I'm going to put my religious hat on for a moment and say, yes - the government was right to apologise for serving meat at a Hindu religious event. Not because they served it, but because they would never make the same mistake at a Jewish or Muslim religious event. Hindus are very much seen as second class citizens by Labour and this is actually just further proof that they just don't care enough to do the research properly.
We don't fit into their precious marginalised voter groups and we don't bitch and moan like victims so I guess we're easy to ignore.
Since when is vegetarianism compulsory in Hinduism? The prohibition is on beef, surely.
Do you have a beef with vegetarianism?
I've been a vegetarian since 1991, when I turned 16.
I'm so sorry
"I forgive you, I only hope my neurologist will feel the same!"
I'm going to put my religious hat on for a moment and say, yes - the government was right to apologise for serving meat at a Hindu religious event. Not because they served it, but because they would never make the same mistake at a Jewish or Muslim religious event. Hindus are very much seen as second class citizens by Labour and this is actually just further proof that they just don't care enough to do the research properly.
We don't fit into their precious marginalised voter groups and we don't bitch and moan like victims so I guess we're easy to ignore.
Sounds like a bit of a bitch/moan.
Would one necessarily assume that a Hindu function should be vegetarian and teetotal? I know Hindus who are neither.
If they'd spoken to one then they'd have been told to make it vegetarian for sure, alcohol definitely doesn't matter though.
Given this event has been run for many years now, I just presumed there would be a word doc of do's / don'ts for civil servants to follow, and probably what caterers they have used in the past etc. Have previous gathering made a similar faux pas?
It speaks to what I said, Labour just don't care enough to check. That would never be the case for a Muslim celebration.
It is surely a simple question of freedom of choice. It would have been unpardonable not to have provided ample vegetarian options for such an event and not to have clearly labelled the meat options and the veggie ones, but I do not support the notion of banning meat to those who wanted to eat it. I also don't support all meat provision being halal to avoid offence to Muslims. Label things and give people options.
That said, point taken on all Hindus observing vegetarianism during Diwali celebrations - that's useful info.
But the point is that it's a celebration of a Hindu religious event so the host should respect the religion. As I said could you imagine a Passover or Eid event where pork is served, labelled or not? I doubt it.
I personally don't feel offended by the meat more the lack of care the the government has shown wrt Hinduism and people who follow.
One to watch is this. Amazon are trying to launch Kuiper - a rival to the Starlink network.
Kuiper is a smaller number of satellites in higher orbits. But it still requires 3.236 satellites for phase one.
Under its FCC license, Amazon is required to launch and operate 50% of its satellites no later than July 30, 2026, and must launch and operate the remaining satellites no later than July 30, 2029.
Currently they have a grand total of two (2) satellites operating for testing.
The original plan was to launch the constellation using New Glenn, from Blue Origin, the company owned by Jeff Bezos.
This has been delayed - the first launch will occur sometime in the near future. The vehicle is being prepared for flight now.
To deal with this delay, Amazon purchased launches from everyone they could. ULA, Ariane and even SpaceX. However many of the rockets they bet on have been delayed. And the satellites themselves are not yet coming off the lines.
So, it is close to certain that by 30th July 2026, they won’t have launched half their constellation.
At which point the FCC can either grant a waiver. Or cancel their frequency allocation, putting them out of business.
Which will it be?
I guess that depends on what quid pro quo is offered to Trump. No doubt one of his smarter grifters will explain it to him.
Unless Elon's bid is higher.
Bid for what? Starlink can’t use the frequencies.
Hilariously, the only launch vehicle with the flight rate to have even a chance of launching all the sats on time is… Falcon 9
Amazon executives have already booked a couple of F9 launches for Kuiper.
They could certainly use the monopoly, though.
On the other hand, SpaceX saved OneWeb, and have launched satellites for everyone else in the satellite date space.
And at about the same time, destroyed a couple of small rideshare companies that had proven the concept.
The rideshare company that had integrated a satellite leaking propellant and sent it to the launch site?
I’m trying to imagine what Tory Bruno would have done if someone had tried that on Atlas….
AIUI that was *alleged*. But the point still stands. They (and another company) found a nice little niche, and SpaceX leveraged their position to take it over.
Some fascinating details in the transfers in the Edinburgh by-election. The first count has the Lib Dems in the lead on 2683 with Labour in 3rd place with 1441. The final count was LD 3751 and Lab 2055. It appears that the Lib Dems won most of the 2nd preferences as well.
One to watch is this. Amazon are trying to launch Kuiper - a rival to the Starlink network.
Kuiper is a smaller number of satellites in higher orbits. But it still requires 3.236 satellites for phase one.
Under its FCC license, Amazon is required to launch and operate 50% of its satellites no later than July 30, 2026, and must launch and operate the remaining satellites no later than July 30, 2029.
Currently they have a grand total of two (2) satellites operating for testing.
The original plan was to launch the constellation using New Glenn, from Blue Origin, the company owned by Jeff Bezos.
This has been delayed - the first launch will occur sometime in the near future. The vehicle is being prepared for flight now.
To deal with this delay, Amazon purchased launches from everyone they could. ULA, Ariane and even SpaceX. However many of the rockets they bet on have been delayed. And the satellites themselves are not yet coming off the lines.
So, it is close to certain that by 30th July 2026, they won’t have launched half their constellation.
At which point the FCC can either grant a waiver. Or cancel their frequency allocation, putting them out of business.
Which will it be?
I guess that depends on what quid pro quo is offered to Trump. No doubt one of his smarter grifters will explain it to him.
Unless Elon's bid is higher.
Bid for what? Starlink can’t use the frequencies.
Hilariously, the only launch vehicle with the flight rate to have even a chance of launching all the sats on time is… Falcon 9
Amazon executives have already booked a couple of F9 launches for Kuiper.
They could certainly use the monopoly, though.
On the other hand, SpaceX saved OneWeb, and have launched satellites for everyone else in the satellite date space.
And at about the same time, destroyed a couple of small rideshare companies that had proven the concept.
The rideshare company that had integrated a satellite leaking propellant and sent it to the launch site?
I’m trying to imagine what Tory Bruno would have done if someone had tried that on Atlas….
AIUI that was *alleged*. But the point still stands. They (and another company) found a nice little niche, and SpaceX leveraged their position to take it over.
The public report of it came from another company, who had a payload in the same ride share. And found the dripping fuel (before the payload stack was handed over for launch) . Which was dripping next to their sat. They reported it to SpaceX.
Coming from the people who want to round up "illegals" and put them in camps.
The mass incarceration of these protestors will be come to be regarded as an error. If you go through the actual 'evidence', which the police and CPS post on social media, most of the imprisoned were just in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and did something a bit stupid; punished under 'public order' laws which are subject to wide interpretation and discretionary enforcement. It was an attempt by the authorities at asserting a muscular progressive authoritarianism; but now it turns out they are on the wrong side of history.
The other issue here is that we like to make these claims that we are 'better' than authoritarian regimes like Russia; but there is some uncertainty about that.
Is burning asylum seekers alive in hotels the right side of history then?
In all seriousness I would look in to the cases people like Musk pick up, and then research them with an open mind. Some of the cases are bizarre; ie the retired train driver from Sutton.
I'm not sure which side you are suggesting they have erred on this.
It was a 700 strong 'demonstration' organised by Tommy Robinson's team, and he pled guilty to violent disorder, and heavier penalties are engaged from committing his offence in riot circumstances.
I'm going to put my religious hat on for a moment and say, yes - the government was right to apologise for serving meat at a Hindu religious event. Not because they served it, but because they would never make the same mistake at a Jewish or Muslim religious event. Hindus are very much seen as second class citizens by Labour and this is actually just further proof that they just don't care enough to do the research properly.
We don't fit into their precious marginalised voter groups and we don't bitch and moan like victims so I guess we're easy to ignore.
Sounds like a bit of a bitch/moan.
Would one necessarily assume that a Hindu function should be vegetarian and teetotal? I know Hindus who are neither.
If they'd spoken to one then they'd have been told to make it vegetarian for sure, alcohol definitely doesn't matter though.
Given this event has been run for many years now, I just presumed there would be a word doc of do's / don'ts for civil servants to follow, and probably what caterers they have used in the past etc. Have previous gathering made a similar faux pas?
It speaks to what I said, Labour just don't care enough to check. That would never be the case for a Muslim celebration.
It is surely a simple question of freedom of choice. It would have been unpardonable not to have provided ample vegetarian options for such an event and not to have clearly labelled the meat options and the veggie ones, but I do not support the notion of banning meat to those who wanted to eat it. I also don't support all meat provision being halal to avoid offence to Muslims. Label things and give people options.
That said, point taken on all Hindus observing vegetarianism during Diwali celebrations - that's useful info.
But the point is that it's a celebration of a Hindu religious event so the host should respect the religion. As I said could you imagine a Passover or Eid event where pork is served, labelled or not? I doubt it.
I personally don't feel offended by the meat more the lack of care the the government has shown wrt Hinduism and people who follow.
From personal experience, I know that kosher catering is a nightmare, depending on the branch of Judaism that is represented.
Coming from the people who want to round up "illegals" and put them in camps.
The mass incarceration of these protestors will be come to be regarded as an error. If you go through the actual 'evidence', which the police and CPS post on social media, most of the imprisoned were just in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and did something a bit stupid; punished under 'public order' laws which are subject to wide interpretation and discretionary enforcement. It was an attempt by the authorities at asserting a muscular progressive authoritarianism; but now it turns out they are on the wrong side of history.
The other issue here is that we like to make these claims that we are 'better' than authoritarian regimes like Russia; but there is some uncertainty about that.
Is burning asylum seekers alive in hotels the right side of history then?
In all seriousness I would look in to the cases people like Musk pick up, and then research them with an open mind. Some of the cases are bizarre; ie the retired train driver from Sutton.
I'm not sure which side you are suggesting they have erred on this.
It was a 700 strong demonstration organised by Tommy Robinson's team, and he pled guilty to violent disorder, and heavier penalties are engaged from committing his offence in riot circumstances.
Uncle Malmesbury’s “Rules for not being mistaken for a Fascist”
1) Don’t set immigrants on fire 2) Even small ones 3) Especially not small ones. 4) Do not attend demonstrations organised Tommy Several Names 5) No Roman Salutes. God gave us elbows. Use them.
I'm going to put my religious hat on for a moment and say, yes - the government was right to apologise for serving meat at a Hindu religious event. Not because they served it, but because they would never make the same mistake at a Jewish or Muslim religious event. Hindus are very much seen as second class citizens by Labour and this is actually just further proof that they just don't care enough to do the research properly.
We don't fit into their precious marginalised voter groups and we don't bitch and moan like victims so I guess we're easy to ignore.
Sounds like a bit of a bitch/moan.
Would one necessarily assume that a Hindu function should be vegetarian and teetotal? I know Hindus who are neither.
If they'd spoken to one then they'd have been told to make it vegetarian for sure, alcohol definitely doesn't matter though.
Given this event has been run for many years now, I just presumed there would be a word doc of do's / don'ts for civil servants to follow, and probably what caterers they have used in the past etc. Have previous gathering made a similar faux pas?
It speaks to what I said, Labour just don't care enough to check. That would never be the case for a Muslim celebration.
It is surely a simple question of freedom of choice. It would have been unpardonable not to have provided ample vegetarian options for such an event and not to have clearly labelled the meat options and the veggie ones, but I do not support the notion of banning meat to those who wanted to eat it. I also don't support all meat provision being halal to avoid offence to Muslims. Label things and give people options.
That said, point taken on all Hindus observing vegetarianism during Diwali celebrations - that's useful info.
But the point is that it's a celebration of a Hindu religious event so the host should respect the religion. As I said could you imagine a Passover or Eid event where pork is served, labelled or not? I doubt it.
I personally don't feel offended by the meat more the lack of care the the government has shown wrt Hinduism and people who follow.
From personal experience, I know that kosher catering is a nightmare, depending on the branch of Judaism that is represented.
Indeedy. And Orthodox Jews cannot comment on it until sunset tomorrow .
It may involve two complete preparation areas for separation (based on third-party accounts).
One to watch is this. Amazon are trying to launch Kuiper - a rival to the Starlink network.
Kuiper is a smaller number of satellites in higher orbits. But it still requires 3.236 satellites for phase one.
Under its FCC license, Amazon is required to launch and operate 50% of its satellites no later than July 30, 2026, and must launch and operate the remaining satellites no later than July 30, 2029.
Currently they have a grand total of two (2) satellites operating for testing.
The original plan was to launch the constellation using New Glenn, from Blue Origin, the company owned by Jeff Bezos.
This has been delayed - the first launch will occur sometime in the near future. The vehicle is being prepared for flight now.
To deal with this delay, Amazon purchased launches from everyone they could. ULA, Ariane and even SpaceX. However many of the rockets they bet on have been delayed. And the satellites themselves are not yet coming off the lines.
So, it is close to certain that by 30th July 2026, they won’t have launched half their constellation.
At which point the FCC can either grant a waiver. Or cancel their frequency allocation, putting them out of business.
Which will it be?
I guess that depends on what quid pro quo is offered to Trump. No doubt one of his smarter grifters will explain it to him.
Unless Elon's bid is higher.
Bid for what? Starlink can’t use the frequencies.
Hilariously, the only launch vehicle with the flight rate to have even a chance of launching all the sats on time is… Falcon 9
Amazon executives have already booked a couple of F9 launches for Kuiper.
They could certainly use the monopoly, though.
On the other hand, SpaceX saved OneWeb, and have launched satellites for everyone else in the satellite date space.
And at about the same time, destroyed a couple of small rideshare companies that had proven the concept.
The rideshare company that had integrated a satellite leaking propellant and sent it to the launch site?
I’m trying to imagine what Tory Bruno would have done if someone had tried that on Atlas….
AIUI that was *alleged*. But the point still stands. They (and another company) found a nice little niche, and SpaceX leveraged their position to take it over.
The public report of it came from another company, who had a payload in the same ride share. And found the dripping fuel (before the payload stack was handed over for launch) . Which was dripping next to their sat. They reported it to SpaceX.
My point still stands. They created a good business, and SpaceX destroyed it. Do you honestly think SpaceX don't have similar issues at times?
(I might refer you to the way they disagree with NASA about the cause of the CRS-7 explosion.)
I'm going to put my religious hat on for a moment and say, yes - the government was right to apologise for serving meat at a Hindu religious event. Not because they served it, but because they would never make the same mistake at a Jewish or Muslim religious event. Hindus are very much seen as second class citizens by Labour and this is actually just further proof that they just don't care enough to do the research properly.
We don't fit into their precious marginalised voter groups and we don't bitch and moan like victims so I guess we're easy to ignore.
Sounds like a bit of a bitch/moan.
Would one necessarily assume that a Hindu function should be vegetarian and teetotal? I know Hindus who are neither.
If they'd spoken to one then they'd have been told to make it vegetarian for sure, alcohol definitely doesn't matter though.
Given this event has been run for many years now, I just presumed there would be a word doc of do's / don'ts for civil servants to follow, and probably what caterers they have used in the past etc. Have previous gathering made a similar faux pas?
It speaks to what I said, Labour just don't care enough to check. That would never be the case for a Muslim celebration.
Since this happened in 10 Downing St, this will have been a government event rather than a party one. So why were Labour involved in the catering in the first place?
Partygate was then not down to the Conservatives? Is that your logic?
What a ridiculous comparison.
The Diwali party would have been an authorised function, organised by Downing Street house managers. Now the error is on Labour's watch so it is their problem.
Partygate was a series of unauthorised piss-ups, granted organised by the most senior manager in Downing Street. The key however is unauthorised. I rest my Case!
I'm going to put my religious hat on for a moment and say, yes - the government was right to apologise for serving meat at a Hindu religious event. Not because they served it, but because they would never make the same mistake at a Jewish or Muslim religious event. Hindus are very much seen as second class citizens by Labour and this is actually just further proof that they just don't care enough to do the research properly.
We don't fit into their precious marginalised voter groups and we don't bitch and moan like victims so I guess we're easy to ignore.
Sounds like a bit of a bitch/moan.
Would one necessarily assume that a Hindu function should be vegetarian and teetotal? I know Hindus who are neither.
I’ve been to an Eid work event where they were offering champagne because the guy hosting had Muslim friends who drank champagne.
Awks.
At least it wasn't Blue Nun....
Iff I ever stopped being a good Muslim and decided to drink alcohol my first drink would either be absinthe or a Pappy Va Winkle.
If your first alcoholic drink was absinthe, seems a non-trivial chance it would be your last drink also.
I am a Yorkshireman, we can handle anything, I could drink a litre of absinthe and still go to work straight after.
I'm going to put my religious hat on for a moment and say, yes - the government was right to apologise for serving meat at a Hindu religious event. Not because they served it, but because they would never make the same mistake at a Jewish or Muslim religious event. Hindus are very much seen as second class citizens by Labour and this is actually just further proof that they just don't care enough to do the research properly.
We don't fit into their precious marginalised voter groups and we don't bitch and moan like victims so I guess we're easy to ignore.
Sounds like a bit of a bitch/moan.
Would one necessarily assume that a Hindu function should be vegetarian and teetotal? I know Hindus who are neither.
If they'd spoken to one then they'd have been told to make it vegetarian for sure, alcohol definitely doesn't matter though.
Given this event has been run for many years now, I just presumed there would be a word doc of do's / don'ts for civil servants to follow, and probably what caterers they have used in the past etc. Have previous gathering made a similar faux pas?
It speaks to what I said, Labour just don't care enough to check. That would never be the case for a Muslim celebration.
Since this happened in 10 Downing St, this will have been a government event rather than a party one. So why were Labour involved in the catering in the first place?
Partygate was then not down to the Conservatives? Is that your logic?
What a ridiculous comparison.
The Diwali party would have been an authorised function, organised by Downing Street house managers. Now the error is on Labour's watch so it is their problem.
Partygate was a series of unauthorised piss-ups, granted organised by the most senior manager in Downing Street. The key however is unauthorised. I rest my Case!
I'm going to put my religious hat on for a moment and say, yes - the government was right to apologise for serving meat at a Hindu religious event. Not because they served it, but because they would never make the same mistake at a Jewish or Muslim religious event. Hindus are very much seen as second class citizens by Labour and this is actually just further proof that they just don't care enough to do the research properly.
We don't fit into their precious marginalised voter groups and we don't bitch and moan like victims so I guess we're easy to ignore.
Sounds like a bit of a bitch/moan.
Would one necessarily assume that a Hindu function should be vegetarian and teetotal? I know Hindus who are neither.
If they'd spoken to one then they'd have been told to make it vegetarian for sure, alcohol definitely doesn't matter though.
Given this event has been run for many years now, I just presumed there would be a word doc of do's / don'ts for civil servants to follow, and probably what caterers they have used in the past etc. Have previous gathering made a similar faux pas?
It speaks to what I said, Labour just don't care enough to check. That would never be the case for a Muslim celebration.
It is surely a simple question of freedom of choice. It would have been unpardonable not to have provided ample vegetarian options for such an event and not to have clearly labelled the meat options and the veggie ones, but I do not support the notion of banning meat to those who wanted to eat it. I also don't support all meat provision being halal to avoid offence to Muslims. Label things and give people options.
That said, point taken on all Hindus observing vegetarianism during Diwali celebrations - that's useful info.
But the point is that it's a celebration of a Hindu religious event so the host should respect the religion. As I said could you imagine a Passover or Eid event where pork is served, labelled or not? I doubt it.
I personally don't feel offended by the meat more the lack of care the the government has shown wrt Hinduism and people who follow.
From personal experience, I know that kosher catering is a nightmare, depending on the branch of Judaism that is represented.
Indeedy. And Orthodox Jews cannot comment on it until sunset tomorrow .
It may involve two complete preparation areas for separation (based on third-party accounts).
I organised a function, at which I ordered a kosher buffet and wine, only to have a lot of complaints that it was not the *correct* kosher buffet and wine.
See Musk (@leon's hero for being so intelligent) has completely missed the point of Starship Trooper. One wonders if Trump's guys actually think this is a role model to follow and not realise it is a satire. Completely credible that they do.
Kind of ironic on another level given that Verhoeven also missed the point of the book he based his film on - without actualy bothering to read it.
Coming from the people who want to round up "illegals" and put them in camps.
The mass incarceration of these protestors will be come to be regarded as an error. If you go through the actual 'evidence', which the police and CPS post on social media, most of the imprisoned were just in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and did something a bit stupid; punished under 'public order' laws which are subject to wide interpretation and discretionary enforcement. It was an attempt by the authorities at asserting a muscular progressive authoritarianism; but now it turns out they are on the wrong side of history.
The other issue here is that we like to make these claims that we are 'better' than authoritarian regimes like Russia; but there is some uncertainty about that.
Is burning asylum seekers alive in hotels the right side of history then?
In all seriousness I would look in to the cases people like Musk pick up, and then research them with an open mind. Some of the cases are bizarre; ie the retired train driver from Sutton.
I'm not sure which side you are suggesting they have erred on this.
It was a 700 strong 'demonstration' organised by Tommy Robinson's team, and he pled guilty to violent disorder, and heavier penalties are engaged from committing his offence in riot circumstances.
I'm not clear whether the 18 months is time inside or includes the period on licence ie out after 40% or 50%.
@MattW I think you are getting drawn in to the technicalities of the process, and not looking at the bigger picture. These outcomes were technically lawful due to the high level of discretion in a) the enforcement of the offences and b) sentencing; but the approach was a political blunder. Instead of shutting down the 'far right', it is creating a grievance / martyr narrative that will embolden it. This is in a context where the populist right are coming to power almost everywhere in Western Europe and now also most significantly in the USA.
This isn't about 'supporting the people who burn down asylum seeker hotels'. A more confident and effective response would have been to only imprison those who were genuinely and demonstrably rioting, and to deal with those on the periphery in a different way.
5 live claiming RFK will be damaging to public health..more like the share price of Big Pharma companies will suffer (21 billion dollar profit for Pfizer in 2021 for instance)..🧐
Coming from the people who want to round up "illegals" and put them in camps.
The mass incarceration of these protestors will be come to be regarded as an error. If you go through the actual 'evidence', which the police and CPS post on social media, most of the imprisoned were just in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and did something a bit stupid; punished under 'public order' laws which are subject to wide interpretation and discretionary enforcement. It was an attempt by the authorities at asserting a muscular progressive authoritarianism; but now it turns out they are on the wrong side of history.
The other issue here is that we like to make these claims that we are 'better' than authoritarian regimes like Russia; but there is some uncertainty about that.
Is burning asylum seekers alive in hotels the right side of history then?
In all seriousness I would look in to the cases people like Musk pick up, and then research them with an open mind. Some of the cases are bizarre; ie the retired train driver from Sutton.
I'm not sure which side you are suggesting they have erred on this.
It was a 700 strong 'demonstration' organised by Tommy Robinson's team, and he pled guilty to violent disorder, and heavier penalties are engaged from committing his offence in riot circumstances.
I'm not clear whether the 18 months is time inside or includes the period on licence ie out after 40% or 50%.
@MattW I think you are getting drawn in to the technicalities of the process, and not looking at the bigger picture. These outcomes were technically lawful due to the high level of discretion in a) the enforcement of the offences and b) sentencing; but the approach was a political blunder. Instead of shutting down the 'far right', it is creating a grievance / martyr narrative that will embolden it. This is in a context where the populist right are coming to power almost everywhere in Western Europe and now also most significantly in the USA.
This isn't about 'supporting the people who burn down asylum seeker hotels'. A more confident and effective response would have been to only imprison those who were genuinely and demonstrably rioting, and to deal with those on the periphery in a different way.
From both of your links, and in the absence of further evidence, I'm with darkage on this. Particularly worrying is the claim that this individual needed to be jailed to deter others.
It may well be that the individual concerned was filmed attacking police etc but if he was just chanting offensive things there's no way he should have a custodial sentence.
Comments
I personally don't feel offended by the meat more the lack of care the the government has shown wrt Hinduism and people who follow.
It was a 700 strong 'demonstration' organised by Tommy Robinson's team, and he pled guilty to violent disorder, and heavier penalties are engaged from committing his offence in riot circumstances.
More here, but I can't find sentencing remarks on this one:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/london-south/news/rioters-who-admitted-taking-part-london-unrest-are-sentenced
I'm not clear whether the 18 months is time inside or includes the period on licence ie out after 40% or 50%.
1) Don’t set immigrants on fire
2) Even small ones
3) Especially not small ones.
4) Do not attend demonstrations organised Tommy Several Names
5) No Roman Salutes. God gave us elbows. Use them.
NEW THREAD
It may involve two complete preparation areas for separation (based on third-party accounts).
(I might refer you to the way they disagree with NASA about the cause of the CRS-7 explosion.)
The Diwali party would have been an authorised function, organised by Downing Street house managers. Now the error is on Labour's watch so it is their problem.
Partygate was a series of unauthorised piss-ups, granted organised by the most senior manager in Downing Street. The key however is unauthorised. I rest my Case!
I think you are getting drawn in to the technicalities of the process, and not looking at the bigger picture. These outcomes were technically lawful due to the high level of discretion in a) the enforcement of the offences and b) sentencing; but the approach was a political blunder. Instead of shutting down the 'far right', it is creating a grievance / martyr narrative that will embolden it. This is in a context where the populist right are coming to power almost everywhere in Western Europe and now also most significantly in the USA.
This isn't about 'supporting the people who burn down asylum seeker hotels'. A more confident and effective response would have been to only imprison those who were genuinely and demonstrably rioting, and to deal with those on the periphery in a different way.
It may well be that the individual concerned was filmed attacking police etc but if he was just chanting offensive things there's no way he should have a custodial sentence.