Durham Police to Investigate Kier Starmer over breaking lockdown rules

Germanshepherdsmum

Or could it be a way of influencing the police’s findings? Subtle but very serious for him professionally if the police were to consider that was the game.

It's worth remembering that the same police did not fine Cummings. They have to work to the same standards or have a reason why not (apparently). They already need to explain why they went back to review this, having told us previously that they had decided not to do retrospective reviews for Cummings. I think they would have to answer some questions and should answer them anyway.

Germanshepherdsmum

Yes really volver. A very high stakes game if that’s the intention. It is indeed the way lawyers think, and he’s a QC.

Glad I'm a scientist then.

Oh yes, I keep forgetting that GSM.

One can but hope.

We really are down a rabbit hole here.

Angela Rayner will step down too

Yes really volver. A very high stakes game if that’s the intention. It is indeed the way lawyers think, and he’s a QC.

It's not a very pleasant thought I agree volver but it is a possibility and not only a legal mind will have considered it.

Difficult one for the Chief Constable perhaps.

Germanshepherdsmum

Or could it be a way of influencing the police’s findings? Subtle but very serious for him professionally if the police were to consider that was the game.

What?

Is this the way legal minds work?

Ah, he's only saying that so that the police won't find him at fault so he won't have to resign? The rozzers will find out his little game!

Really?!?!

Germanshepherdsmum

Or could it be a way of influencing the police’s findings? Subtle but very serious for him professionally if the police were to consider that was the game.

That is exactly what I wondered - he has now put the police in a really awkward position, knowing that if they give him a fixed penalty notice he will resign. Let's hope it does not influence their investigation.

I'm sure he will have taken legal and political advice MaizieD. There's a saying, "if you act as your own lawyer you have a fool for a client". I'm sure he will know the value of others knowledge.

Interestingly, I was coming on to say that I am hearing a rumour (just one source) that the Tory whips are telling their MPs to pull back and not try and wind this up. I noticed yesterday, when JRM was asked "shouldn't Keir Starmer resign if he is fined" he batted it away and said they should be talking about other things. I think they are beginning to see that if they have been behind this, they may well have scored an "own goal".

Or could it be a way of influencing the police’s findings? Subtle but very serious for him professionally if the police were to consider that was the game.

He’s obviously pretty confident …

Starmer has just announced that he will resign the leadership of the LP if he is issued with a fine.

I trust that, being a lawyer, he's taken a thorough look at the relevant regulations ,and taken further legal advice, and concluded that he has nothing to fear...

Tax dodging newspaper owners? Can you provide evidence of that?

I think I understand your point Maddyone, while the (mainly right wing) press stirs up their readers with Starmer having a beer/curry, the real stuff, the important stuff, the democatic stuff is not being commented upon, other than in a patronising 'let them eat cake' type of way. It deserves repeating; JOHNSON LIED TO PARLIAMENT. Because the electorate have become so used to his lies, he is able to trot out any old nonsense without being challenged; a nuclear power station every year anyone? Anyone here seen plans for a new hospital in their area, you know the ones there are 40 of them so they should be noticeable by now? This country is being gaslit by tax dodging newspaper owners and it is terrifying.

Thank you for your answer DaisyAnne and explanation. I was unsure of what you meant when you said no it isn’t. I wasn’t trying to stir and annoy but I rightly predicted some would not like what I had written. I stand by my opinion. I think this whole thing is rumbling on and on and I would like it to end because I think there are more important things going on. Basically I really don’t care about how many pizzas, curries, and birthday cakes were consumed because I was busy keeping myself safe during lockdown and not worrying about other people. I understand that others including yourself do care. I don’t.
Anyway I’m off now to visit my elderly mother in her care home. No doubt the thread will have moved on a long way before I get back or look at it again.

It’s been 160 days since the Partygate scandal first hit the front pages.

It’s been 143 days since senior civil servant, Sue Gray, started work on her investigation.

It’s been 152 days since the Met Police first said they would not investigate and 104 days since they belatedly changed their minds.

Our question is simple - why is this taking so long?

We think that it’s time the Sue Gray report was published, and the PM commits to publishing it in full.

Unlock Democracy

Thank you WW. I had only heard one lawyer speaking on this so that adds another view.

It will all come down to the law. If we are talking about Johnson v Starmer where the law is concerned ...

Emma Kennedy

Just had chat with Top Lawyer: Durham Police have policy of not investigating retro potential breaches of COVID rules. So how are we here?
“The Tories leant on Durham Police to not investigate Dominic Cummings and leant on them to investigate Starmer.”
Make of that what you will

And he may say just that in the next few days Maybee - that if, after any relevant appeals, he is found to have broken the rules, he will resign.

However, we (and he) needs to know:

1. Why the Durham Police have changed their practice of not charging retrospectively which was their reason for not prosecuting Dominic Cummings.
2. Was this from political pressure? (One Tory politician seems to have either been tasked to pursue this or has tasked himself)
3. What rules (actual rules not talk of a bottle of beer) has he been found to have broken?

I think the Durham police put themselves in a difficult position over Dominic Cummings and they have made it worse now. I also doubt that Starmer would break the rules. This is now a legal problem. It will not be a political one until some daylight has been shone on it. Then Johnson may find himself hoist by his own petard.

Johnson should resign not because he attended loads of parties, although quite frankly that is bad enough being the PM.

Johnson should resign

because he LIED TO PARLIAMENT

That contravenes the ministerial code and is a resigning offence.

volver

If Starmer does resign, how does that make it look for Johnson?

If Starmer thought it was the right thing to do to resign, I think he would. Unlike Johnson who is going to have to be removed from office with a spanner.

It seems to me that, in the eyes of many people, it’s right for Keir to resign because, if he is fined he’s an honourable man who isn’t prone to lying, but ok for Johnson to not resign because the public don’t expect anything from him but lies and constant exaggerations ( how many nuclear power stations did he say he was going to build over the next ten years along with all those new hospitals?). There is no comparison with what Keir might or might not have done with the things that Johnson has done throughout his life both personal and political; but he’s behaved like that so many times that it’s water off a ducks back. I despair.

maddyone

^No it isn’t, much as you would like it to be.^

Excuse me? No it isn’t what?
Anyway your opinion isn’t God’s own truth, much as you might like it to be.

So, you ask, "isn't what?" Isn't what you said -that it is "rumbling on". That was the quote above the answer I gave - why would I be replying to anything else? I then set out the dates, etc., to support my opinion.

Your post was followed by:
maddyone Mon 09-May-22 09:58:13
I’ll duck behind the sofa now.

So you saw your post as an attempt to stir and annoy while I saw mine as a reasoned explanation which you either didn't understand - for which I apologise, or you didn't agree with. Then back into insult mode. What are you achieving with this, I wonder?