Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Bit weak Barty. johnson has been accused of lying to parl cos that's what he did. SKS hasn't and didn't.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Difference is SKS was having dinner - arguably necessary when campaigning. But what Mr J has in front of him ...
It looks to me like there's food there.
If food and alcohol is legal sustenance then what type of food and alcohol you consume is just personal preference.
Not dinner type food but party type food. Which is why it's interesting that the faces of the others have been pixellated. Saving the nice bits for later?
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
I can't because I don't know all the facts.
One possibility is this: the PM was at his work place.He had a reasonable excuse therefore for being away from home. Part what was happening at work was saying goodbye to a colleague. It is reasonable to consider this part of his work duties. That is what he was doing. The fact that there was drink does not change that. The rules made no mention of alcohol.
I make no comment about how good a legal / factual analysis this is as I don't have all the facts. But I can see how this might be argued.
It would help if the Met set out the legal / factual analysis they have used when coming to their decisions on FPNs.
Trust you to be the one, who tries to bring facts and law into the witch hunt.
If those photos are not the end for Johnson, this country and its democracy are lost.
I get you but I disagree. He'll likely survive this, and the full Gray report, and the Inquiry into his Lying, and whatever else, but your baleful conclusion is imo premature. The acid test is GE24. At GE19 there were respectable reasons for voting for him - Tory loyalty, Scary Jez, Brexit support, Brexit fatigue - but next time it's really only the 1st of those and therefore in any sane world where the British people have an iota of sense and sensibility he'll be gone.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
That flows logically from your assumptions, but given that your assumption is that Boris is a lying liar then you're perilously close to circular logic.
You're not considering whether it is an axiom of modern UK politics. Like the straight lines in Euclidean geometry. You can't do trigonometry without the basic fact that a line is straight. And so on.
Right.
But if the barrier for resignation is "lying to the Commons" then if you're trying to prove someone should resign for doing so then you can't assume that your target is a lying liar. If you do, you're begging the question (in the phrase's technical sense).
Four reasons why the pact discussed in the article can't and won't happen.
1) Political human nature. It is contrary to the nature of the beast. It makes little sense to Joe Public but there it is. Joe Public however understands why there isn't going to be a merger between Man Utd and Man City, even though they both play football and are both in Manchester. The same applies.
2) Because of the risk that they do it and then lose to the Tories because the voters like the Tories better. This would be nuclear in its consequences; devastating but unknowable in magnitude. Nothing would ever be the same. Politicians don't actually like change.
3) The most insidious of the three: because they might lose to the Tories on the ground that though voters don't like the Tories, the dislike of the pact multiplies party dislike by 3. You vote Tory because you dislike Labour OR LD OR Green. One out of three switches you to the Tories.
4) People don't like being told what to do for their own good. As in by elections they want to decide for themselves.
So we have an interesting juxtaposition. On one hand the Met have decided to fine everyone who was at this party but not the PM (who was "present but not involved"). On the other hand we have photographs showing him illegally partying.
I assume we can now expect a week of Hate Mail front pages demanding the police investigate this clear lack of justice.
So what do we expect from the Wail on tomorrow's front page to deflect away from this? KEIR'S TRANS WOKE THREAT TO YOUR WIFE AND DAUGHTER?
For the second time in as many threads, no we do not and your comment is arguably actionable.
Boris got no FPN for the event pictured therefore it does not show him doing anything illegal.
Are you suggesting I have libelled Boris Johnson? I claim both Honest Opinion and Public Interest as my defences against the non-libel case that won't be brought against me.
Its a pity that @GaryL got the ban hammer. Would have been interesting to read The Kremlin's spin line to defend their man.
As a patriot who cares about this country and its democracy, I want Johnson gone immediately. As a Labour party member who wants a change of government, I'd like to see him stay on and for there to be two more years of ridiculous Tory defences of his behaviour. But, in the end, the country has to come first. He has to go.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
That flows logically from your assumptions, but given that your assumption is that Boris is a lying liar then you're perilously close to circular logic.
You're not considering whether it is an axiom of modern UK politics. Like the straight lines in Euclidean geometry. You can't do trigonometry without the basic fact that a line is straight. And so on.
Right.
But if the barrier for resignation is "lying to the Commons" then if you're trying to prove someone should resign for doing so then you can't assume that your target is a lying liar. If you do, you're begging the question (in the phrase's technical sense).
OKay. But I'm now interested in whether he had a questionnaire at all for the relevant date. I can't keep up ... does anyone know?
Worth noting of course that even if someone acts in a way which is not unlawful, it doesn't mean they might not, in a regular job, be sacked or resign.
Of course being an MP is not a regular job, being chosen by the electorate does mean there is a certain latitude since the public might be willing to elect you despite various actions, but the principle would still work that merely 'not breaking the law' (somehow) is not the only test of whether someone should be PM.
If those photos are not the end for Johnson, this country and its democracy are lost.
I get you but I disagree. He'll likely survive this, and the full Gray report, and the Inquiry into his Lying, and whatever else, but your baleful conclusion is imo premature. The acid test is GE24. At GE19 there were respectable reasons for voting for him - Tory loyalty, Scary Jez, Brexit support, Brexit fatigue - but next time it's really only the 1st of those and therefore in any sane world where the British people have an iota of sense and sensibility he'll be gone.
"in any sane world where the British people have an iota of sense and sensibility..." what rock have you been living under? 😉
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Starmer has never denied the gathering took place and has never lied to Parliament about it. Now do Boris Johnson.
I don't believe Boris denied the gathering took place or lied to Parliament about it.
He said he thought it followed the rules, which the Metropolitan Police seemed to agree with by not fining him and is precisely the same think Keir has said so 🤷♂️
Four reasons why the pact discussed in the article can't and won't happen.
1) Political human nature. It is contrary to the nature of the beast. It makes little sense to Joe Public but there it is. Joe Public however understands why there isn't going to be a merger between Man Utd and Man City, even though they both play football and are both in Manchester. The same applies.
2) Because of the risk that they do it and then lose to the Tories because the voters like the Tories better. This would be nuclear in its consequences; devastating but unknowable in magnitude. Nothing would ever be the same. Politicians don't actually like change.
3) The most insidious of the three: because they might lose to the Tories on the ground that though voters don't like the Tories, the dislike of the pact multiplies party dislike by 3. You vote Tory because you dislike Labour OR LD OR Green. One out of three switches you to the Tories.
4) People don't like being told what to do for their own good. As in by elections they want to decide for themselves.
Also, as I said in the last thread when this was mentioned, by its rubric the poll assumed that voters will know the existence of the pact and the reasons for it.
This fails to acknowledge that the vast majority of voters aren't political obsessives and for a significant chunk on them, the first they'll find out about it is when they turn up at the polling booth and the party they want to vote for isn't on the ballot paper.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Pungent Pundit Alert - Portions of NYC on Long Island, namely Brooklyn & Queens, amount to just 180 square miles.
However, your point is well taken, esp. re: commuters. Clear that BlanchL. is NOT very familiar with NYC in general or Manhattan in particular. Seeing as how many residents of latter do NOT live in skyscrapers, but in more lowly (in more ways than one) structures.
On factor in the "rise" Manhattan, is the island's geology which provided very solid foundation for tall buildings BEFORE new technologies AND economic facilitated their construction in places with different physical circumstances.
Have I menshed how nice Sivota is? It’s so wonderfully chilled. It’s like a sleeping cat, unconsciously purring in the sun. Curled around the marina
I may never come back to London. Fuck it
Do you really, truly, in your heart of hearts still like London? I get the blustering about it but deep down ... do you? My suspicion is that you don't?
So why not live abroad, or spend most of your time abroad? I've done it lots in my life and they have mostly been the most exhilarating times of my life, free as you suggest from all the crappy stresses of the UK, which are only getting worse.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
That flows logically from your assumptions, but given that your assumption is that Boris is a lying liar then you're perilously close to circular logic.
It is not my assumption that Boris is a liar.
Boris IS a liar. Its a fact. When you have been fired twice and the reason given both times is that you are a liar, and when you have been divorced twice for adultery (lying to your wife) and have a string of both affairs and illegitimate children littered behind you, its no longer an assumption.
Whilst he is a proven liar it doesn't mean he lies about everything of course. But it does mean he can hardly complain if people are suspicious of everything he says.
If Boris resigns during PMQs tomorrow, will the Yorkshire Party's Wakefield candidate feel free to leave the Yorkshire Party before the by-election and rejoin the Conservatives?
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Starmer has never denied the gathering took place and has never lied to Parliament about it. Now do Boris Johnson.
I don't believe Boris denied the gathering took place or lied to Parliament about it.
He said he thought it followed the rules, which the Metropolitan Police seemed to agree with by not fining him and is precisely the same think Keir has said so 🤷♂️
But you've seen the clip - which myself and others have quoted verbatim as a reminder - where he said there was no party. And yet here he is at the party.
You / Applicant et al may want to consider what other parties we are going to get leaked over the coming days before continuing to defend your boi. You don't want to look like a tit.
If people don’t think lying to parliament matters. Or it does, but not as much as Ukraine, etc, fine. But when Boris said there were no parties, all rules were followed, and he was angry to learn about cheese and wine events, that was a bare-faced lie. So why pretend it wasn’t.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Starmer has never denied the gathering took place and has never lied to Parliament about it. Now do Boris Johnson.
I don't believe Boris denied the gathering took place or lied to Parliament about it.
He said he thought it followed the rules, which the Metropolitan Police seemed to agree with by not fining him and is precisely the same think Keir has said so 🤷♂️
I think I've previously said on here that the pictures, when they came out, would finish him off. I don't think I'm at all sure about that anymore. He won't resign because he has no shame, and the Tory MPs won't get rid of him because they have no spine. I think the only way he goes is if the Cabinet move against him, but they'd be terrified he gets replaced with Patel or Mogg. Tldr; It can't go on like this, but it will.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Difference is SKS was having dinner - arguably necessary when campaigning. But what Mr J has in front of him ...
It looks to me like there's food there.
If food and alcohol is legal sustenance then what type of food and alcohol you consume is just personal preference.
Not dinner type food but party type food. Which is why it's interesting that the faces of the others have been pixellated. Saving the nice bits for later?
'Party type' food is food. Its also convenient food for a buffet which is why it is used as party food in the first place, but also commonly found in workplaces.
I've been to many a work function where "party food" was served, I never considered any of them a party. I've been to some work functions that are glorified piss ups where fancy meals are served and they're just a glorified excuse for a drinking session.
Ironically the fancier the meal, the more alcohol is going with it, tends to be my experience. The more party style the food, the more likely it is to actually be work. That's my experience not necessarily a judgement on the photos or what is happening here.
Legal PB types - is it possible for someone to challenge the Met's decision that these events of which we now see photographic evidence were "necessary for work"?
See this fpt - "Worse for the Met. Didn't they realise that photos would come out and people will be asking how it is that these incidents are not breaches of the rules?
The PM will say that the Met has investigated and their decision should be respected. The Met meanwhile will say ..... well what?
Meanwhile I fully expect someone like that Jolyon character to try and judicially review the Met's decision not to fine.
So on it goes."
and my answer upthread.
Thanks. So it is possible to do a judicial review of a police FPN decision?
I don't know is the honest answer. There are two questions: who has the standing to make a claim. And what decision is being challenged - is it the finding of facts or the legal analysis? If the former, a court may not wish to interfere in a police investigation by saying that their factual findings were so wrong that they need to be told to do them again. Very hard to establish that in any case. If it's the legal analysis, who did that? The CPS? Police lawyers? Or some external counsel?
And if those notified of fines are unhappy they can refuse to pay and then the matter gets decided by a criminal court. So a court might say that it is not for them to interfere in that process.
The other issue - and I am sorry to keep banging on about it - is this: it is not an event which is or is not a breach of the rules but, depending on when you are talking about, whether individuals at an event - whether at work or elsewhere - had a reasonable excuse for being there. So the analysis must be done by reference to each person.
So I think someone might well try to judicially review but whether they would succeed or on what basis is another matter.
It would be so much better if there was an agreed chronology of all the events, names of attendees, reasons for being there, legal analysis and names of those fined and for what.
Instead we will get all sorts of uninformed comment until something more interesting happens or we all die of boredom.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
That flows logically from your assumptions, but given that your assumption is that Boris is a lying liar then you're perilously close to circular logic.
Gosh, i'd think twice about going mano a mano with you if I were made of straw. As I am not, it is not an axiom or assumption that Johnson is a liar, he is known on impeccable evidence to have been one for decades. Secondly the grounds for thinking he is lying now are only partly similar fact evidence, and mainly that he said X when we have lots of reasons unconnected with his veracity to believe that not-X and that he knew not-X when he said X.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Starmer has never denied the gathering took place and has never lied to Parliament about it. Now do Boris Johnson.
I don't believe Boris denied the gathering took place or lied to Parliament about it.
He said he thought it followed the rules, which the Metropolitan Police seemed to agree with by not fining him and is precisely the same think Keir has said so 🤷♂️
Do we need a judge-led inquiry into institutional cakeism at the Met?
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Starmer has never denied the gathering took place and has never lied to Parliament about it. Now do Boris Johnson.
I don't believe Boris denied the gathering took place or lied to Parliament about it.
He said he thought it followed the rules, which the Metropolitan Police seemed to agree with by not fining him and is precisely the same think Keir has said so 🤷♂️
But you've seen the clip - which myself and others have quoted verbatim as a reminder - where he said there was no party. And yet here he is at the party.
You / Applicant et al may want to consider what other parties we are going to get leaked over the coming days before continuing to defend your boi. You don't want to look like a tit.
Where is the image of him at a party?
I see an image of him, in suit and tie, with people he was working with.
What makes this a party and not work, whereas Starmer with alcohol is campaigning and not partying? Where's the distinction?
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
More a matter of cost than choice. Certain key factor is NOT disinclination to live in multi-story apartment buildings.
And idea that Brooklyn and Queens are wallowing in their spaciousness is pretty specious.
Legal PB types - is it possible for someone to challenge the Met's decision that these events of which we now see photographic evidence were "necessary for work"?
See this fpt - "Worse for the Met. Didn't they realise that photos would come out and people will be asking how it is that these incidents are not breaches of the rules?
The PM will say that the Met has investigated and their decision should be respected. The Met meanwhile will say ..... well what?
Meanwhile I fully expect someone like that Jolyon character to try and judicially review the Met's decision not to fine.
So on it goes."
and my answer upthread.
Thanks. So it is possible to do a judicial review of a police FPN decision?
I don't know is the honest answer. There are two questions: who has the standing to make a claim. And what decision is being challenged - is it the finding of facts or the legal analysis? If the former, a court may not wish to interfere in a police investigation by saying that their factual findings were so wrong that they need to be told to do them again. Very hard to establish that in any case. If it's the legal analysis, who did that? The CPS? Police lawyers? Or some external counsel?
And if those notified of fines are unhappy they can refuse to pay and then the matter gets decided by a criminal court. So a court might say that it is not for them to interfere in that process.
The other issue - and I am sorry to keep banging on about it - is this: it is not an event which is or is not a breach of the rules but, depending on when you are talking about, whether individuals at an event - whether at work or elsewhere - had a reasonable excuse for being there. So the analysis must be done by reference to each person.
So I think someone might well try to judicially review but whether they would succeed or on what basis is another matter.
It would be so much better if there was an agreed chronology of all the events, names of attendees, reasons for being there, legal analysis and names of those fined and for what.
Instead we will get all sorts of uninformed comment until something more interesting happens or we all die of boredom.
In a sense none of this matters. However many FPNs he gets, the only mechanism for his removal, unless something novel occurs, is the body of Tory MPs. Boris won't resign. You can discuss JR till the cows come home. All it would do is give further excuse for delay.
Tory MPs will only act if 54 of them believe:
It serves their interest Boris will lose the MPs vote There is a better candidate who will replace him.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Starmer has never denied the gathering took place and has never lied to Parliament about it. Now do Boris Johnson.
I don't believe Boris denied the gathering took place or lied to Parliament about it.
He said he thought it followed the rules, which the Metropolitan Police seemed to agree with by not fining him and is precisely the same think Keir has said so 🤷♂️
Do we need a judge-led inquiry into institutional cakeism at the Met?
That will do it for me. If Maugham wants to review it the Met must have got something right for once. Stopped clocks come to mind but that is pretty definitive.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Starmer has never denied the gathering took place and has never lied to Parliament about it. Now do Boris Johnson.
I don't believe Boris denied the gathering took place or lied to Parliament about it.
He said he thought it followed the rules, which the Metropolitan Police seemed to agree with by not fining him and is precisely the same think Keir has said so 🤷♂️
Do we need a judge-led inquiry into institutional cakeism at the Met?
As predicted by me yesterday.
At this rate he'll be judicially reviewing Sue Gray next.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Bit weak Barty. johnson has been accused of lying to parl cos that's what he did. SKS hasn't and didn't.
Its all circular logic though.
Johnson has only lied to Parliament if you decide this is a party, and the only reason to decide this is a party as opposed to work (as it is for Starmer when he's photographed with colleagues, food and alcohol) is because Johnson is a liar.
That's no better than just saying he's lying because his lips are moving. If you accept that food & alcohol = work for Starmer, then why not for Boris, other than its Boris and you've already decided that Boris is a liar?
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Starmer has never denied the gathering took place and has never lied to Parliament about it. Now do Boris Johnson.
I don't believe Boris denied the gathering took place or lied to Parliament about it.
He said he thought it followed the rules, which the Metropolitan Police seemed to agree with by not fining him and is precisely the same think Keir has said so 🤷♂️
Do we need a judge-led inquiry into institutional cakeism at the Met?
A crowd funding campaign for a few more million quid incoming....
We need an anlysis of the bottles on the table; it's interesting that of the 5 bottles of wine 4 have been emptied, but the yellow label white screw top has only had 2 glasses taken out of it. I have previously noticed a correlation between yellow labels and undrinkability in cheap white wine.
Also: with cork-closed bottles, do PBers strip the foil off or leave it on?
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Bit weak Barty. johnson has been accused of lying to parl cos that's what he did. SKS hasn't and didn't.
Yep. All this FPN bollocks has cluttered things up and helped out Johnson. The cops should never have got involved imo. This is a political 'hypocrisy and lying to parliament' scandal not a legal/criminal one. The offences in themselves are trivial.
The only thing needed was the (full) Gray report to have been published promptly and compared to his statements to the House. Slam dunk verdict ensues and pre Ukraine too. Maybe just maybe Tory MPs would have ditched him if it'd panned out that way.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because the Met are incompetent.
Replace them with the Met Office, we might see a general improvement.
Hard to say weather we would or not.
Oh come on people, did you not see what I did there? I replaced "whether" with "weather" because we were talking about the Met Office. Genius. And not a single like.
Legal PB types - is it possible for someone to challenge the Met's decision that these events of which we now see photographic evidence were "necessary for work"?
See this fpt - "Worse for the Met. Didn't they realise that photos would come out and people will be asking how it is that these incidents are not breaches of the rules?
The PM will say that the Met has investigated and their decision should be respected. The Met meanwhile will say ..... well what?
Meanwhile I fully expect someone like that Jolyon character to try and judicially review the Met's decision not to fine.
So on it goes."
and my answer upthread.
Thanks. So it is possible to do a judicial review of a police FPN decision?
I don't know is the honest answer. There are two questions: who has the standing to make a claim. And what decision is being challenged - is it the finding of facts or the legal analysis? If the former, a court may not wish to interfere in a police investigation by saying that their factual findings were so wrong that they need to be told to do them again. Very hard to establish that in any case. If it's the legal analysis, who did that? The CPS? Police lawyers? Or some external counsel?
And if those notified of fines are unhappy they can refuse to pay and then the matter gets decided by a criminal court. So a court might say that it is not for them to interfere in that process.
The other issue - and I am sorry to keep banging on about it - is this: it is not an event which is or is not a breach of the rules but, depending on when you are talking about, whether individuals at an event - whether at work or elsewhere - had a reasonable excuse for being there. So the analysis must be done by reference to each person.
So I think someone might well try to judicially review but whether they would succeed or on what basis is another matter.
It would be so much better if there was an agreed chronology of all the events, names of attendees, reasons for being there, legal analysis and names of those fined and for what.
Instead we will get all sorts of uninformed comment until something more interesting happens or we all die of boredom.
In a sense none of this matters. However many FPNs he gets, the only mechanism for his removal, unless something novel occurs, is the body of Tory MPs. Boris won't resign. You can discuss JR till the cows come home. All it would do is give further excuse for delay.
Tory MPs will only act if 54 of them believe:
It serves their interest Boris will lose the MPs vote There is a better candidate who will replace him.
All three conditions are doubtful ATM.
Agreed. It won't be Partygate which will do for him. But the by-elections if they are very bad. And maybe not even then.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because the Met are incompetent.
Replace them with the Met Office, we might see a general improvement.
Hard to say weather we would or not.
Oh come on people, did you not see what I did there? I replaced "whether" with "weather" because we were talking about the Met Office. Genius. And not a single like.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Bit weak Barty. johnson has been accused of lying to parl cos that's what he did. SKS hasn't and didn't.
Its all circular logic though.
Johnson has only lied to Parliament if you decide this is a party, and the only reason to decide this is a party as opposed to work (as it is for Starmer when he's photographed with colleagues, food and alcohol) is because Johnson is a liar.
That's no better than just saying he's lying because his lips are moving. If you accept that food & alcohol = work for Starmer, then why not for Boris, other than its Boris and you've already decided that Boris is a liar?
There's alcohol and alcohol, apart from anything. Working supper with beer or still wine just about credible, working supper with fizz and gin, not.
also what sort of party has half bottles of gin at it? Shirley these are aimed at the student and broke alcoholic markets?
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Bit weak Barty. johnson has been accused of lying to parl cos that's what he did. SKS hasn't and didn't.
Its all circular logic though.
Johnson has only lied to Parliament if you decide this is a party, and the only reason to decide this is a party as opposed to work (as it is for Starmer when he's photographed with colleagues, food and alcohol) is because Johnson is a liar.
That's no better than just saying he's lying because his lips are moving. If you accept that food & alcohol = work for Starmer, then why not for Boris, other than its Boris and you've already decided that Boris is a liar?
It was clearly deemed a party by the Met because people were fined for attending it.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
We need an anlysis of the bottles on the table; it's interesting that of the 5 bottles of wine 4 have been emptied, but the yellow label white screw top has only had 2 glasses taken out of it. I have previously noticed a correlation between yellow labels and undrinkability in cheap white wine.
Also: with cork-closed bottles, do PBers strip the foil off or leave it on?
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If the Police say that John was an intruder threatening to kill Bill and his loved ones and that Bill did so in self defence and it was lawful then yes that's not a murder is it?
If Starmer/Boris were investigated and it's determined to be work not partying then it's lawful isn't it? For both.
We need an anlysis of the bottles on the table; it's interesting that of the 5 bottles of wine 4 have been emptied, but the yellow label white screw top has only had 2 glasses taken out of it. I have previously noticed a correlation between yellow labels and undrinkability in cheap white wine.
Also: with cork-closed bottles, do PBers strip the foil off or leave it on?
I'm fairly sure some incredibly expensive (and great) White Burgundy comes with yellow labels.
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because the Met are incompetent.
Replace them with the Met Office, we might see a general improvement.
Hard to say weather we would or not.
Oh come on people, did you not see what I did there? I replaced "whether" with "weather" because we were talking about the Met Office. Genius. And not a single like.
We need an anlysis of the bottles on the table; it's interesting that of the 5 bottles of wine 4 have been emptied, but the yellow label white screw top has only had 2 glasses taken out of it. I have previously noticed a correlation between yellow labels and undrinkability in cheap white wine.
Also: with cork-closed bottles, do PBers strip the foil off or leave it on?
OFF.
Which I enjoy doing.
Agreed, I like how it rolls up if you go bottom to top with a sharp knife.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Bit weak Barty. johnson has been accused of lying to parl cos that's what he did. SKS hasn't and didn't.
Its all circular logic though.
Johnson has only lied to Parliament if you decide this is a party, and the only reason to decide this is a party as opposed to work (as it is for Starmer when he's photographed with colleagues, food and alcohol) is because Johnson is a liar.
That's no better than just saying he's lying because his lips are moving. If you accept that food & alcohol = work for Starmer, then why not for Boris, other than its Boris and you've already decided that Boris is a liar?
It was clearly deemed a party by the Met because people were fined for attending it.
It was clearly deemed a gathering which some people did not have any reasonable excuse for participating in.
Not necessarily a party. Unless only "parties" were outlawed by the regulations (hint: this is not true)
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because the Met are incompetent.
Replace them with the Met Office, we might see a general improvement.
Hard to say weather we would or not.
Oh come on people, did you not see what I did there? I replaced "whether" with "weather" because we were talking about the Met Office. Genius. And not a single like.
Tough crowd PB, tough crowd.
Sometimes you can fly too high for your audience. I know the feeling well.
So we have an interesting juxtaposition. On one hand the Met have decided to fine everyone who was at this party but not the PM (who was "present but not involved"). On the other hand we have photographs showing him illegally partying.
I assume we can now expect a week of Hate Mail front pages demanding the police investigate this clear lack of justice.
So what do we expect from the Wail on tomorrow's front page to deflect away from this? KEIR'S TRANS WOKE THREAT TO YOUR WIFE AND DAUGHTER?
For the second time in as many threads, no we do not and your comment is arguably actionable.
Boris got no FPN for the event pictured therefore it does not show him doing anything illegal.
Are you suggesting I have libelled Boris Johnson? I claim both Honest Opinion and Public Interest as my defences against the non-libel case that won't be brought against me.
Its a pity that @GaryL got the ban hammer. Would have been interesting to read The Kremlin's spin line to defend their man.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Starmer has never denied the gathering took place and has never lied to Parliament about it. Now do Boris Johnson.
I don't believe Boris denied the gathering took place or lied to Parliament about it.
He said he thought it followed the rules, which the Metropolitan Police seemed to agree with by not fining him and is precisely the same think Keir has said so 🤷♂️
Do we need a judge-led inquiry into institutional cakeism at the Met?
A crowd funding campaign for a few more million quid incoming....
This morning I mentioned that crowd-funded campaigns are a good target for influence by Russians - perhaps without the recipient even realising.
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't believe one would say "well, given the lack of a conviction, Bill's actions were officially legal". One might say "he's been found not guilty, and that should be the end of it", but unless one were high of rather strong hallucinogens, I don't think you would use the phrase "officially legal".
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't know what "officially" means here, but it has nothing to do with any concept of English law. You seem to think you live in a police state, and to be blissfully happy about it.
We need an anlysis of the bottles on the table; it's interesting that of the 5 bottles of wine 4 have been emptied, but the yellow label white screw top has only had 2 glasses taken out of it. I have previously noticed a correlation between yellow labels and undrinkability in cheap white wine.
Also: with cork-closed bottles, do PBers strip the foil off or leave it on?
I'm fairly sure some incredibly expensive (and great) White Burgundy comes with yellow labels.
Many white Burgundies have yellow labels as you say. However it does look like that is a screwtop. Not to say that there aren't great producers of white Burgundy with screwtops (Jean-Marie Guffens-Heynen, for example, but with cream labels) but I'm guessing it was an M&S Macon or similar.
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If the Police say that John was an intruder threatening to kill Bill and his loved ones and that Bill did so in self defence and it was lawful then yes that's not a murder is it?
If Starmer/Boris were investigated and it's determined to be work not partying then it's lawful isn't it? For both.
I have no opinions on either Boris or Keir, I am just taking issue with @Applicant's characterisation.
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't believe one would say "well, given the lack of a conviction, Bill's actions were officially legal". One might say "he's been found not guilty, and that should be the end of it", but unless one were high of rather strong hallucinogens, I don't think you would use the phrase "officially legal".
It depends what Bill's defence was. If it was self-defence, then yes, I think I would.
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Starmer has never denied the gathering took place and has never lied to Parliament about it. Now do Boris Johnson.
I don't believe Boris denied the gathering took place or lied to Parliament about it.
He said he thought it followed the rules, which the Metropolitan Police seemed to agree with by not fining him and is precisely the same think Keir has said so 🤷♂️
Do we need a judge-led inquiry into institutional cakeism at the Met?
A crowd funding campaign for a few more million quid incoming....
This morning I mentioned that crowd-funded campaigns are a good target for influence by Russians - perhaps without the recipient even realising.
This is a case in point.
It would be quite funny in a way if Steve Bray had taken donations that had ultimately come from the Russians.
We need an anlysis of the bottles on the table; it's interesting that of the 5 bottles of wine 4 have been emptied, but the yellow label white screw top has only had 2 glasses taken out of it. I have previously noticed a correlation between yellow labels and undrinkability in cheap white wine.
Also: with cork-closed bottles, do PBers strip the foil off or leave it on?
OFF.
Which I enjoy doing.
Agreed, I like how it rolls up if you go bottom to top with a sharp knife.
More foils than you think will come off with a firm twist rather than risking impaling yourself with a knife. Otherwise those foil cutters are quite useful.
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't know what "officially" means here, but it has nothing to do with any concept of English law. You seem to think you live in a police state, and to be blissfully happy about it.
Perhaps "lawful" or "not illegal" are more accurate terms than "legal", but I erred on the side of simplicity.
Sky suggesting to Thangam Debbonaire that the cabinet office, the police and Sue Gray have all seen these photos and as the PM has not been fined for this event it would wise to wait for the context
She went on to question did he lie intentionally or unintentionally
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I can't see anything wrong with @Cyclefree's explanation which would certainly be likely to avoid sanction. Is probably not unadjacent to what actually happened, either.
Amusing to see the BoJo Brigade falling over themselves yet again attempting to defend the indefensible.
Keep it up! You ARE helping . . . just not the way you hope . . .
Sorta like 45's helpful suggestions to Dr. Oz just now.
Is that not sorted out yet?
Hell no. As of right now, Dr Oz is ahead by just +1,060 votes out of over 1.3m counted so far in GOP US Senate primary.
Still votes to count, for example from overseas military - a group that McCormick campaign specifically worked, and which 45 would like to see disenfranchised apparently.
PLUS a federal court has just ruled - in a complete different PA election - that returned absentees that lack a date provided by voter BUT which are postmarked as timely should be counted.
Naturally the McCormick campaign is arguing that his ruling should also apply to current situation. Which would appear to benefit McC who in leading in vote-by-mail ballots tallied so far.
Sorry IF you've got a bet riding on this. But getting the election count CORRECT "Trumps" getting it yesterday, if not sooner.
You may note that the count is also NOT finished yet in Australia? Where Anthony Albanese has been named "intermim" Prime Minister. As right now Labor is 3 seats short of a majority in new House of Representatives, with nine seats still up for grabs. Question is, can Labor form a majority government OR minority govt OR maybe a coalition (or whatever) with some of the now numerous "Teal" Independents?
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't know what "officially" means here, but it has nothing to do with any concept of English law. You seem to think you live in a police state, and to be blissfully happy about it.
Perhaps "lawful" or "not illegal" are more accurate terms than "legal", but I erred on the side of simplicity.
It means nothing of the sort. Lots of illegal things do not result in police charges but are still illegal. Some of the most common reasons:
Not reported Suspect not found Lack of sufficient evidence Not in the public interest Not a police priority The police committed the crime!
Sky suggesting to Thangam Debbonaire that the cabinet office, the police and Sue Gray have all seen these photos and as the PM has not been fined for this event it would wise to wait for the context
She went on to question did he lie intentionally or unintentionally
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because they investigated it and found he hadn't broken the rules.
One of the supposed reasons given was that they used photographic evidence as an evidence bar. Which appears as robust as a Simon Clarke explanation now.
They didn't investigate it. They covered it up. Fine a load of junior staff. Protect the PM and the senior Civil Servants. The establishment looks after its own.
Keir Starmer with alcohol - obviously legal, campaigning was legal, why are you even talking about this?
Boris Johnson with alcohol - outrageous, obviously a party, how dare that lying liar lie to Parliament
Starmer has never denied the gathering took place and has never lied to Parliament about it. Now do Boris Johnson.
I don't believe Boris denied the gathering took place or lied to Parliament about it.
He said he thought it followed the rules, which the Metropolitan Police seemed to agree with by not fining him and is precisely the same think Keir has said so 🤷♂️
Do we need a judge-led inquiry into institutional cakeism at the Met?
A crowd funding campaign for a few more million quid incoming....
And destined to be wasted like all his other campaigns...
Sky suggesting to Thangam Debbonaire that the cabinet office, the police and Sue Gray have all seen these photos and as the PM has not been fined for this event it would wise to wait for the context
She went on to question did he lie intentionally or unintentionally
I did not know you could lie unintentionally
Merriam-Webster defines a lie as: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
The reason I have from day one been sceptical about the focus on what he said to the Commons is that I can't see that you can prove, even based on the evidence we have today, that he "knew or believed it to be untrue".
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London is low rise compared to most US or Canadian cities, or Tokyo, or Beijing, or Hong Kong.
It is high rise relative to European peers.
IMO low-rise usually equates to nicer places to live, and high-rise the opposite. There are a few exceptions.
Different people value different things.
That's what makes the world great. On this board, most people prefer low rise, gardens, etc.
But I'm much more of an urban bod, and would rather be on the 32nd floor of a tower block in Manhattan or in the Barbican than in a three bedroom semi with a garden in Muswell Hill.
On topic - Looks extremely outlandish to me but who knows...
Mind you, when Labour have the landslide majroity gifted to them by the Libs and Greens and then inevitably betray them the fall out would be spectacular...
Can somebody explain, why the Met has not issued him with another fine for that party
Because the Met are incompetent.
Replace them with the Met Office, we might see a general improvement.
Hard to say weather we would or not.
Oh come on people, did you not see what I did there? I replaced "whether" with "weather" because we were talking about the Met Office. Genius. And not a single like.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
I can't see anything wrong with @Cyclefree's explanation which would certainly be likely to avoid sanction. Is probably not unadjacent to what actually happened, either.
As is so often the case @Cyclefree provides an apolitical response and most certainly Boris attendence was deemed part of his work and for the same reason I expect Starmer will be cleared, though maybe not the other attendees who may well be sanctioned as they were not working
I can't see anything wrong with @Cyclefree's explanation which would certainly be likely to avoid sanction. Is probably not unadjacent to what actually happened, either.
At the risk of sounding unbelievably arrogant, if I had done this investigation, we would not be in this mess.
And there'd be a report which would be robust and worth reading.
We need an anlysis of the bottles on the table; it's interesting that of the 5 bottles of wine 4 have been emptied, but the yellow label white screw top has only had 2 glasses taken out of it. I have previously noticed a correlation between yellow labels and undrinkability in cheap white wine.
Also: with cork-closed bottles, do PBers strip the foil off or leave it on?
I'm fairly sure some incredibly expensive (and great) White Burgundy comes with yellow labels.
Many white Burgundies have yellow labels as you say. However it does look like that is a screwtop. Not to say that there aren't great producers of white Burgundy with screwtops (Jean-Marie Guffens-Heynen, for example, but with cream labels) but I'm guessing it was an M&S Macon or similar.
OH GOD.
I have just seen the full picture and hence the whole bottle topped in yellow. Please let it be known that I absolutely and wholly retract my assumption that it was an M&S macon or somesuch. No way - it wasn't a burgundy with that shaped bottle - looks like something far cheaper, probably not from France. Supermarket chain cheapo white plonk.
I can't see anything wrong with @Cyclefree's explanation which would certainly be likely to avoid sanction. Is probably not unadjacent to what actually happened, either.
At the risk of sounding unbelievably arrogant, if I had done this investigation, we would not be in this mess.
Comments
https://twitter.com/LiamThorpECHO/status/1528770719169093632
But if the barrier for resignation is "lying to the Commons" then if you're trying to prove someone should resign for doing so then you can't assume that your target is a lying liar. If you do, you're begging the question (in the phrase's technical sense).
1) Political human nature. It is contrary to the nature of the beast. It makes little sense to Joe Public but there it is. Joe Public however understands why there isn't going to be a merger between Man Utd and Man City, even though they both play football and are both in Manchester. The same applies.
2) Because of the risk that they do it and then lose to the Tories because the voters like the Tories better. This would be nuclear in its consequences; devastating but unknowable in magnitude. Nothing would ever be the same. Politicians don't actually like change.
3) The most insidious of the three: because they might lose to the Tories on the ground that though voters don't like the Tories, the dislike of the pact multiplies party dislike by 3. You vote Tory because you dislike Labour OR LD OR Green. One out of three switches you to the Tories.
4) People don't like being told what to do for their own good. As in by elections they want to decide for themselves.
A picture paints a thousand words and this does not look good.
If it's followed by two by-election defeats then I think the only toast will be him.
Its a pity that @GaryL got the ban hammer. Would have been interesting to read The Kremlin's spin line to defend their man.
Of course being an MP is not a regular job, being chosen by the electorate does mean there is a certain latitude since the public might be willing to elect you despite various actions, but the principle would still work that merely 'not breaking the law' (somehow) is not the only test of whether someone should be PM.
I may never come back to London. Fuck it
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
He said he thought it followed the rules, which the Metropolitan Police seemed to agree with by not fining him and is precisely the same think Keir has said so 🤷♂️
This fails to acknowledge that the vast majority of voters aren't political obsessives and for a significant chunk on them, the first they'll find out about it is when they turn up at the polling booth and the party they want to vote for isn't on the ballot paper.
However, your point is well taken, esp. re: commuters. Clear that BlanchL. is NOT very familiar with NYC in general or Manhattan in particular. Seeing as how many residents of latter do NOT live in skyscrapers, but in more lowly (in more ways than one) structures.
On factor in the "rise" Manhattan, is the island's geology which provided very solid foundation for tall buildings BEFORE new technologies AND economic facilitated their construction in places with different physical circumstances.
So why not live abroad, or spend most of your time abroad? I've done it lots in my life and they have mostly been the most exhilarating times of my life, free as you suggest from all the crappy stresses of the UK, which are only getting worse.
You / Applicant et al may want to consider what other parties we are going to get leaked over the coming days before continuing to defend your boi. You don't want to look like a tit.
This is rather open and shut.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1528760048645701632
If people don’t think lying to parliament matters. Or it does, but not as much as Ukraine, etc, fine. But when Boris said there were no parties, all rules were followed, and he was angry to learn about cheese and wine events, that was a bare-faced lie. So why pretend it wasn’t.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1528763419624603654
Though it's hard to see how "Johnson lied about the parties" can be a shock to either of them.
Tldr; It can't go on like this, but it will.
I've been to many a work function where "party food" was served, I never considered any of them a party. I've been to some work functions that are glorified piss ups where fancy meals are served and they're just a glorified excuse for a drinking session.
Ironically the fancier the meal, the more alcohol is going with it, tends to be my experience. The more party style the food, the more likely it is to actually be work. That's my experience not necessarily a judgement on the photos or what is happening here.
And if those notified of fines are unhappy they can refuse to pay and then the matter gets decided by a criminal court. So a court might say that it is not for them to interfere in that process.
The other issue - and I am sorry to keep banging on about it - is this: it is not an event which is or is not a breach of the rules but, depending on when you are talking about, whether individuals at an event - whether at work or elsewhere - had a reasonable excuse for being there. So the analysis must be done by reference to each person.
So I think someone might well try to judicially review but whether they would succeed or on what basis is another matter.
It would be so much better if there was an agreed chronology of all the events, names of attendees, reasons for being there, legal analysis and names of those fined and for what.
Instead we will get all sorts of uninformed comment until something more interesting happens or we all die of boredom.
I see an image of him, in suit and tie, with people he was working with.
What makes this a party and not work, whereas Starmer with alcohol is campaigning and not partying? Where's the distinction?
And idea that Brooklyn and Queens are wallowing in their spaciousness is pretty specious.
Tory MPs will only act if 54 of them believe:
It serves their interest
Boris will lose the MPs vote
There is a better candidate who will replace him.
All three conditions are doubtful ATM.
At this rate he'll be judicially reviewing Sue Gray next.
Johnson has only lied to Parliament if you decide this is a party, and the only reason to decide this is a party as opposed to work (as it is for Starmer when he's photographed with colleagues, food and alcohol) is because Johnson is a liar.
That's no better than just saying he's lying because his lips are moving. If you accept that food & alcohol = work for Starmer, then why not for Boris, other than its Boris and you've already decided that Boris is a liar?
Also: with cork-closed bottles, do PBers strip the foil off or leave it on?
The only thing needed was the (full) Gray report to have been published promptly and compared to his statements to the House. Slam dunk verdict ensues and pre Ukraine too. Maybe just maybe Tory MPs would have ditched him if it'd panned out that way.
Tough crowd PB, tough crowd.
also what sort of party has half bottles of gin at it? Shirley these are aimed at the student and broke alcoholic markets?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
Which I enjoy doing.
If Starmer/Boris were investigated and it's determined to be work not partying then it's lawful isn't it? For both.
Not necessarily a party. Unless only "parties" were outlawed by the regulations (hint: this is not true)
This is a case in point.
She went on to question did he lie intentionally or unintentionally
I did not know you could lie unintentionally
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
Still votes to count, for example from overseas military - a group that McCormick campaign specifically worked, and which 45 would like to see disenfranchised apparently.
PLUS a federal court has just ruled - in a complete different PA election - that returned absentees that lack a date provided by voter BUT which are postmarked as timely should be counted.
Naturally the McCormick campaign is arguing that his ruling should also apply to current situation. Which would appear to benefit McC who in leading in vote-by-mail ballots tallied so far.
Sorry IF you've got a bet riding on this. But getting the election count CORRECT "Trumps" getting it yesterday, if not sooner.
You may note that the count is also NOT finished yet in Australia? Where Anthony Albanese has been named "intermim" Prime Minister. As right now Labor is 3 seats short of a majority in new House of Representatives, with nine seats still up for grabs. Question is, can Labor form a majority government OR minority govt OR maybe a coalition (or whatever) with some of the now numerous "Teal" Independents?
Not reported
Suspect not found
Lack of sufficient evidence
Not in the public interest
Not a police priority
The police committed the crime!
The reason I have from day one been sceptical about the focus on what he said to the Commons is that I can't see that you can prove, even based on the evidence we have today, that he "knew or believed it to be untrue".
That's what makes the world great. On this board, most people prefer low rise, gardens, etc.
But I'm much more of an urban bod, and would rather be on the 32nd floor of a tower block in Manhattan or in the Barbican than in a three bedroom semi with a garden in Muswell Hill.
The Prime Minister has demeaned his office.
He made the rules, and then broke them. The British people deserve better.
#SueGrayReport
https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1528760511768190977
Mind you, when Labour have the landslide majroity gifted to them by the Libs and Greens and then inevitably betray them the fall out would be spectacular...
And there'd be a report which would be robust and worth reading.
I have just seen the full picture and hence the whole bottle topped in yellow. Please let it be known that I absolutely and wholly retract my assumption that it was an M&S macon or somesuch. No way - it wasn't a burgundy with that shaped bottle - looks like something far cheaper, probably not from France. Supermarket chain cheapo white plonk.
Dear god help us.