Keir and Angela’s drinks party

I’m refusing nothing. Although I will ask, are you one who jumps to KS defence whatever is said? I’ll look it up when I get back from walking the dog.

Mollygo

Daisyanne you need to read carefully. I have no problem with any of the criticism levelled at BJ. I have joined in that criticism so why do I need to produce the evidence you ask for?
Just ask yourself what your reaction is when KS ‘forgets’ to mention something and your compare that with with your reaction if BJ ‘forgets’ to mention something.

You are assuming I have a preference for Keir Starmer, Mollygo. My only preference is for facts and truth. You appear to be unable to give either.

Answering the first three questions would do. Let's face it; you could be convincing me that Starmer has done something wrong. I am open to that. However, you do need to be factual and give evidence. Your biased opinion or my biased opinion will not count in a discussion. You are refusing to tell us what or why he, in this instance, has done something wrong.

Daisyanne you need to read carefully. I have no problem with any of the criticism levelled at BJ. I have joined in that criticism so why do I need to produce the evidence you ask for?
Just ask yourself what your reaction is when KS ‘forgets’ to mention something and your compare that with with your reaction if BJ ‘forgets’ to mention something.

Labour did very well last time, so I suspect that there will not be many seats to be gleaned. I’m not expecting great things tbh.

It smacks of desperation.

It does WWM. However, what do the desperate think it will achieve? I wonder how many on GN have postal votes and already sent them? Also, there are very few councils in Red Wall areas which are not already Labour. I can't see "frightening the Tories" headlines. What will be interesting is the overall picture of any voting change.

DaisyAnne

Mamie

Reading this thread you are forced to arrive at the conclusion that some people are incapable of understanding the difference between "breaking the law" and "not breaking the law".
Missing a name off a list seems to have (im)moral equivalence with attending an illegal gathering in lockdown.
Nowt so queer as folks.

?

It smacks of desperation.

Mamie

Reading this thread you are forced to arrive at the conclusion that some people are incapable of understanding the difference between "breaking the law" and "not breaking the law".
Missing a name off a list seems to have (im)moral equivalence with attending an illegal gathering in lockdown.
Nowt so queer as folks.

?

Mollygo

I have no problem with any of the criticism levelled at BJ, but it does make a nonsense of it when people leap to the defence of the LP and KS’s errors are dressed up as OK or ‘different situations’ or ‘genuine mistakes.’

Mollygo. If you are going to criticise other posters you need to substantiate that critism, not just throw it out as a squeal of horror.

1. What is Keir Starmer's "error" that you post about?
2. Why is a simple "error" important?
2. What evidence do you have that it wasn't a "genuine mistake"?
3. Do you agree that Johnson has, almost continually, lied? If not, where is the evidence that says he did, incorrect?
4. Do you agree Johnson broke the law? If not, where is the evidence that the police got this wrong?

We can only be even-handed in what we say about these behaviours if people have acted in the same way. They haven't.

Reading this thread you are forced to arrive at the conclusion that some people are incapable of understanding the difference between "breaking the law" and "not breaking the law".
Missing a name off a list seems to have (im)moral equivalence with attending an illegal gathering in lockdown.
Nowt so queer as folks.

difficult

My turn to state the obvious, I suppose.

Johnson attended and possibly organised events that were illegal at the time because of lockdown rules.

Starmer attended an event that wasn't illegal.

Is it really so difficut?

I have no problem with any of the criticism levelled at BJ, but it does make a nonsense of it when people leap to the defence of the LP and KS’s errors are dressed up as OK or ‘different situations’ or ‘genuine mistakes.’

You won't get an answer Maizie; there isn't one. This thread was simply an attempt, straight from a Johnson supporting newspaper, I would guess, to say that all politicians are the same.

The one thing that has come out of the thread is that they are not. In this instance, if we go back to factual information, no one lied about AR's not being at a perfectly legal event. It was an irrelevant clerical and proof-reading error when putting names on a list.

But, and this is sooo much more important, we still have a PM who does lie - frequently. We also have a PM who has broken the law, thus becoming the first PM to have officially been found to have done so. Those things will not go away by making up imaginary faults for others.

Excuse multiple punctuation errors and typos. I should have proof read...

Allsorts

Every place I worked at had a fridge. Offices in general do.
Angela and Keir party 30 April, just after the other one, how could Keir a lawyer forget Angela was there, to forget that what else had he and her conveniently forgotten. He really would make a poor lawyer with such short term memory loss, but he does however know the law, all the time slamming the other side. The public are not daft they will make up their own minds, 8ndont care about either one if them having a drink with people they work with, it’s ridiculous..They have been caught out and their memories are back.. Labour honest mistake of course, , Tory a cover up. Both places of work and both in lockdown. I do think lying to the house and misleading it, for whatever reason is not one, so that’s Boris, Angela and Keir out for a start.

I'm struggling with this gibberish.

The event Johnson, and his now wife, were fined for took place in June 2020, when Lockdown rules were more strict. For a start, his wife should not have been present. No.10 is not her home, her home is the flat at No. 11. While we have no idea where the office actually was, 'No. 10' as a workplace being a blanket description of a large number of offices in No.10, No. 11 and adjoining buildings, it is clear that she was not in her residence. against lockdown rules.

The Starmer incident took place in April 2021. Almost a year later when lockdown rules were different and anyway, as DaisyMay pointed out upthread, people canvassing for the by-election had been given an exemption from the 'rules'.

So what is all this twaddle about them both being in the same month and year?

I'm curious to know if people really think that having a drink with a meal constitutes a 'party'. Are all those people who might have a glass of wine with a meal having a 'party'?

As for Rayner's presence, she was party of the working group. She was doing nothing illegal. It wasn't 'denied' that she was there, she just got missed off a list.

I've asked this twice on this thread, but had no answer; what possible motive could anyone have for 'covering up' the fact that she was present when she was doing nothing wrong? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

But please don't let facts and logic get in the way of an ill informed rant...

volver

Allsorts

Every place I worked at had a fridge. Offices in general do.
Angela and Keir party 30 April, just after the other one, how could Keir a lawyer forget Angela was there, to forget that what else had he and her conveniently forgotten. He really would make a poor lawyer with such short term memory loss, but he does however know the law, all the time slamming the other side. The public are not daft they will make up their own minds, 8ndont care about either one if them having a drink with people they work with, it’s ridiculous..They have been caught out and their memories are back.. Labour honest mistake of course, , Tory a cover up. Both places of work and both in lockdown. I do think lying to the house and misleading it, for whatever reason is not one, so that’s Boris, Angela and Keir out for a start.

Of course we had a fridge.

It was full of Morrison's sandwiches and week-old milk.

Not beer.

Have a look in a biology technician's fridge. It usually has the odd rat or bull's eye lurking somewhere.

DaisyAnne

Well yes, but also an attempt by some GN members to push the Tory propoganda which is so often fake news.

I'm not pushing any propaganda. I honestly find politics to be somewhat of a disaster zone at present.

I wonder where and how it will all end.

Well yes, but also an attempt by some GN members to push the Tory propoganda which is so often fake news.

It’s just an attempt by the Mail to stir up rubbish before the elections,

Keir Starmer
These are strange answers from a man who yesterday claimed to be making a humble apology. Does the Prime Minister actually accept that he broke the law?

The Prime Minister
Yes, Mr Speaker, I have been absolutely clear that I humbly accept what the police have said.

Personally, I would believe that KS knows a lot more about when the phrase broke the law is appropriate than any of us do.

So I repeat "Johnson and those with him broke the law. Starmer and those with him did not." and really, nothing else is relevant; it's just an attempt a muck slinging.

But it does mean that you broke the law, doesn't it?

I worked in a government department. We had umpteen fridges. And an awful lot of alcohol.

However, about 10 years ago the alcohol was banned. There were complaints that this ban didn't reach the HoC. Maybe it will soon.

As for these fines. Nobody is an actual criminal. They won't have a criminal record.

Not supporting any team here, just pointing out that an FPN is not the same as having a criminal record.

HolySox

"Johnson and those with him broke the law. Starmer and those with him did not."
No, Boris has been fined, Keir hasn't, yet.

That is a police decision HolySox, you are assuming too much on the basis of what you think you know.

Just to help HolySox. Johnson has admitted he broke the law.

So do explain, HolySox, why Boris hasn't broken the law? That seems to be what you are trying to prove.