A thread on twitter
There is a difference in law between a pre-arranged social event (birthday party) and a meal whilst campaigning when there is nowhere else to get food.
There is no prospect of showing a pre-arranged birthday party is reasonably necessary for work - it is a purely social event
In the same way that if colleagues ate together in a canteen a lunchtime during the working day, that would be "reasonably necessary for work", although there was some guidance about not encouraging mixing between people not working together.
The problem with the gatherings at Downing Street is each of them was a pre-arranged social gathering with no work purpose. Leaving parties, Christmas parties, bring your own booze parties, birthday party. Like a list of the kind of events you clearly couldn't have at the time.
This is what Starmer said about the gathering - they were campaigning, that there was nowhere else to get food at the time, and“if you didn’t get a takeaway then our team wasn’t eating that evening”. That is a different scenario to purely social gatherings
I seriously doubt a magistrate would conclude - assuming Starmer is telling the truth - that they were "sure" the gathering was not reasonably necessary for work. But even if I'm wrong (and I appreciate people will see this through a political lens) it makes no difference...
... to my analysis of the Downing St gatherings, which appears to be shared by the Metropolitan Police, that they were not permitted.
Put another way - if Keir Starmer did break the law (which I very much doubt) that doesn't change the law, which the PM appears to have broken multiple times. It's not a race to the bottom, each event is taken on its merits. It may change the politics but that's a different point
Adam Wagner