No fine for Keir Starmer or Angela Rayner

Presumably critics don’t think that people should have worked beyond 10.00pm and gone without food? They weren’t at home to rustle up a meal, there was no option to eat in the hotel dining room, so they got a takeaway - where would you have eaten?

Many people like a beer with curry - it is an obvious pairing. Would you feel differently if he’d had Coke or water? Why? It was well after working hours, so even if he’d drunk a suitcase of the stuff it was his business.

I don’t understand the complaints, really.

If only I'd realised that was OK! Life could have been very different round here!

Aveline

If only I'd realised that was OK! Life could have been very different round here!

If you’d read the restrictions that were in place at that time you would have known Aveline. - think of the fun you missed out on by not knowing what you were allowed to do.

Just as a reminder, this is from the BBC website. If you look, you can also see what the rules were when the parties took place in Downing Street.

‘On 30 April, England was under "Step 2" rules, which had been introduced on 12 April.
Gathering indoors with people from outside your household or support bubble was against the law.
There was an exemption for "work purposes", although working from home was recommended in the guidance, but the rules did not mention socialising at work.
And there was an exemption if "the gathering is reasonably necessary for the purposes of campaigning in an election".
Bars, pubs and restaurants were allowed to open outdoors for groups of six people or two households, but indoor service was not allowed.
The question for police was whether Labour officials eating and drinking together was "reasonably necessary for work".

Do you not think that if there was any possible way the government could have pinned this on Keir Starmer they would have done - they wrote the rules after all, and have made many other attempts to smear him with no success. And do you not think that as an eminent lawyer he would have made absolutely certain beforehand that he wasn’t breaking the law? They don’t call him Captain Sensible for nothing. Whatever you think of him, he is not a fool, or a Bozo for that matter.

it was a legal situation as they were having after work powwow! and not gathering for a boozy night!

That is not "evidence" Elegran, although I appreciate it is the only "evidence" that Aveline has offered.

What Aveline seems to be saying is that she has seen this clip and that it reinforces her prejudice against Starmer. However, Aveline is not trained to take evidence. Neither, it appears, does she know the law.

At the time, the laws applying to gatherings included an exemption for those that were "reasonably necessary for the purposes of campaigning in an election or a referendum”.

That is the wording of the law that the Durham police quoted. The description does not limit the type of work but describes it according to the test the police must use. They must decide whether this was a reasonably chosen action. In this case, as there were elections, it was.

There was no case. Neither the law or democracy can accept (to quote Isaac Asimove) that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge". A short glimpse of someone drinking a beer does not outweigh the knowledge and expertise of senior police officers.

DaisyAnne I am not prejudiced against Starmer as I made clear in my first post on the matter. My comment was about the rather ambivalent wording of the Police's statement. No need to be so exercised on the matter. ?

Casdon

And do you not think that as an eminent lawyer he would have made absolutely certain beforehand that he wasn’t breaking the law?

This is the point isn't it? And I believe that's what he actually did anyway.

I'm pretty sure that when he said he would resign if he was in breach of the rules at the time, he was confident because he knew damned well he hadn't broken them. He may be lots of things - boring, lacking in charisma, misguided in his belief that he can "make Brexit work", etc, etc, but - he isn't stupid. As a barrister, it's fairly obvious that he would make sure he wasn't breaking any law.

However, for many of his opponents, it will cut no ice and the decision by the Durham Constabulary will be seen as 'derelict'.

It would appear that Starmer has no skeletons in his cupboard, so the right wing media - and Johnson himself - will have to dredge up whatever they can find to smear him. Corbyn gave them plenty of ammunition, Starmer hasn't, and thus represents a real danger to the right wing vested interests.

Horrified at the slights and digs at Sir Keir Starmer here, a decent man, lacking in duplicity and an eminent lawyer. Versus the liar of no 10, a cheater and serial adulterer. One who made rules and broke them without any concern for the optics. One who didn’t. I know where my vote will go.

Aveline

DaisyAnne I am not prejudiced against Starmer as I made clear in my first post on the matter. My comment was about the rather ambivalent wording of the Police's statement. No need to be so exercised on the matter. ?

The police statement quoted the law. You misunderstood the meaning of the word 'reasonable' in this context.

The wording of the law was that a few people could get together if it was "reasonably necessary for the purposes of campaigning in an election or a referendum” so any ambiguity was enshrined in officialese.

I assume that those eating curry and drinking beer had just been working together at campaigning for the election, and were planning to work together again after their break.

It has to be reiterated again and again that the law was different at that point from what it had been for Johnson's bash, hence the difference in the police statement - no case to answer.

Nanatoone

Horrified at the slights and digs at Sir Keir Starmer here, a decent man, lacking in duplicity and an eminent lawyer. Versus the liar of no 10, a cheater and serial adulterer. One who made rules and broke them without any concern for the optics. One who didn’t. I know where my vote will go.

It is quite unbelievable isn't it? I wonder how and why people are being manipulated into believing the reverse?

DaisyAnne

Aveline

DaisyAnne I am not prejudiced against Starmer as I made clear in my first post on the matter. My comment was about the rather ambivalent wording of the Police's statement. No need to be so exercised on the matter. ?

The police statement quoted the law. You misunderstood the meaning of the word 'reasonable' in this context.

... where's GSM when you need her

"Suitable; just; proper; ordinary; fair; usual. The term reasonable is a generic and relative one and applies to that which is appropriate for a particular situation. In the law of Negligence, the reasonable person standard is the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would observe under a given set of circumstances."

(source: legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reasonableness)

The truly frightening thing is that so many people don’t know the difference between opinion and fact.

Dislike someone’s political view, think their policies are bad for the country, believe they would be a poor leader, find the smell of lilies nauseating - all of those things are matters of opinion. But Strarmer being unable to prosecute Saville because there was a lack of evidence, that eating curry after work was within the rules at the time, or that lillies are flowers are facts.

It is scary how easily opinions can be sold as facts and how easily people take them as such.

That is not what the law said Elegran. It is here. (Exception 20: campaigning)
Where the law and people's futures are concerned, we owe it to them to be accurate. Nowhere does it say "a few people", nor would anyone - surely - expect it to be so unspecific.

It was not ambiguous for a lawyer. Your interpretation has, if anything, made it less definite. If you are dealing with the law, it is useful to know what you don't know and employ someone who does or, at the very least, do your research before offering an opinion based on ignorance of that phrase when used legally. There are different definitions of reasonable and reasonably, depending on what type of law/agreement to which it refers. This seems relevant to the law we are discussing.

Reasonably necessary means all other means to accomplish the desired action have been reasonably exhausted or would be ineffective under the circumstances (source: Law Insider). The fact that the law said reasonably necessary for the purposes of campaigning in an election or a referendum gave the argument that campaigning was reasonably necessary.

... where's GSM when you need her

I don't think it is her area of the law and she would have far too much sense than to dive in without doing her research.

Starmer was clear he broke no laws or guidance. The police investigated again and confirmed that.
Starmer must be as stable, reliable and trustworthy as he seems. You can bet the tories and their supporters in the press, will have been digging for dirt. The best they can come up with are false allegations about Saville and the Durham incident.
The DM this morning has backed off it’s criticism if Johnson and turned it’s nastiness against the leadership candidates. Messy messy mess

Please could you all have a look at the document I linked. That was the law involved. It was not what the Mail decided to print and some decided they would like to believe.

Hello Daisy, this is what I mentioned earlier. No one will read it unfortunately as they want to believe what they want to believe. I do think the media should have flagged ip the campaigning exceptions but of course that would have involved more thought, less dog-whistle. Unfortunately.

As an aside, I listened to this interview recently:
uk-podcasts.co.uk/podcast/full-disclosure-with-james-o-brien/keir-starmer
I've linked to it elsewhere on Gransnet but it does reveal quite a lot about the man and his motivations.
Lying about breaking the law seems totally out of character to me.

Doodledog

The truly frightening thing is that so many people don’t know the difference between opinion and fact.

Dislike someone’s political view, think their policies are bad for the country, believe they would be a poor leader, find the smell of lilies nauseating - all of those things are matters of opinion. But Strarmer being unable to prosecute Saville because there was a lack of evidence, that eating curry after work was within the rules at the time, or that lillies are flowers are facts.

It is scary how easily opinions can be sold as facts and how easily people take them as such.

It's difficult to be impartial and apply critical-thinking skills - which as far as I understand, are not part of the school curriculum. I think critical-thinking in education is as important as numeracy and literacy. Can you imagine an electorate with razor-sharp minds perusing government (any government) and politicians!

I try to be impartial, and never more so than when I'm dealing with people I don't like. For example - when Boris Johnson became PM and the question of his progeny became a topic of speculation and interest, my first thought was, why is he obliged to tell us how many children he's sired - shouldn't his private life be separate from his political life? But then I read about his comments on single mothers in, I think, '95, in The Spectator where he pronounced that Children Of Single Mothers are 'Ill-Raised, Ignorant, Aggressive And Illegitimate. Which kind of muddies the waters of 'impartiality. And as the (initially) single parent of a son who has become a successful, tax-paying, business man -the resentment towards Johnson is huge. Even so, when I read of rumours about his affairs and alleged resultant abortions, I still question whether they are true. Because gossip and rumour are anathema to me. Opinions derive from feelings, but facts are facts!

That's all very true, but it doesn't stop people (and I'm not pointing at anyone on here) coming out with things akin to 'Berlin is the capital of France' and when challenged saying 'I have a right to an opinion', as though that gives the situation an element of doubt. It doesn't.

It also doesn't matter how many people share that opinion, it won't alter the fact that the capital is Paris either, yet people will say 'I'm not the only one to think that - we can't all be wrong', and believe it.

As Wendy Cope put it:

He tells her that the earth is flat --
He knows the facts, and that is that.
In altercations fierce and long
She tries her best to prove him wrong,
But he has learned to argue well.
He calls her arguments unsound
And often asks her not to yell.
She cannot win. He stands his ground.

The planet goes on being round.”

Dickens

Doodledog

The truly frightening thing is that so many people don’t know the difference between opinion and fact.

Dislike someone’s political view, think their policies are bad for the country, believe they would be a poor leader, find the smell of lilies nauseating - all of those things are matters of opinion. But Strarmer being unable to prosecute Saville because there was a lack of evidence, that eating curry after work was within the rules at the time, or that lillies are flowers are facts.

It is scary how easily opinions can be sold as facts and how easily people take them as such.

It's difficult to be impartial and apply critical-thinking skills - which as far as I understand, are not part of the school curriculum. I think critical-thinking in education is as important as numeracy and literacy. Can you imagine an electorate with razor-sharp minds perusing government (any government) and politicians!

I try to be impartial, and never more so than when I'm dealing with people I don't like. For example - when Boris Johnson became PM and the question of his progeny became a topic of speculation and interest, my first thought was, why is he obliged to tell us how many children he's sired - shouldn't his private life be separate from his political life? But then I read about his comments on single mothers in, I think, '95, in The Spectator where he pronounced that Children Of Single Mothers are 'Ill-Raised, Ignorant, Aggressive And Illegitimate. Which kind of muddies the waters of 'impartiality. And as the (initially) single parent of a son who has become a successful, tax-paying, business man -the resentment towards Johnson is huge. Even so, when I read of rumours about his affairs and alleged resultant abortions, I still question whether they are true. Because gossip and rumour are anathema to me. Opinions derive from feelings, but facts are facts!

Actually Dickens children at Key stage2 (aged 10-11) are introduced to learning about fact and opinion. They go onto develop their skills in Key stage 3&4. So education is trying to produce people with critical thinking abilities.

There was a massive difference between the party culture in Westminster and what Starmer and Rayner were doing. No comparison and a waste of police time.

Thank you for your posts, Dickens and Doodledog.

I started a long reply but realise the more you learn the more you appreciate what you don't know.

Doodledog

"He tells her that the earth is flat --^
He knows the facts, and that is that.
In altercations fierce and long
She tries her best to prove him wrong,
But he has learned to argue well.
He calls her arguments unsound
And often asks her not to yell.
She cannot win. He stands his ground.

The planet goes on being round.”
-----------------------------------------------------------

... LOL! That's one of my late uncles!

Notspaghetti Thank you for that link (https://uk-podcasts.co.uk/podcast/full-disclosure-with-james-o-brien/keir-starmer) James O'Brien brought out a portrait of a politician who is diametrically the opposite Of Boris Johnson in every way I can think of. Definitely worth listening to.