No fine for Keir Starmer or Angela Rayner

Dickens I think you need to add another group, which is made up of cultural Conservatives. The traditional Conservatives need their vote-power, which is they invented "anti-woke" and culture wars.

Elegran, that's exactly how I felt about it.

So many unsung achievements and obviously his career was driven by his need to help other people.
On a family level I also loved how he was so pleased to have made his family proud, and the little anecdotes about his parent's trip to the Palace.

I thought it was a terrific interview, and yes, he would have my vote too.

He does need to shout about it more - maybe taking lessons from O'brien isn't as ridiculous as it sounds!

I think it being only on sound means that you don't have the distraction of watching the interviewee, but can listen to what he actually says, and the tone in which it is said.

James O'Brien had to push him to talk about his achievements and why he went into politics and ended the interview advising him to blow his own trumpet more.

Imagine Johnson on the same subject - all hot air and boasts and how his role model was Churchill. Starmer spoke about going into law to get things done for people who had consulted him, and finding that there were things he couldn't have any influence on without being right there with the lawmakers, and how once into Parliament he ended up as party leader.

Johnson would have blagged an instant answer to every question, and thrown in a (faulty) Latin quote or two while he thrashed around claiming he had achieved miracles, and finding someone to blame for his faults and abject failures, and waffled on as though he was in the school debating society getting a point for each time he mentioned how wonderful he was or denigrated an opponent. Starmer paused for a second to think about his answer before replying, but didn't waffle once, and talked common sense and idealism. He wasn't spiteful about anyone.

On performance in this video, I would say that Starmer showed the nearest thing to a statesman that this Parliament has so far produced. He would get my vote for PM. He just needs to market himself a bit more strongly, and be a bit more assertive. That was O'Brien's advice too!

Elegran I'm glad you found the interview interesting. I heard about it some time ago but only just bothered to listen. I suppose I expected it to be somehow very different and felt disinclined to give it the time.
I think it does show the kind of person he is - one we don't really see.

I’m watching The Undeclared War. Makes me find it all to easy to believe that Durham/beer/curry was as spabby suggests a wicked, cheating, tactics dreamt up by the tories publicity team

It never was a real allegation, just a means of getting the press of their back. Even the tories knew it was false, but it did the job of tory press being about to say 'it's labour too,' which of course it wasn't. Its wicked, cheating, tactics dreamt up by their publicity team

RichmondPark

I cannot imagine the effort that has been put into trying to find some dirt or scandal on Starmer and the best they can come up with is that he bought his mum a field for her donkeys.

I have a very simplistic - and possibly a tad naïve - outlook.

At the very top of the pyramid are the exclusively, atrociously wealthy, elite and further down, on a sliding scale, are the Corporates, billionaires, Venture Capitalists, etc, etc - not forgetting the exclusive accountants that manage the money, until we get to the bottom where exist the wealthy 'shire and South, traditional Tory voters.

All have something to protect, all have vested interests. All have power - which is invested in a Tory government, the interface between 'them' and 'us'.

So any opposing party that wants a more equitable, more equal, egalitarian, society is s threat - whether they call themselves Labour, New Labour, Social Democrats, whatever, and the leader will always come under fire from the right wing press. If the leader is intelligent and articulate and lives in a modestly wealthy neighbourhood, he will be denigrated as a champagne socialist. If he lives in a council estate - they will find a way of disparaging his background (or her). It really doesn't matter who the leader is, dirt will be found and shovelled.

Money is power. That's it!

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws” — Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Or as Dennis Healey said World events do not occur by accident. They are made to happen, whether it is to do with national issues or commerce; and most of them are staged and managed by those who hold the purse strings.

I cannot imagine the effort that has been put into trying to find some dirt or scandal on Starmer and the best they can come up with is that he bought his mum a field for her donkeys.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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!

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.

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.

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

... 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.

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.

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.

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)

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?

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.

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.