No fine for Keir Starmer or Angela Rayner

They must have been very confident of that verdict when they both said they’d resign if found guilty. Mind you I bet they are relieved.

It isn't a question of "no fine".
Forgive me for shouting but
THERE IS NO CASE TO ANSWER.

Clearly not the same rules for every politician then! What a surprise?

www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1312639-No-Fine-for-Starmer

Well theres a difference between over 100 people and multiple parties /karioke/Abba themed/ boyb /leaving dos when such gatherings were not permitted, and a small group who were on the campaign trail having a curry and a beer before staying at an hotel at time when work gatherings were permitted. If you can't see that you are definitely being gaslit..

When Starmer had his beer the rules had changed so 6 could get together eat and drink whatever .
So no rules were broken. Why it took so long to come to a decision is for us to wonder. It would have taken a minute to check date against rules at the time. No reason fir it to drag on fir a year. Maybe pressure from powerful people? Who knows!

TwiceAsNice

Clearly not the same rules for every politician then! What a surprise?

Have you read the rules?

Not only that Silverlinings but political parties were specifically exempt with certain conditions during campaigning. There were separate rules in place specifically for this. I don't understand why this wasn't more widely reported. All the info about the campaign rules was on the government's own website

Here, by the way, is the FULL statement from the Durham police.

www.durham.police.uk/News/News-Articles/2022/July/Durham-Constabulary-press-statement.aspx

It sounds like they have held the evidence against the rules and it was all in order.

And, TwiceAsNice YES, it was the same law across the whole country.

The headlines should read NO RULES WERE BROKEN. There, I fixed it for you

No rules broken.
No surprise there.
Starmer is an honest reliable politician.

Mamie

It isn't a question of "no fine".
Forgive me for shouting but
THERE IS NO CASE TO ANSWER.

I agree, just quoting the headline. So much was made of the investigation when the rules had changed at the time anyway.

There will still be some people who are absolutely sure that Starmer is just as bad, if not worse than Johnson because the Daily Mail had "Beergate" splashed all over its front page for no less than 13 days!

We can confidently expect the proprietor/ editor of the Daily Mail to be rewarded in Johnson's resignation honours.

TwiceAsNice

Clearly not the same rules for every politician then! What a surprise?

Which rules you think were used for No 10 that were not applied to Durham TwiceasNice? If that's what your criptic remark is meant to mean. If not, perhaps you can explain for those of us not in the loop.

CoolCoco

Well theres a difference between over 100 people and multiple parties /karioke/Abba themed/ boyb /leaving dos when such gatherings were not permitted, and a small group who were on the campaign trail having a curry and a beer before staying at an hotel at time when work gatherings were permitted. If you can't see that you are definitely being gaslit..

If you listen to the media folk, who spread this muck CoolCoco, they just throw mud in the hope some will stick. If they are fans of Johnson, with that level of perception of truth, they will lie about and malign anyone.

For those who don't follow links (though this statement is quite short and to the point) here is the text in full.

Posted on Friday 8th July 2022

"Following the emergence of significant new information, an investigation was launched by Durham Constabulary into a gathering at the Miners’ Hall, in Redhills, Durham on 30th April 2021. That investigation has now concluded.

A substantial amount of documentary and witness evidence was obtained which identified the 17 participants and their activities during that gathering. Following the application of the evidential Full Code Test, it has been concluded that there is no case to answer for a contravention of the regulations, due to the application of an exception, namely reasonably necessary work.

Accordingly, Durham Constabulary will not be issuing any fixed penalty notices in respect of the gathering and no further action will be taken.

The investigation has been thorough, detailed and proportionate. The final evidence supplied by participants from the local constituency was returned to Durham Police on 5th July and analysed by investigators against all the evidence before the investigation was concluded on 8th July 2022.

In line with established national policing guidelines, we will not name or otherwise identify any of those present at the gathering, all of whom have been informed of the investigation outcome by their legal representatives.

'Reasonably necessary work'? Hmmm. I like Starmer but I saw the video of him at a party and drinking. Nice work if you can get it!

If I'd been working all day with a group of people, it was 10pm at night and I was exhausted if a beer and a meal before returning to my hotel to send emails, then, if it was allowed under the current rules (which it was) then I would think I'd blooming well earned it. The police investigated this twice and found there to be no case to answer both times.

Aveline

'Reasonably necessary work'? Hmmm. I like Starmer but I saw the video of him at a party and drinking. Nice work if you can get it!

Presumably you think then that he should have been fined?

Which would indicate that the Durham Constabulary didn't do their job properly or, worse, are corrupt.

There are others who think that he's been let off the hook whilst Johnson hasn't.

Maybe you, and they, should get together and make a formal complaint?

The video I saw showed him and others wandering around what appeared to be some type of office, holding plates of food (presumably got from the kitchen) and having a drink - talking and bending over desks, etc. It looked more like an informal meeting than an actual party - but I couldn't really tell from the little I saw. When is a party not a party, or when is it a party?

Either he's guilty and been 'let off' or he's not. Your hmmm seems to imply you think it's the former. Just to be clear, I hold no brief for Starmer and will not be voting for his party.

Aveline

'Reasonably necessary work'? Hmmm. I like Starmer but I saw the video of him at a party and drinking. Nice work if you can get it!

You did not see him at a party. You have just decided that was what it was. The police thought otherwise after they carried out a "thorough, detailed and proportionate" investigation. Presumably, you did the same before you libelled the police and the people involved. And you now have evidence that outweighs that seen by the police.

You saw people working late into the evening and then eating a meal which, had it been open, would have been eaten in the dining room of the hotel they were staying in, before they went to their rooms to continue their work ready for more canvassing in the morning.

No one investigated was fined because of what they ate or drank. Those fined attended illegal gatherings. The Durham meeting was perfectly legal, previously checked out by Starmer and his team to ensure it would be.

I appreciate that not having been able to whitewash the former Prime Minister, we are now seeing an attempt to paint all politicians with the same brush. I do wish GNHQ would be as diligent about fake news as they are about other posts.

Is there a link to the video please?

Don't tell me what I saw. I saw the video of him taken through a window. Just Google it. It's not fake news. I think the police decision that it was only 'reasonably necessary' says a lot. I am entitled to feel cynical about the whole thing.

Aveline

Don't tell me what I saw. I saw the video of him taken through a window. Just Google it. It's not fake news. I think the police decision that it was only 'reasonably necessary' says a lot. I am entitled to feel cynical about the whole thing.

You are entitled to feel cynical only if you ignore the facts about the restrictions in place when it happened and the fact that there have been two police investigations. That’s generally called prejudice.

Here is the footage news.sky.com/video/beergate-footage-shows-starmer-drinking-beer-with-colleagues-during-campaigning-12606825

A look at the evidence is always a good move. That looks like a pretty tame party to me. I would believe it is a few people eating a takeaway standing around an office after a day's work, rather than a "party", and a beer with a curry is not a booze-up. Not comparable with Johnson's do.

There is talk of restrictions being eased at the time this happened. The date is easily matched to the restrictions so there is no need for vehement opinions in a vacuum.