a funny five minutes. I wasn't the only person to notice the inconsistencies. Pretty odd really.
It's funny, I remember that discussion, and not a single person was suggesting it was just a made up fairy tale. So I am not sure why you think no-one believed it.
So, we now know that all the government ministers who said the PM was ambushed by cake and no alcohol was consumed at his birthday party were not telling the truth.
Are you sure? The ones i have seen just show orange and apple juice and a tray of sandwiches.
You've not seen the one of the PM raising a toast with a can of Estrella then?
My first thought was "Its a can of coke, no?" but its so blurred it could be a 330 ml Estrella.
I thought it was, too, at first, but it isn't. If you zoom in you can see the star:
And Coke hasn't been sold in packaging like this for a long time, if ever:
There's a "substantial meal" on the table though. Sandwiches have been legally a "substantial meal" since 1955.
That's a lunch at work. How the f**k is that an illegal gathering?
Preposterous.
If that's it, that's a less damning photo than Starmer with his beer, but that shouldn't get a fine either.
Keep spinning Bart. You want your idol to remain in place. No-one believes your protestations about no longer supporting him anymore than any of us believed your post yesterday about having an "employee" that you had to fire.
No one believed his posts yesterday about his employee?
It was a Walter Mitty post. He was having a funny five minutes. I wasn't the only person to notice the inconsistencies. Pretty odd really.
It's funny, I remember that discussion, and not a single person was suggesting it was just a made up fairy tale. So I am not sure why you think no-one believed it.
And for the benefit of those of us who can't watch/listen?
Complains that the Cabinet Secretary and Government Director of Propriety and Ethics were suddenly banned from attending his Public Administration committee. Wonders which of the subjects the committee wanted to raise were a concern for the Prime Minister: "Undeclared loans and donations in kind, security insights into appointments to the House of Lords, or indeed the consultation of the propriety and ethics unit into ministerial appointments"
And for the benefit of those of us who can't watch/listen?
"William Wragg (Con), chair of the public administrative and constitutional affairs commtitee, says Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, was banned from giving evidence to his committee this week. Saying he may be a cynic, he asks what topic was the PM worried about Case being asked about." He then listed three. One was appointments to the Lords. Can't recall the other two.
How dare they have these insane booze-soaked, coke and Ecstasy fuelled, pet-play hookers-on-trampolines midget sex Korean dwarf ice skating free love dope-on-motorbike orgies when the rest of us were….
Oh.
I'm looking at the photos in the report, and all I can think is "why on earth was any of this ever illegal?"...
If one were inclined to be suspicious of the Met’s integrity (perish the thought), it would seem both convenient and suspicious for them to investigate for weeks, and then issue the PM a fine for what seems the most innocuous of the events.
And for the benefit of those of us who can't watch/listen?
Complains that the Cabinet Secretary and Government Director of Propriety and Ethics were suddenly banned from attending his Public Administration committee. Wonders which of the subjects the committee wanted to raise were a concern for the Prime Minister: "Undeclared loans and donations in kind, security insights into appointments to the House of Lords, or indeed the consultation of the propriety and ethics unit into ministerial appointments"
On the Gray Report, the emails and WhatsApp messages are much more revealing than the photos. They reveal that folk, including the PM (unless he never read any of them), knew that what they were doing was wrong.
Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals
The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?
Only as stupid as Neville Chamberlain by the sound of it.
So far, he is a catastrophic German Chancellor. I guess the only way is up
He is also tanking the SPD in the polls
"Will the Greens in Germany overtake Olaf Scholz’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) in our Poll of Polls?
The Green Party has gained 5 percentage points in support since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and is polling neck-and-neck with its coalition partner, SPD."
CDU now back in front under Merz too who tales a harder line on Putin than Scholz
Merz is doing alright and the CDU is now ahead of the SPD nationally in NRW as well although it's mainly SPD voters switching to the Greens and FDP voters switching to CDU/CSU.
Greens are the big winners TBH and were 2nd on 23% in yesterday's Forsa poll.
Scholz also still leading Merz 41% to 19% in a hypothetical direct Chancellor vote:
Comments
But they were the regulations. Passed by Downing Street. And then ignored by Downing Street. Who discuss with each other how they should not be doing these things. And berate security and cleaning staff for raising the same questions.
In a tone which could not be more contemptuous of him and his kind.
"Undeclared loans and donations in kind, security insights into appointments to the House of Lords, or indeed the consultation of the propriety and ethics unit into ministerial appointments"
He then listed three. One was appointments to the Lords. Can't recall the other two.
Edit. I see RP is more on the ball.
It's better to be a pragmatic liar.
Greens are the big winners TBH and were 2nd on 23% in yesterday's Forsa poll.
Scholz also still leading Merz 41% to 19% in a hypothetical direct Chancellor vote:
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahl_zum_21._Deutschen_Bundestag/Umfragen_und_Prognosen