Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May appears to have been a busy period for partying. Immediately after Keir Starmer called for Boris to resign, film footage emerged of Starmer and Labour staff eating and drinking beer in a Labour office. You couldn't make it up!" Pot kettle black  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May appears to have been a busy period for partying. Immediately after Keir Starmer called for Boris to resign, film footage emerged of Starmer and Labour staff eating and drinking beer in a Labour office. You couldn't make it up!" If nothing else it shows his political naivety. Rookie mistake. Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Precisely. Given that Starter spent much of the last two years calling for more and tougher restrictions, should we assume that many of our political class knew the restrictions were an overreaction?" I don't think we can assume that. More that we can assume they don't give a shit about rules. Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May appears to have been a busy period for partying. Immediately after Keir Starmer called for Boris to resign, film footage emerged of Starmer and Labour staff eating and drinking beer in a Labour office. You couldn't make it up!" You sort of did, the picture was 'out' just after the by election in Hartlepool and it's been reborn by daily mail etc desperate to be deflect from Boris lying to Parliament that he knew nothing about parties that he attended and in doing so broke the law.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May appears to have been a busy period for partying. Immediately after Keir Starmer called for Boris to resign, film footage emerged of Starmer and Labour staff eating and drinking beer in a Labour office. You couldn't make it up! You sort of did, the picture was 'out' just after the by election in Hartlepool and it's been reborn by daily mail etc desperate to be deflect from Boris lying to Parliament that he knew nothing about parties that he attended and in doing so broke the law.." So he did or didn't break restrictions? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May appears to have been a busy period for partying. Immediately after Keir Starmer called for Boris to resign, film footage emerged of Starmer and Labour staff eating and drinking beer in a Labour office. You couldn't make it up! You sort of did, the picture was 'out' just after the by election in Hartlepool and it's been reborn by daily mail etc desperate to be deflect from Boris lying to Parliament that he knew nothing about parties that he attended and in doing so broke the law.. So he did or didn't break restrictions?" Not according to the regulation at the time which allowed people to gather for work, which has been going on in many places.. Nurses have been eating together, police officers and many others.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May appears to have been a busy period for partying. Immediately after Keir Starmer called for Boris to resign, film footage emerged of Starmer and Labour staff eating and drinking beer in a Labour office. You couldn't make it up! You sort of did, the picture was 'out' just after the by election in Hartlepool and it's been reborn by daily mail etc desperate to be deflect from Boris lying to Parliament that he knew nothing about parties that he attended and in doing so broke the law.. So he did or didn't break restrictions? Not according to the regulation at the time which allowed people to gather for work, which has been going on in many places.. Nurses have been eating together, police officers and many others.. " Wasn't it an after-work 'social'? Lager was being d*unk and people were standing around laughing and chatting | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone who broke the rules should be investigated and prosecuted. Rules are for everyone after all" Agreed.. Although I would suspect that given the picture that some are wetting themselves over has been in the public domain for a while and had it been suspected there was a breach at that time it would have been acted upon.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With all these photos that people have stored up makes you wonder why they didn't surface at the time and just got put in a draw. I think Boris is worse but that Starmer won't appologise even for the perception is bad faith. Personally I wouldn't have a drink while working but I do know a lot of people who would see nothing wrong with having 1 beer. Given what everyone else has been living with though it's poor perception. If it was just that they ordered a take away while working then I'd say yeah people have to eat cut the guy a break but he could have had water or a soft drink with it where as a beer for many signifies that the work is done and we are winding down with a bit of a social. Maybe it was innocent but the perception is bad and ignoring the perception worse. He doesn't want to admit to a scandle and get dragged down into the mud with Boris but its a bad idea to refuse to face it at all means we will draw our own conclusions and Boris and his band of borderline functional alcoholics have set a bad base line that people are likely to believe all politicians are capable of if they aren't given good reason to think otherwise. And while I don't believe for a second he is sorry about anything other than that he got caught, Boris did atleast fake an apologie" The perception doesn't look good.. The clutching at straws by those who seek to defend Boris at any cost doesn't look good either.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone who broke the rules should be investigated and prosecuted. Rules are for everyone after all Agreed.. Although I would suspect that given the picture that some are wetting themselves over has been in the public domain for a while and had it been suspected there was a breach at that time it would have been acted upon.." So the fact that the film has been around for a while means it didn't happen? Surely the pictures of Boris's event have also been around for a while. Are you saying that the passage of time negates the breaking of rules? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The perception doesn't look good.. The clutching at straws by those who seek to defend Boris at any cost doesn't look good either.. " Oh I totally agree and Boris is desperate to save his own skin and will try to distract with anything he can. He will thrown anyone he can under the bus if it will save his neck, members of the opposition, members of his own party. I'd say he is a slimey weasel but I don't want to give weasels a bad name. Boris is fractionally better than Trump but not by much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone who broke the rules should be investigated and prosecuted. Rules are for everyone after all Agreed.. Although I would suspect that given the picture that some are wetting themselves over has been in the public domain for a while and had it been suspected there was a breach at that time it would have been acted upon.." Sure. Justice should be done and seen to be done, as Party Gate shows us. Any honest politician would insist on a fully independent investigation being done and would agree to be bound by the findings. Which is why, if anyone is investigated, it'll be Starmer not Johnson. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks very slippery that Starmer should have been calling for more and tougher restrictions for everyone else...when he ignored them himself" Perhaps. Which is why a full investigation should be done. By someone who's not a subordinate. As any honest politician would do, hey? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks very slippery that Starmer should have been calling for more and tougher restrictions for everyone else...when he ignored them himself Perhaps. Which is why a full investigation should be done. By someone who's not a subordinate. As any honest politician would do, hey?" Only when they're caught. That's what it looks like | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks very slippery that Starmer should have been calling for more and tougher restrictions for everyone else...when he ignored them himself Perhaps. Which is why a full investigation should be done. By someone who's not a subordinate. As any honest politician would do, hey? Only when they're caught. That's what it looks like" Better than being caught, denying it, denying it more, saying there were no others, being caught for others, apologising if we feel that way, and then passing off an investigation to a subordinate? Or is this "look look Labour fucked up too leave poor widdle Boris alone, he's doing his best, he almost coloured in the lines!"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My opinion is that Boris and many people in his team didn’t give a dime about the virus, at any point in time, like many people in our society. Considering that they have all the data and didn’t faze them at all to attend party after party, I believe that they knew exactly what they were doing regarding their safety." That's my point really. It sickens me that almost our entire political class have been urging on more and more nonsense and more and more job losses when they knew it didn't make sense | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 people. They were never frightened.
They knew that. But they voted for ever-stricter rules for us | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone who broke the rules should be investigated and prosecuted. Rules are for everyone after all" Anne Frank wouldn't have agreed with that I don't think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone who broke the rules should be investigated and prosecuted. Rules are for everyone after all Agreed.. Although I would suspect that given the picture that some are wetting themselves over has been in the public domain for a while and had it been suspected there was a breach at that time it would have been acted upon.. So the fact that the film has been around for a while means it didn't happen? Surely the pictures of Boris's event have also been around for a while. Are you saying that the passage of time negates the breaking of rules?" No, what is being said is the Starmer footage has been in the public domain for a while so if that had broken guidelines it would have been pointed out, not that the passage of time negates tule breaking. Where as the footage for the parties at Number 10 were kept secret until now where they are leaking out at a stupid rate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May appears to have been a busy period for partying. Immediately after Keir Starmer called for Boris to resign, film footage emerged of Starmer and Labour staff eating and drinking beer in a Labour office. You couldn't make it up!" And suprise, suprise Dominic Cummings appears sticking the knife in again. Not that he's bitter at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone who broke the rules should be investigated and prosecuted. Rules are for everyone after all" This is absolutely correct. Just generally speaking, more politicians need to spend time getting familiar with the inside of prison cells. I don't care which side of the house they're from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.”" I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone who broke the rules should be investigated and prosecuted. Rules are for everyone after all Anne Frank wouldn't have agreed with that I don't think." What the hell has Anne Frank got to do with this? Absolutely sick to the back teeth of Holocaust related references being bandied about like a casual anecdote. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone who broke the rules should be investigated and prosecuted. Rules are for everyone after all Anne Frank wouldn't have agreed with that I don't think. What the hell has Anne Frank got to do with this? Absolutely sick to the back teeth of Holocaust related references being bandied about like a casual anecdote." Christ almighty, this. Having a beer is not comparable to staying alive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did" It really is quite different. You know that really! Doesn’t mean it was a poor decision by Starmer but the repeated activity in No.10 and Cabinet Office over a prolonged period, actual invites to parties (rather than impromptu drink in the office when work finishes) and repeated lying and denial in Parliament by Johnson is really not comparable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did It really is quite different. You know that really! Doesn’t mean it was a poor decision by Starmer but the repeated activity in No.10 and Cabinet Office over a prolonged period, actual invites to parties (rather than impromptu drink in the office when work finishes) and repeated lying and denial in Parliament by Johnson is really not comparable. " How many times did Starmer do it though? He was electioneering in the council elections, so he would have been meeting party campaigners all round the country. I think it's a fair assumption that, if he had an 'after work' event in Durham then he would have done it around the country. Besides, breaking the rules is breaking the rules...and he was calling for even more rules...for us, not for him | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5 mph over the limit or 50mph over the limit. It's still speeding" But if you hit a pedestrian the outcome can be completely different hence sliding scale on fines and points on licence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did It really is quite different. You know that really! Doesn’t mean it was a poor decision by Starmer but the repeated activity in No.10 and Cabinet Office over a prolonged period, actual invites to parties (rather than impromptu drink in the office when work finishes) and repeated lying and denial in Parliament by Johnson is really not comparable. How many times did Starmer do it though? He was electioneering in the council elections, so he would have been meeting party campaigners all round the country. I think it's a fair assumption that, if he had an 'after work' event in Durham then he would have done it around the country. Besides, breaking the rules is breaking the rules...and he was calling for even more rules...for us, not for him" True but whatever Starmer did or may have done it does not excuse what Johnson and colleagues in No10 and Cabinet Office have been doing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did" Really ? He was working with colleagues in an office and took a lunch break in the same office with the same colleagues he had been working with all day then returned to work .He did not leave the office he simply took a lunch break in the office, there was no invitation sent out to attend the building whilst bringing refreshments. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"5 mph over the limit or 50mph over the limit. It's still speeding" Correct. Consequences may be different depending on the severity of the breach, but alleged breaches should be examined. Particularly when political credibility is at stake, as these discussions obviously show. (I'm aware that police resources are stretched thinly, but this is not a minor unimportant breach) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did It really is quite different. You know that really! Doesn’t mean it was a poor decision by Starmer but the repeated activity in No.10 and Cabinet Office over a prolonged period, actual invites to parties (rather than impromptu drink in the office when work finishes) and repeated lying and denial in Parliament by Johnson is really not comparable. How many times did Starmer do it though? He was electioneering in the council elections, so he would have been meeting party campaigners all round the country. I think it's a fair assumption that, if he had an 'after work' event in Durham then he would have done it around the country. Besides, breaking the rules is breaking the rules...and he was calling for even more rules...for us, not for him True but whatever Starmer did or may have done it does not excuse what Johnson and colleagues in No10 and Cabinet Office have been doing." This "but Labour did it too" thing is puerile. Ok, investigate and if appropriate punish Labour too. Rules apply to everyone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party." Yes. I suspect that Starmer would be found to be within the rules. But if we have to play "I know you are but what am I", then investigate all potential breaches. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. Yes. I suspect that Starmer would be found to be within the rules. But if we have to play "I know you are but what am I", then investigate all potential breaches." Personally speaking I would be over the moon if they could pin a typical Tory-style rule breach on Starmer, and cause him to resign. Sadly, whilst he is a hopeless leader, he’s not a complete idiot. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The starmer story is recycled, brought back in to the light to deflect from party gate. Boris should of resigned last Wednesday our debate should be why he is still in number 10 after admitting breaking his own rules, whilst before denying there were any parties whilst at the dispatch box. He only came clean when itv published the invitation email." Boris “Alexander” Johnson will resign precisely when his Russian masters tell him he can. And not a day sooner! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. Yes. I suspect that Starmer would be found to be within the rules. But if we have to play "I know you are but what am I", then investigate all potential breaches. Personally speaking I would be over the moon if they could pin a typical Tory-style rule breach on Starmer, and cause him to resign. Sadly, whilst he is a hopeless leader, he’s not a complete idiot." I'm pretty agnostic on Starmer himself. I'm all about "all politicians should be held to high standards". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The starmer story is recycled, brought back in to the light to deflect from party gate. Boris should of resigned last Wednesday our debate should be why he is still in number 10 after admitting breaking his own rules, whilst before denying there were any parties whilst at the dispatch box. He only came clean when itv published the invitation email. Boris “Alexander” Johnson will resign precisely when his Russian masters tell him he can. And not a day sooner!" haha why Russian masters? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. Yes. I suspect that Starmer would be found to be within the rules. But if we have to play "I know you are but what am I", then investigate all potential breaches. Personally speaking I would be over the moon if they could pin a typical Tory-style rule breach on Starmer, and cause him to resign. Sadly, whilst he is a hopeless leader, he’s not a complete idiot. I'm pretty agnostic on Starmer himself. I'm all about "all politicians should be held to high standards"." When plan b was debated Boris was in for a defeat as his own backbenchers where voting against him, I was shocked that starmer rallied his mp's to vote for plan b saving a no confidence vote in Boris, after that I have no confidence in anything political. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. Yes. I suspect that Starmer would be found to be within the rules. But if we have to play "I know you are but what am I", then investigate all potential breaches. Personally speaking I would be over the moon if they could pin a typical Tory-style rule breach on Starmer, and cause him to resign. Sadly, whilst he is a hopeless leader, he’s not a complete idiot. I'm pretty agnostic on Starmer himself. I'm all about "all politicians should be held to high standards". When plan b was debated Boris was in for a defeat as his own backbenchers where voting against him, I was shocked that starmer rallied his mp's to vote for plan b saving a no confidence vote in Boris, after that I have no confidence in anything political." Because Starmer believed further restrictions were required? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" haha why Russian masters?" It’s a reference to the party funding. Lots of foreign influence over our politics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone who broke the rules should be investigated and prosecuted. Rules are for everyone after all This is absolutely correct. Just generally speaking, more politicians need to spend time getting familiar with the inside of prison cells. I don't care which side of the house they're from. " Thankfully people up until now cannot be thrown into jail for breaking rules. They have to break laws.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" haha why Russian masters? It’s a reference to the party funding. Lots of foreign influence over our politics. " Well I have to agree with that. thanks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" haha why Russian masters? It’s a reference to the party funding. Lots of foreign influence over our politics. Well I have to agree with that. thanks" Party funding and more. BJ is compromised and was declared a security risk by MI5/MI6. When he was Foreign Secretary he slipped his security detail to fly to Italy and attend a “bunga bunga” party hosted by the billionaire son of the ex head of the KGB. I doubt he could pass the vetting for a CTC let alone DV security vetting check! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did Really ? He was working with colleagues in an office and took a lunch break in the same office with the same colleagues he had been working with all day then returned to work .He did not leave the office he simply took a lunch break in the office, there was no invitation sent out to attend the building whilst bringing refreshments." Starter's 'event' was in an office. Boris's was in a garden. Difference? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party." The events were equivalent. The fact that time has passed doesn't mean that both weren't wrong. They were and the wriggling by Starmer supporters only shows them up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" haha why Russian masters? It’s a reference to the party funding. Lots of foreign influence over our politics. Well I have to agree with that. thanks Party funding and more. BJ is compromised and was declared a security risk by MI5/MI6. When he was Foreign Secretary he slipped his security detail to fly to Italy and attend a “bunga bunga” party hosted by the billionaire son of the ex head of the KGB. I doubt he could pass the vetting for a CTC let alone DV security vetting check!" I had no idea, so how is he PM? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. The events were equivalent. The fact that time has passed doesn't mean that both weren't wrong. They were and the wriggling by Starmer supporters only shows them up" Sure. Investigate both  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. The events were equivalent. The fact that time has passed doesn't mean that both weren't wrong. They were and the wriggling by Starmer supporters only shows them up" I’m not a Starmer supporter. But regardless, a socially distanced meal after a meeting compliant with contemporary regulation is not equivalent to a series of non-compliant d*unken parties - unless you don’t understand what the word equivalent means. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. The events were equivalent. The fact that time has passed doesn't mean that both weren't wrong. They were and the wriggling by Starmer supporters only shows them up I’m not a Starmer supporter. But regardless, a socially distanced meal after a meeting compliant with contemporary regulation is not equivalent to a series of non-compliant d*unken parties - unless you don’t understand what the word equivalent means." How can you possibly know if the degree of d*unkenness was greater at one party or another? And would the attendant guilt depend on that? Why? The irony is rich in Starmer calling for ever-tougher restrictions and then ignoring existing rules. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. The events were equivalent. The fact that time has passed doesn't mean that both weren't wrong. They were and the wriggling by Starmer supporters only shows them up I’m not a Starmer supporter. But regardless, a socially distanced meal after a meeting compliant with contemporary regulation is not equivalent to a series of non-compliant d*unken parties - unless you don’t understand what the word equivalent means. How can you possibly know if the degree of d*unkenness was greater at one party or another? And would the attendant guilt depend on that? Why? The irony is rich in Starmer calling for ever-tougher restrictions and then ignoring existing rules. " Apart from the fact that this work meeting was originally reported (by the current deputy editor of the Sun, who was at d*unken Tory garden party!) 8 months ago, and no evidence between now and then has emerged to counter the facts, you mean? Starmer claimed to have d*unk one beer, as pictured. And the ‘level of d*unkenness’ is immaterial - even if Boris’ Boozy Bash had been teetotal, it would still have been in breach of the regulations his own government had introduced into law. Amazing the lengths you will go to try to excuse blatant criminality and hypocrisy! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. The events were equivalent. The fact that time has passed doesn't mean that both weren't wrong. They were and the wriggling by Starmer supporters only shows them up I’m not a Starmer supporter. But regardless, a socially distanced meal after a meeting compliant with contemporary regulation is not equivalent to a series of non-compliant d*unken parties - unless you don’t understand what the word equivalent means. How can you possibly know if the degree of d*unkenness was greater at one party or another? And would the attendant guilt depend on that? Why? The irony is rich in Starmer calling for ever-tougher restrictions and then ignoring existing rules. Apart from the fact that this work meeting was originally reported (by the current deputy editor of the Sun, who was at d*unken Tory garden party!) 8 months ago, and no evidence between now and then has emerged to counter the facts, you mean? Starmer claimed to have d*unk one beer, as pictured. And the ‘level of d*unkenness’ is immaterial - even if Boris’ Boozy Bash had been teetotal, it would still have been in breach of the regulations his own government had introduced into law. Amazing the lengths you will go to try to excuse blatant criminality and hypocrisy! "I'm afraid it was you that raised the issue of d*unkenness... you said that Starmers party didn't compare to Boris's 'd*unken' party. Of course d*unkenness or sobriety doesn't matter...but you said it did when it came to Boris's party. Desperate stuff! Yes, Starmer's party was eight months ago. But so was Boris's. Starter is trying to pass it off as work colleagues (as were the people at Boris's party). But do you believe that? Members of the public were almost certainly there at Starmer's party...so not 'work colleagues' having essential sustenance at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s never a good defence of a crime to say yes but I’m not the only one he/she did it too! I don’t think that would cut much ice for any crime in a court. " You misunderstand. I'm questioning why we had strict restrictions when both parties appear to have believed they weren't necessary...and when Starmer even wanted tougher restrictions. Hypocrisy all round | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You couldn't make it up!" The press do  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You couldn't make it up! The press do "I know it’s amazing how many people and different professions they have convinced to tow the official line that comes from the authorities. If anything the combined teamwork and collusion is in its self impressive and unprecedented | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. The events were equivalent. The fact that time has passed doesn't mean that both weren't wrong. They were and the wriggling by Starmer supporters only shows them up I’m not a Starmer supporter. But regardless, a socially distanced meal after a meeting compliant with contemporary regulation is not equivalent to a series of non-compliant d*unken parties - unless you don’t understand what the word equivalent means. How can you possibly know if the degree of d*unkenness was greater at one party or another? And would the attendant guilt depend on that? Why? The irony is rich in Starmer calling for ever-tougher restrictions and then ignoring existing rules. Apart from the fact that this work meeting was originally reported (by the current deputy editor of the Sun, who was at d*unken Tory garden party!) 8 months ago, and no evidence between now and then has emerged to counter the facts, you mean? Starmer claimed to have d*unk one beer, as pictured. And the ‘level of d*unkenness’ is immaterial - even if Boris’ Boozy Bash had been teetotal, it would still have been in breach of the regulations his own government had introduced into law. Amazing the lengths you will go to try to excuse blatant criminality and hypocrisy!
I'm afraid it was you that raised the issue of d*unkenness... you said that Starmers party didn't compare to Boris's 'd*unken' party.
Of course d*unkenness or sobriety doesn't matter...but you said it did when it came to Boris's party.
Desperate stuff!
Yes, Starmer's party was eight months ago. But so was Boris's.
Starter is trying to pass it off as work colleagues (as were the people at Boris's party). But do you believe that?
Members of the public were almost certainly there at Starmer's party...so not 'work colleagues' having essential sustenance at all."Think your flogging a dead horse. The Starmer story is slowly disappearing as it did when is easy first reported. The Johnson story is building everyday and only going to get bigger and bigger. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did Really ? He was working with colleagues in an office and took a lunch break in the same office with the same colleagues he had been working with all day then returned to work .He did not leave the office he simply took a lunch break in the office, there was no invitation sent out to attend the building whilst bringing refreshments. Starter's 'event' was in an office. Boris's was in a garden. Difference?" Not much difference. Both were arguably against the rules but I could forgive Boris more than Sir Starmer. Downing St event was outside where, anyone with just a passing acquaintance with respiratory virus transmission knows, a much lesser risk exists. All the Labour transgressions seem to be indoors (Corbyn at a table of more than 6) as do the SNP misdemeanours - female member Margaret Ferrier knowingly positive on a train from Glasgow to London. Nicola Sturgeon's sister was criticised for flouting face mask rules on a train, claiming that she only did it because she was eating a sandwich. One might reasonably assume she's SNP. Gill Sturgeon posted a picture of herself without a mask on a train on social media. Dr Catherine Calderwood, Scotland's chief medical officer, resigned in April last year after twice breaking lockdown restrictions in order to visit her second home, which was located more than an hour away from her main residence in Edinburgh. Yet still Nicola Sturgeon strides on to the stage with her 'my party is holier than thou' approach. As they say, politicians of all colours...... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did Really ? He was working with colleagues in an office and took a lunch break in the same office with the same colleagues he had been working with all day then returned to work .He did not leave the office he simply took a lunch break in the office, there was no invitation sent out to attend the building whilst bringing refreshments. Starter's 'event' was in an office. Boris's was in a garden. Difference? Not much difference. Both were arguably against the rules but I could forgive Boris more than Sir Starmer. Downing St event was outside where, anyone with just a passing acquaintance with respiratory virus transmission knows, a much lesser risk exists. All the Labour transgressions seem to be indoors (Corbyn at a table of more than 6) as do the SNP misdemeanours - female member Margaret Ferrier knowingly positive on a train from Glasgow to London. Nicola Sturgeon's sister was criticised for flouting face mask rules on a train, claiming that she only did it because she was eating a sandwich. One might reasonably assume she's SNP. Gill Sturgeon posted a picture of herself without a mask on a train on social media. Dr Catherine Calderwood, Scotland's chief medical officer, resigned in April last year after twice breaking lockdown restrictions in order to visit her second home, which was located more than an hour away from her main residence in Edinburgh. Yet still Nicola Sturgeon strides on to the stage with her 'my party is holier than thou' approach. As they say, politicians of all colours...... " Boris letting people drink while at work would any other employers let people drink at work  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did Really ? He was working with colleagues in an office and took a lunch break in the same office with the same colleagues he had been working with all day then returned to work .He did not leave the office he simply took a lunch break in the office, there was no invitation sent out to attend the building whilst bringing refreshments. Starter's 'event' was in an office. Boris's was in a garden. Difference? Not much difference. Both were arguably against the rules but I could forgive Boris more than Sir Starmer. Downing St event was outside where, anyone with just a passing acquaintance with respiratory virus transmission knows, a much lesser risk exists. All the Labour transgressions seem to be indoors (Corbyn at a table of more than 6) as do the SNP misdemeanours - female member Margaret Ferrier knowingly positive on a train from Glasgow to London. Nicola Sturgeon's sister was criticised for flouting face mask rules on a train, claiming that she only did it because she was eating a sandwich. One might reasonably assume she's SNP. Gill Sturgeon posted a picture of herself without a mask on a train on social media. Dr Catherine Calderwood, Scotland's chief medical officer, resigned in April last year after twice breaking lockdown restrictions in order to visit her second home, which was located more than an hour away from her main residence in Edinburgh. Yet still Nicola Sturgeon strides on to the stage with her 'my party is holier than thou' approach. As they say, politicians of all colours...... " you do fail to mention the Margaret Ferrier was and still is suspended from the SNP and Dr Catherine Calderwood lost her job, she resigned but likely would have been fired if she refused to, she admitted her severe breaches of the covid restrictions at the time and had to go more so as she was part of the the rule making! Maybe England and Westminster and the government should take as tough a stance with those who have made as serious breaches of covid rules. Not sure how relevant a politicians relation not wearing a mask is to be honest! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did Really ? He was working with colleagues in an office and took a lunch break in the same office with the same colleagues he had been working with all day then returned to work .He did not leave the office he simply took a lunch break in the office, there was no invitation sent out to attend the building whilst bringing refreshments. Starter's 'event' was in an office. Boris's was in a garden. Difference? Not much difference. Both were arguably against the rules but I could forgive Boris more than Sir Starmer. Downing St event was outside where, anyone with just a passing acquaintance with respiratory virus transmission knows, a much lesser risk exists. All the Labour transgressions seem to be indoors (Corbyn at a table of more than 6) as do the SNP misdemeanours - female member Margaret Ferrier knowingly positive on a train from Glasgow to London. Nicola Sturgeon's sister was criticised for flouting face mask rules on a train, claiming that she only did it because she was eating a sandwich. One might reasonably assume she's SNP. Gill Sturgeon posted a picture of herself without a mask on a train on social media. Dr Catherine Calderwood, Scotland's chief medical officer, resigned in April last year after twice breaking lockdown restrictions in order to visit her second home, which was located more than an hour away from her main residence in Edinburgh. Yet still Nicola Sturgeon strides on to the stage with her 'my party is holier than thou' approach. As they say, politicians of all colours...... Boris letting people drink while at work would any other employers let people drink at work "Yes. By allowing alcohol at work, employers show employees that they trust them to consume responsibly. And a trusted employee is a happier and more productive employee. Many employers also report greater bonding experiences over a celebratory beer or glass of wine. If your industry is one that competes for top talent, you’ll likely find that on-premises alcohol is seen not just as a perk, but an expectation. The practice has decreased since the 70s and 80s, but many companies still have an alcohol policy, such as only after 5pm or for retirement send offs, office Christmas party, a glass of wine and a mince pie before leaving on Christmas eve. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I should have expected Boris to resign if he had turned up positive at a gathering! But Ferrier has not resigned! Calderwood resigned because she knew she had done wrong. We are all waiting for Gray to report and in his defence, Boris thought this was a work event. That was her decision and initially Sturgeon defended her, so you have no idea whether she would have gone on to be fired. So they're not comparable. " hahaha seriously you are saying if defence of Boris he thought it was a work event? Yet people have come forward saying they warned him on the day that it was breaking the rules yet he dismissed them! I suppose maybe we should take him at his word as he is known for his honesty and integrity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did Really ? He was working with colleagues in an office and took a lunch break in the same office with the same colleagues he had been working with all day then returned to work .He did not leave the office he simply took a lunch break in the office, there was no invitation sent out to attend the building whilst bringing refreshments. Starter's 'event' was in an office. Boris's was in a garden. Difference? Not much difference. Both were arguably against the rules but I could forgive Boris more than Sir Starmer. Downing St event was outside where, anyone with just a passing acquaintance with respiratory virus transmission knows, a much lesser risk exists. All the Labour transgressions seem to be indoors (Corbyn at a table of more than 6) as do the SNP misdemeanours - female member Margaret Ferrier knowingly positive on a train from Glasgow to London. Nicola Sturgeon's sister was criticised for flouting face mask rules on a train, claiming that she only did it because she was eating a sandwich. One might reasonably assume she's SNP. Gill Sturgeon posted a picture of herself without a mask on a train on social media. Dr Catherine Calderwood, Scotland's chief medical officer, resigned in April last year after twice breaking lockdown restrictions in order to visit her second home, which was located more than an hour away from her main residence in Edinburgh. Yet still Nicola Sturgeon strides on to the stage with her 'my party is holier than thou' approach. As they say, politicians of all colours...... Boris letting people drink while at work would any other employers let people drink at work
Yes. By allowing alcohol at work, employers show employees that they trust them to consume responsibly. And a trusted employee is a happier and more productive employee. Many employers also report greater bonding experiences over a celebratory beer or glass of wine. If your industry is one that competes for top talent, you’ll likely find that on-premises alcohol is seen not just as a perk, but an expectation. The practice has decreased since the 70s and 80s, but many companies still have an alcohol policy, such as only after 5pm or for retirement send offs, office Christmas party, a glass of wine and a mince pie before leaving on Christmas eve. "Do you copy and paste all your opinions from American websites and pass them off as your own, or just that one? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I should have expected Boris to resign if he had turned up positive at a gathering! But Ferrier has not resigned! Calderwood resigned because she knew she had done wrong. We are all waiting for Gray to report and in his defence, Boris thought this was a work event. That was her decision and initially Sturgeon defended her, so you have no idea whether she would have gone on to be fired. So they're not comparable. hahaha seriously you are saying if defence of Boris he thought it was a work event? Yet people have come forward saying they warned him on the day that it was breaking the rules yet he dismissed them! I suppose maybe we should take him at his word as he is known for his honesty and integrity " Dominic Cummings has come forward. Hardly a paragon of virtue. Or maybe you think we should take him at his word as he is known for his honesty and integrity! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think innocent until proven guilty and wait for the Gray Inquiry. That's fair surely? " she is a Tory civil servant and I doubt she will be over critical of her boss and I take it someone else will be made the sacrificial lamb. I can’t see her being impartial and Boris chose her to conduct the report knowing full well she will tow the line and sugar coat anything that will be harmful to BJ. It’s got a bad smell about it already as he keeps saying wait for the outcome of her report. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I should have expected Boris to resign if he had turned up positive at a gathering! But Ferrier has not resigned! Calderwood resigned because she knew she had done wrong. We are all waiting for Gray to report and in his defence, Boris thought this was a work event. That was her decision and initially Sturgeon defended her, so you have no idea whether she would have gone on to be fired. So they're not comparable. hahaha seriously you are saying if defence of Boris he thought it was a work event? Yet people have come forward saying they warned him on the day that it was breaking the rules yet he dismissed them! I suppose maybe we should take him at his word as he is known for his honesty and integrity Dominic Cummings has come forward. Hardly a paragon of virtue. Or maybe you think we should take him at his word as he is known for his honesty and integrity! " I believe there are others that were in the conversation that day or are they all liars and BJ is the only one telling the truth! Cummings is a bitter man for sure but a clever one too and he won’t be making that accusation without any backing or corroboration | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think innocent until proven guilty and wait for the Gray Inquiry. That's fair surely? she is a Tory civil servant and I doubt she will be over critical of her boss and I take it someone else will be made the sacrificial lamb. I can’t see her being impartial and Boris chose her to conduct the report knowing full well she will tow the line and sugar coat anything that will be harmful to BJ. It’s got a bad smell about it already as he keeps saying wait for the outcome of her report. " I think that's very unfair and pre judging the Gray Inquiry. As a civil servant she will be impartial. The pure facts alone could prove deeply damaging, and how she sets them out, and the language she uses, may indicate her view on the seriousness of what has happened and the wider culture that allowed it to happen. But we only have to wait a few days. That has to be the right way,rather than kangaroo courts and trial by Daily Mirror. I would expect the same fairness to Sir Starmer when he is investigated, as he should be, for indoor beer quaffing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I should have expected Boris to resign if he had turned up positive at a gathering! But Ferrier has not resigned! Calderwood resigned because she knew she had done wrong. We are all waiting for Gray to report and in his defence, Boris thought this was a work event. That was her decision and initially Sturgeon defended her, so you have no idea whether she would have gone on to be fired. So they're not comparable. hahaha seriously you are saying if defence of Boris he thought it was a work event? Yet people have come forward saying they warned him on the day that it was breaking the rules yet he dismissed them! I suppose maybe we should take him at his word as he is known for his honesty and integrity Dominic Cummings has come forward. Hardly a paragon of virtue. Or maybe you think we should take him at his word as he is known for his honesty and integrity! I believe there are others that were in the conversation that day or are they all liars and BJ is the only one telling the truth! Cummings is a bitter man for sure but a clever one too and he won’t be making that accusation without any backing or corroboration " Who are the others? Allies of Cummings? What leads you to believe there are others anyway? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I should have expected Boris to resign if he had turned up positive at a gathering! But Ferrier has not resigned! Calderwood resigned because she knew she had done wrong. We are all waiting for Gray to report and in his defence, Boris thought this was a work event. That was her decision and initially Sturgeon defended her, so you have no idea whether she would have gone on to be fired. So they're not comparable. hahaha seriously you are saying if defence of Boris he thought it was a work event? Yet people have come forward saying they warned him on the day that it was breaking the rules yet he dismissed them! I suppose maybe we should take him at his word as he is known for his honesty and integrity Dominic Cummings has come forward. Hardly a paragon of virtue. Or maybe you think we should take him at his word as he is known for his honesty and integrity! " Lots of Con MP's and the PM vouched for Cummings honesty and integrity over Barnard Castle. Does that mean they were wrong then or now? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think innocent until proven guilty and wait for the Gray Inquiry. That's fair surely? " Is it really going to be impartial? She answers to the PM. She is between a rock and a hard place, i she finds against him it probably won't go down well with the PM, if she finds for him it probably won't go down well with the public who know what the description of a party is | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. The events were equivalent. The fact that time has passed doesn't mean that both weren't wrong. They were and the wriggling by Starmer supporters only shows them up I’m not a Starmer supporter. But regardless, a socially distanced meal after a meeting compliant with contemporary regulation is not equivalent to a series of non-compliant d*unken parties - unless you don’t understand what the word equivalent means. How can you possibly know if the degree of d*unkenness was greater at one party or another? And would the attendant guilt depend on that? Why? The irony is rich in Starmer calling for ever-tougher restrictions and then ignoring existing rules. Apart from the fact that this work meeting was originally reported (by the current deputy editor of the Sun, who was at d*unken Tory garden party!) 8 months ago, and no evidence between now and then has emerged to counter the facts, you mean? Starmer claimed to have d*unk one beer, as pictured. And the ‘level of d*unkenness’ is immaterial - even if Boris’ Boozy Bash had been teetotal, it would still have been in breach of the regulations his own government had introduced into law. Amazing the lengths you will go to try to excuse blatant criminality and hypocrisy!
I'm afraid it was you that raised the issue of d*unkenness... you said that Starmers party didn't compare to Boris's 'd*unken' party.
Of course d*unkenness or sobriety doesn't matter...but you said it did when it came to Boris's party.
Desperate stuff!
Yes, Starmer's party was eight months ago. But so was Boris's.
Starter is trying to pass it off as work colleagues (as were the people at Boris's party). But do you believe that?
Members of the public were almost certainly there at Starmer's party...so not 'work colleagues' having essential sustenance at all."
Adrian, you can keep trying to excuse this until the cows come home, but as usual your ‘interpretation’ of events only has the remotest connection to any sense if you ignore the known facts of the matter and make up alternative ones in their place.
I wonder why you’re always so keen to leap to the defence of proven liars and criminals. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think innocent until proven guilty and wait for the Gray Inquiry. That's fair surely? Is it really going to be impartial? She answers to the PM. She is between a rock and a hard place, i she finds against him it probably won't go down well with the PM, if she finds for him it probably won't go down well with the public who know what the description of a party is" If I was a betting man I would predict the report to be an explanation of the rules to fit the circumstance and location of the party. It is a residence and an office, it is an outdoor space and a working space. Family were together and working staff were together in their working bubbles. Each bubble social distanced and remained in the bubbles. Throw in the staff that were woking as maintenance, cleaning and security who were also there in a bubble and you can see the numbers were very low for the 5 minutes the bubbles were outdoors. Nothing to see here please move on, did it work? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think innocent until proven guilty and wait for the Gray Inquiry. That's fair surely? Is it really going to be impartial? She answers to the PM. She is between a rock and a hard place, i she finds against him it probably won't go down well with the PM, if she finds for him it probably won't go down well with the public who know what the description of a party is If I was a betting man I would predict the report to be an explanation of the rules to fit the circumstance and location of the party. It is a residence and an office, it is an outdoor space and a working space. Family were together and working staff were together in their working bubbles. Each bubble social distanced and remained in the bubbles. Throw in the staff that were woking as maintenance, cleaning and security who were also there in a bubble and you can see the numbers were very low for the 5 minutes the bubbles were outdoors. Nothing to see here please move on, did it work? " I think you would easily win that bet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. The events were equivalent. The fact that time has passed doesn't mean that both weren't wrong. They were and the wriggling by Starmer supporters only shows them up I’m not a Starmer supporter. But regardless, a socially distanced meal after a meeting compliant with contemporary regulation is not equivalent to a series of non-compliant d*unken parties - unless you don’t understand what the word equivalent means. How can you possibly know if the degree of d*unkenness was greater at one party or another? And would the attendant guilt depend on that? Why? The irony is rich in Starmer calling for ever-tougher restrictions and then ignoring existing rules. Apart from the fact that this work meeting was originally reported (by the current deputy editor of the Sun, who was at d*unken Tory garden party!) 8 months ago, and no evidence between now and then has emerged to counter the facts, you mean? Starmer claimed to have d*unk one beer, as pictured. And the ‘level of d*unkenness’ is immaterial - even if Boris’ Boozy Bash had been teetotal, it would still have been in breach of the regulations his own government had introduced into law. Amazing the lengths you will go to try to excuse blatant criminality and hypocrisy!
I'm afraid it was you that raised the issue of d*unkenness... you said that Starmers party didn't compare to Boris's 'd*unken' party.
Of course d*unkenness or sobriety doesn't matter...but you said it did when it came to Boris's party.
Desperate stuff!
Yes, Starmer's party was eight months ago. But so was Boris's.
Starter is trying to pass it off as work colleagues (as were the people at Boris's party). But do you believe that?
Members of the public were almost certainly there at Starmer's party...so not 'work colleagues' having essential sustenance at all.
Adrian, you can keep trying to excuse this until the cows come home, but as usual your ‘interpretation’ of events only has the remotest connection to any sense if you ignore the known facts of the matter and make up alternative ones in their place.
I wonder why you’re always so keen to leap to the defence of proven liars and criminals."Steady on. You're the person who, on another thread, said the EU parliament makes laws. It doesn't... it's there to give the illusion of democracy. And you're the clever one | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. The events were equivalent. The fact that time has passed doesn't mean that both weren't wrong. They were and the wriggling by Starmer supporters only shows them up I’m not a Starmer supporter. But regardless, a socially distanced meal after a meeting compliant with contemporary regulation is not equivalent to a series of non-compliant d*unken parties - unless you don’t understand what the word equivalent means. How can you possibly know if the degree of d*unkenness was greater at one party or another? And would the attendant guilt depend on that? Why? The irony is rich in Starmer calling for ever-tougher restrictions and then ignoring existing rules. Apart from the fact that this work meeting was originally reported (by the current deputy editor of the Sun, who was at d*unken Tory garden party!) 8 months ago, and no evidence between now and then has emerged to counter the facts, you mean? Starmer claimed to have d*unk one beer, as pictured. And the ‘level of d*unkenness’ is immaterial - even if Boris’ Boozy Bash had been teetotal, it would still have been in breach of the regulations his own government had introduced into law. Amazing the lengths you will go to try to excuse blatant criminality and hypocrisy!
I'm afraid it was you that raised the issue of d*unkenness... you said that Starmers party didn't compare to Boris's 'd*unken' party.
Of course d*unkenness or sobriety doesn't matter...but you said it did when it came to Boris's party.
Desperate stuff!
Yes, Starmer's party was eight months ago. But so was Boris's.
Starter is trying to pass it off as work colleagues (as were the people at Boris's party). But do you believe that?
Members of the public were almost certainly there at Starmer's party...so not 'work colleagues' having essential sustenance at all.
Adrian, you can keep trying to excuse this until the cows come home, but as usual your ‘interpretation’ of events only has the remotest connection to any sense if you ignore the known facts of the matter and make up alternative ones in their place.
I wonder why you’re always so keen to leap to the defence of proven liars and criminals.
Steady on. You're the person who, on another thread, said the EU parliament makes laws. It doesn't... it's there to give the illusion of democracy.
And you're the clever one "Everything you write here just boils down to the same thing - a desperation to defend proven liars and criminals, in the face of all evidence. An extremely charitable person might even attribute it to buyer’s remorse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. The events were equivalent. The fact that time has passed doesn't mean that both weren't wrong. They were and the wriggling by Starmer supporters only shows them up I’m not a Starmer supporter. But regardless, a socially distanced meal after a meeting compliant with contemporary regulation is not equivalent to a series of non-compliant d*unken parties - unless you don’t understand what the word equivalent means. How can you possibly know if the degree of d*unkenness was greater at one party or another? And would the attendant guilt depend on that? Why? The irony is rich in Starmer calling for ever-tougher restrictions and then ignoring existing rules. Apart from the fact that this work meeting was originally reported (by the current deputy editor of the Sun, who was at d*unken Tory garden party!) 8 months ago, and no evidence between now and then has emerged to counter the facts, you mean? Starmer claimed to have d*unk one beer, as pictured. And the ‘level of d*unkenness’ is immaterial - even if Boris’ Boozy Bash had been teetotal, it would still have been in breach of the regulations his own government had introduced into law. Amazing the lengths you will go to try to excuse blatant criminality and hypocrisy!
I'm afraid it was you that raised the issue of d*unkenness... you said that Starmers party didn't compare to Boris's 'd*unken' party.
Of course d*unkenness or sobriety doesn't matter...but you said it did when it came to Boris's party.
Desperate stuff!
Yes, Starmer's party was eight months ago. But so was Boris's.
Starter is trying to pass it off as work colleagues (as were the people at Boris's party). But do you believe that?
Members of the public were almost certainly there at Starmer's party...so not 'work colleagues' having essential sustenance at all.
Adrian, you can keep trying to excuse this until the cows come home, but as usual your ‘interpretation’ of events only has the remotest connection to any sense if you ignore the known facts of the matter and make up alternative ones in their place.
I wonder why you’re always so keen to leap to the defence of proven liars and criminals.
Steady on. You're the person who, on another thread, said the EU parliament makes laws. It doesn't... it's there to give the illusion of democracy.
And you're the clever one
Everything you write here just boils down to the same thing - a desperation to defend proven liars and criminals, in the face of all evidence.
An extremely charitable person might even attribute it to buyer’s remorse. "Can't stand people disagreeing with you, eh? Have you learned about how the EU works yet? Last time you were on you didn't have a clue and we're defending increased energy prices, house prices, rents...and lower wages. Well done! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. The events were equivalent. The fact that time has passed doesn't mean that both weren't wrong. They were and the wriggling by Starmer supporters only shows them up I’m not a Starmer supporter. But regardless, a socially distanced meal after a meeting compliant with contemporary regulation is not equivalent to a series of non-compliant d*unken parties - unless you don’t understand what the word equivalent means. How can you possibly know if the degree of d*unkenness was greater at one party or another? And would the attendant guilt depend on that? Why? The irony is rich in Starmer calling for ever-tougher restrictions and then ignoring existing rules. Apart from the fact that this work meeting was originally reported (by the current deputy editor of the Sun, who was at d*unken Tory garden party!) 8 months ago, and no evidence between now and then has emerged to counter the facts, you mean? Starmer claimed to have d*unk one beer, as pictured. And the ‘level of d*unkenness’ is immaterial - even if Boris’ Boozy Bash had been teetotal, it would still have been in breach of the regulations his own government had introduced into law. Amazing the lengths you will go to try to excuse blatant criminality and hypocrisy!
I'm afraid it was you that raised the issue of d*unkenness... you said that Starmers party didn't compare to Boris's 'd*unken' party.
Of course d*unkenness or sobriety doesn't matter...but you said it did when it came to Boris's party.
Desperate stuff!
Yes, Starmer's party was eight months ago. But so was Boris's.
Starter is trying to pass it off as work colleagues (as were the people at Boris's party). But do you believe that?
Members of the public were almost certainly there at Starmer's party...so not 'work colleagues' having essential sustenance at all.
Adrian, you can keep trying to excuse this until the cows come home, but as usual your ‘interpretation’ of events only has the remotest connection to any sense if you ignore the known facts of the matter and make up alternative ones in their place.
I wonder why you’re always so keen to leap to the defence of proven liars and criminals.
Steady on. You're the person who, on another thread, said the EU parliament makes laws. It doesn't... it's there to give the illusion of democracy.
And you're the clever one
Everything you write here just boils down to the same thing - a desperation to defend proven liars and criminals, in the face of all evidence.
An extremely charitable person might even attribute it to buyer’s remorse.
Can't stand people disagreeing with you, eh?
Have you learned about how the EU works yet? Last time you were on you didn't have a clue and we're defending increased energy prices, house prices, rents...and lower wages.
Well done!"Boys, boys, come on, act your age. Be nice to each other, little kisses and be friends. If not, no sweeties next time on the swings in the park. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. The events were equivalent. The fact that time has passed doesn't mean that both weren't wrong. They were and the wriggling by Starmer supporters only shows them up I’m not a Starmer supporter. But regardless, a socially distanced meal after a meeting compliant with contemporary regulation is not equivalent to a series of non-compliant d*unken parties - unless you don’t understand what the word equivalent means. How can you possibly know if the degree of d*unkenness was greater at one party or another? And would the attendant guilt depend on that? Why? The irony is rich in Starmer calling for ever-tougher restrictions and then ignoring existing rules. Apart from the fact that this work meeting was originally reported (by the current deputy editor of the Sun, who was at d*unken Tory garden party!) 8 months ago, and no evidence between now and then has emerged to counter the facts, you mean? Starmer claimed to have d*unk one beer, as pictured. And the ‘level of d*unkenness’ is immaterial - even if Boris’ Boozy Bash had been teetotal, it would still have been in breach of the regulations his own government had introduced into law. Amazing the lengths you will go to try to excuse blatant criminality and hypocrisy!
I'm afraid it was you that raised the issue of d*unkenness... you said that Starmers party didn't compare to Boris's 'd*unken' party.
Of course d*unkenness or sobriety doesn't matter...but you said it did when it came to Boris's party.
Desperate stuff!
Yes, Starmer's party was eight months ago. But so was Boris's.
Starter is trying to pass it off as work colleagues (as were the people at Boris's party). But do you believe that?
Members of the public were almost certainly there at Starmer's party...so not 'work colleagues' having essential sustenance at all.
Adrian, you can keep trying to excuse this until the cows come home, but as usual your ‘interpretation’ of events only has the remotest connection to any sense if you ignore the known facts of the matter and make up alternative ones in their place.
I wonder why you’re always so keen to leap to the defence of proven liars and criminals.
Steady on. You're the person who, on another thread, said the EU parliament makes laws. It doesn't... it's there to give the illusion of democracy.
And you're the clever one
Everything you write here just boils down to the same thing - a desperation to defend proven liars and criminals, in the face of all evidence.
An extremely charitable person might even attribute it to buyer’s remorse.
Can't stand people disagreeing with you, eh?
Have you learned about how the EU works yet? Last time you were on you didn't have a clue and we're defending increased energy prices, house prices, rents...and lower wages.
Well done!"That doesn’t sound right…you’ve been corrected countless times on your factual errors on multiple topics, so this sounds like more of the same. Any reason why you want to change the subject, though? An extremely charitable person might assume you were just embarrassed at having to defend liars and criminals! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. The events were equivalent. The fact that time has passed doesn't mean that both weren't wrong. They were and the wriggling by Starmer supporters only shows them up I’m not a Starmer supporter. But regardless, a socially distanced meal after a meeting compliant with contemporary regulation is not equivalent to a series of non-compliant d*unken parties - unless you don’t understand what the word equivalent means. How can you possibly know if the degree of d*unkenness was greater at one party or another? And would the attendant guilt depend on that? Why? The irony is rich in Starmer calling for ever-tougher restrictions and then ignoring existing rules. Apart from the fact that this work meeting was originally reported (by the current deputy editor of the Sun, who was at d*unken Tory garden party!) 8 months ago, and no evidence between now and then has emerged to counter the facts, you mean? Starmer claimed to have d*unk one beer, as pictured. And the ‘level of d*unkenness’ is immaterial - even if Boris’ Boozy Bash had been teetotal, it would still have been in breach of the regulations his own government had introduced into law. Amazing the lengths you will go to try to excuse blatant criminality and hypocrisy!
I'm afraid it was you that raised the issue of d*unkenness... you said that Starmers party didn't compare to Boris's 'd*unken' party.
Of course d*unkenness or sobriety doesn't matter...but you said it did when it came to Boris's party.
Desperate stuff!
Yes, Starmer's party was eight months ago. But so was Boris's.
Starter is trying to pass it off as work colleagues (as were the people at Boris's party). But do you believe that?
Members of the public were almost certainly there at Starmer's party...so not 'work colleagues' having essential sustenance at all.
Adrian, you can keep trying to excuse this until the cows come home, but as usual your ‘interpretation’ of events only has the remotest connection to any sense if you ignore the known facts of the matter and make up alternative ones in their place.
I wonder why you’re always so keen to leap to the defence of proven liars and criminals.
Steady on. You're the person who, on another thread, said the EU parliament makes laws. It doesn't... it's there to give the illusion of democracy.
And you're the clever one
Everything you write here just boils down to the same thing - a desperation to defend proven liars and criminals, in the face of all evidence.
An extremely charitable person might even attribute it to buyer’s remorse.
Can't stand people disagreeing with you, eh?
Have you learned about how the EU works yet? Last time you were on you didn't have a clue and we're defending increased energy prices, house prices, rents...and lower wages.
Well done!
That doesn’t sound right…you’ve been corrected countless times on your factual errors on multiple topics, so this sounds like more of the same.
Any reason why you want to change the subject, though? An extremely charitable person might assume you were just embarrassed at having to defend liars and criminals! "You've been corrected so many times on EU tariffs and their impact on prices, on wage rates, on house prices, on energy prices, on clothing prices, on flooding that it's difficult to keep track. And it turns out you don't even know how the EU works! Your politics colours everything you look at... even the Coronavirus | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Did anyone else notice Beth Rigby on any news having a go at Borris breaking covid rules casually forget that she was suspended from sky news for three months for doing the same thing. Then the sanctimonious Kay Burley was off air for six months for attending the same birthday celebration. Almost everyone had a skeleton in their closet if you look hard enough. For some it’s not that difficult! " Beth Rigby and Kay Burley are leading the country and making our laws now? Who knew! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. The events were equivalent. The fact that time has passed doesn't mean that both weren't wrong. They were and the wriggling by Starmer supporters only shows them up I’m not a Starmer supporter. But regardless, a socially distanced meal after a meeting compliant with contemporary regulation is not equivalent to a series of non-compliant d*unken parties - unless you don’t understand what the word equivalent means. How can you possibly know if the degree of d*unkenness was greater at one party or another? And would the attendant guilt depend on that? Why? The irony is rich in Starmer calling for ever-tougher restrictions and then ignoring existing rules. Apart from the fact that this work meeting was originally reported (by the current deputy editor of the Sun, who was at d*unken Tory garden party!) 8 months ago, and no evidence between now and then has emerged to counter the facts, you mean? Starmer claimed to have d*unk one beer, as pictured. And the ‘level of d*unkenness’ is immaterial - even if Boris’ Boozy Bash had been teetotal, it would still have been in breach of the regulations his own government had introduced into law. Amazing the lengths you will go to try to excuse blatant criminality and hypocrisy!
I'm afraid it was you that raised the issue of d*unkenness... you said that Starmers party didn't compare to Boris's 'd*unken' party.
Of course d*unkenness or sobriety doesn't matter...but you said it did when it came to Boris's party.
Desperate stuff!
Yes, Starmer's party was eight months ago. But so was Boris's.
Starter is trying to pass it off as work colleagues (as were the people at Boris's party). But do you believe that?
Members of the public were almost certainly there at Starmer's party...so not 'work colleagues' having essential sustenance at all.
Adrian, you can keep trying to excuse this until the cows come home, but as usual your ‘interpretation’ of events only has the remotest connection to any sense if you ignore the known facts of the matter and make up alternative ones in their place.
I wonder why you’re always so keen to leap to the defence of proven liars and criminals.
Steady on. You're the person who, on another thread, said the EU parliament makes laws. It doesn't... it's there to give the illusion of democracy.
And you're the clever one
Everything you write here just boils down to the same thing - a desperation to defend proven liars and criminals, in the face of all evidence.
An extremely charitable person might even attribute it to buyer’s remorse.
Can't stand people disagreeing with you, eh?
Have you learned about how the EU works yet? Last time you were on you didn't have a clue and we're defending increased energy prices, house prices, rents...and lower wages.
Well done!
That doesn’t sound right…you’ve been corrected countless times on your factual errors on multiple topics, so this sounds like more of the same.
Any reason why you want to change the subject, though? An extremely charitable person might assume you were just embarrassed at having to defend liars and criminals!
You've been corrected so many times on EU tariffs and their impact on prices, on wage rates, on house prices, on energy prices, on clothing prices, on flooding that it's difficult to keep track.
And it turns out you don't even know how the EU works!
Your politics colours everything you look at... even the Coronavirus"You defend liars and criminals. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer wasn’t at a party, they were having a meal after a campaign meeting, and were socially distanced. This is why they were compliant with regulations, and it got no traction eight months ago when it was originally spread around by the Sun, whose deputy editor was at Boris Johnson’s ‘bring your own booze’ garden parties, which were not compliant with regulations. But facts are just an inconvenience to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and the Conservative party. The events were equivalent. The fact that time has passed doesn't mean that both weren't wrong. They were and the wriggling by Starmer supporters only shows them up I’m not a Starmer supporter. But regardless, a socially distanced meal after a meeting compliant with contemporary regulation is not equivalent to a series of non-compliant d*unken parties - unless you don’t understand what the word equivalent means. How can you possibly know if the degree of d*unkenness was greater at one party or another? And would the attendant guilt depend on that? Why? The irony is rich in Starmer calling for ever-tougher restrictions and then ignoring existing rules. Apart from the fact that this work meeting was originally reported (by the current deputy editor of the Sun, who was at d*unken Tory garden party!) 8 months ago, and no evidence between now and then has emerged to counter the facts, you mean? Starmer claimed to have d*unk one beer, as pictured. And the ‘level of d*unkenness’ is immaterial - even if Boris’ Boozy Bash had been teetotal, it would still have been in breach of the regulations his own government had introduced into law. Amazing the lengths you will go to try to excuse blatant criminality and hypocrisy!
I'm afraid it was you that raised the issue of d*unkenness... you said that Starmers party didn't compare to Boris's 'd*unken' party.
Of course d*unkenness or sobriety doesn't matter...but you said it did when it came to Boris's party.
Desperate stuff!
Yes, Starmer's party was eight months ago. But so was Boris's.
Starter is trying to pass it off as work colleagues (as were the people at Boris's party). But do you believe that?
Members of the public were almost certainly there at Starmer's party...so not 'work colleagues' having essential sustenance at all.
Adrian, you can keep trying to excuse this until the cows come home, but as usual your ‘interpretation’ of events only has the remotest connection to any sense if you ignore the known facts of the matter and make up alternative ones in their place.
I wonder why you’re always so keen to leap to the defence of proven liars and criminals.
Steady on. You're the person who, on another thread, said the EU parliament makes laws. It doesn't... it's there to give the illusion of democracy.
And you're the clever one
Everything you write here just boils down to the same thing - a desperation to defend proven liars and criminals, in the face of all evidence.
An extremely charitable person might even attribute it to buyer’s remorse.
Can't stand people disagreeing with you, eh?
Have you learned about how the EU works yet? Last time you were on you didn't have a clue and we're defending increased energy prices, house prices, rents...and lower wages.
Well done!
That doesn’t sound right…you’ve been corrected countless times on your factual errors on multiple topics, so this sounds like more of the same.
Any reason why you want to change the subject, though? An extremely charitable person might assume you were just embarrassed at having to defend liars and criminals!
You've been corrected so many times on EU tariffs and their impact on prices, on wage rates, on house prices, on energy prices, on clothing prices, on flooding that it's difficult to keep track.
And it turns out you don't even know how the EU works!
Your politics colours everything you look at... even the Coronavirus
You defend liars and criminals. "Oh dear, . In what way? Read the thread... you'll see I'm attacking politicians of all parties who urged restrictions on we plebs while ignoring them for themselves. Open your mind | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Did anyone else notice Beth Rigby on any news having a go at Borris breaking covid rules casually forget that she was suspended from sky news for three months for doing the same thing. Then the sanctimonious Kay Burley was off air for six months for attending the same birthday celebration. Almost everyone had a skeleton in their closet if you look hard enough. For some it’s not that difficult! Beth Rigby and Kay Burley are leading the country and making our laws now? Who knew! "It’s just interesting to remember as they like to portray themselves as squeaky clean as they attempt to hold politicians to account. Bit tricky to do if you’ve made similar mistakes yourself. I agree though that they don’t make the rules. They just have to follow them, the same as eve one else in the country. Borris himself really should have known better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did" And that is how people who shill for boris wants us to believe It’s a bit like saying there is no difference between nicking a pen from the office and stealing a car!!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did And that is how people who shill for boris wants us to believe It’s a bit like saying there is no difference between nicking a pen from the office and stealing a car!!!!" What is the difference in terms of rule-breaking? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did And that is how people who shill for boris wants us to believe It’s a bit like saying there is no difference between nicking a pen from the office and stealing a car!!!! What is the difference in terms of rule-breaking?" Very little. I think the initial Police 'investigation' into Keir-on-the-beer was cursory, much as it was for Neil Kinnock, another Labour bigwig (leader in the 80s/early 90s), who encouraged his son (Stephen Kinnock Lab MP) to his birthday party against 'essential travel' rules. It may come as no surprise to anyone that the Police are reopening the investigation into Starmer after a complaint that the law is not being applied consistently. And in another blow to Labour, a spokesman had to admit it had lied about the event. In a sensational U-turn, Labour acknowledged that Angela Rayner was also at the event on April 30 last year at which Sir Keir was filmed necking beer with officials at a time when indoor socialising was banned. what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander........ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May appears to have been a busy period for partying. Immediately after Keir Starmer called for Boris to resign, film footage emerged of Starmer and Labour staff eating and drinking beer in a Labour office. You couldn't make it up!" No real shock there.. we are just shit on the shoe of these politicians, do as we say and we (politicians) will do what we want plebs. Fxxk the lot of them!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May appears to have been a busy period for partying. Immediately after Keir Starmer called for Boris to resign, film footage emerged of Starmer and Labour staff eating and drinking beer in a Labour office. You couldn't make it up!" It hasn't just emerged its been there since Xmas obviously not long after it occurred its just the BBC chose to ignore the fact and chase after Boris There's also Rayner gate another meet up with pals during lock down another gathering the BBC chose to ignore!! So whilst labour were spouting off they'd done the same  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think innocent until proven guilty and wait for the Gray Inquiry. That's fair surely? Is it really going to be impartial? She answers to the PM. She is between a rock and a hard place, i she finds against him it probably won't go down well with the PM, if she finds for him it probably won't go down well with the public who know what the description of a party is If I was a betting man I would predict the report to be an explanation of the rules to fit the circumstance and location of the party. It is a residence and an office, it is an outdoor space and a working space. Family were together and working staff were together in their working bubbles. Each bubble social distanced and remained in the bubbles. Throw in the staff that were woking as maintenance, cleaning and security who were also there in a bubble and you can see the numbers were very low for the 5 minutes the bubbles were outdoors. Nothing to see here please move on, did it work? " SPOT ON.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May appears to have been a busy period for partying. Immediately after Keir Starmer called for Boris to resign, film footage emerged of Starmer and Labour staff eating and drinking beer in a Labour office. You couldn't make it up!" eating and drinking beer in an office ? Socialising and enjoying themselves? OMG ; what has the world come to? Think how many people that were infected and killed by this reckless behaviour. Let’s just stay muzzled up indoors forever because we just can’t risk being exposed to these type of persons | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They're politicians and on the front bench. Different flavours but all scrabbling up the greasy pole for power. I couldn't think of a worse job, I would have been sacked within a month. "I think any of us on here who had any political aspirations would soon find ourselves in a tabloid expose! Unless we owned it and started our own political party based on sexual freedom! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did And that is how people who shill for boris wants us to believe It’s a bit like saying there is no difference between nicking a pen from the office and stealing a car!!!! What is the difference in terms of rule-breaking? Very little. I think the initial Police 'investigation' into Keir-on-the-beer was cursory, much as it was for Neil Kinnock, another Labour bigwig (leader in the 80s/early 90s), who encouraged his son (Stephen Kinnock Lab MP) to his birthday party against 'essential travel' rules. " I am not defending anyone if they broke rules but was this a different time than the one in the first lock down when he drove to his fathers home and sat at the end of the front garden to wish him Happy Birthday? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whoever broke rules should have been fined, like lots of people did and people will look stupid if they shouted for other people to be fined when they were doing it too. However, it is totally different if Joe bloggs was fined to the man making those rules and telling us all to stick to them. If people are not seeing that or not admitting to that then they have blinkers on" I do remember the uproar when police started to fine rule breakers, and the disbelief that liberties were being taken away. A memorable one was the guy who refused to follow guidelines and was drinking in the street, going to the shops for more alcohol. The 2 women who travelled to a beauty spot with a coffee. They were breaking the rules / law but it was okay to do that in the eyes of the general public. However when it is a politician or someone in the public eye, those sympathies soon turn the other way. I'm not saying they shouldn't be fined and dealt with, but we we shouldn't be getting to a place that it is okay for person A but we decide it is not for person B | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets move on and sort the current major problems, the whole thing is very sad for those who lost loved ones during the crisis. Politicians are human beings of some sort and have largely never been entirely trust worthy. the election is the time to sort it, in the meantime let them get on and do some work instead of wasting most of the time with pathetic back stabbing, let him who is with out blame cast the first stone. " A politician being found guilty of a criminal offence while in office - the Prime Minister, no less - is a major problem. By paying the fixed penalty notice, at law Johnson has admitted that he committed the offence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whoever broke rules should have been fined, like lots of people did and people will look stupid if they shouted for other people to be fined when they were doing it too. However, it is totally different if Joe bloggs was fined to the man making those rules and telling us all to stick to them. If people are not seeing that or not admitting to that then they have blinkers on I do remember the uproar when police started to fine rule breakers, and the disbelief that liberties were being taken away. A memorable one was the guy who refused to follow guidelines and was drinking in the street, going to the shops for more alcohol. The 2 women who travelled to a beauty spot with a coffee. They were breaking the rules / law but it was okay to do that in the eyes of the general public. However when it is a politician or someone in the public eye, those sympathies soon turn the other way. I'm not saying they shouldn't be fined and dealt with, but we we shouldn't be getting to a place that it is okay for person A but we decide it is not for person B " There's another one this morning from last year when a guy drove to look at the snow and ended up landed his car on the roof. I lost my mum to this but id rather the police and politicians moved on and started leading us out of the shit we are in than keep going backwards. The hypocrisy is breathtaking and of the tories don't realise that if they step on a crack in the pavement the media will hang them they are truly dim, but if the worst thing they've done is have a few beers and possibly infect eachother I really can't give a stuff. Fine them, treat them as anyone else who breached the rules at the time (most were let off) and if they've lied to police or parliament sack them, but please move on. There are much bigger issues that are being distracted from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets move on and sort the current major problems, the whole thing is very sad for those who lost loved ones during the crisis. Politicians are human beings of some sort and have largely never been entirely trust worthy. the election is the time to sort it, in the meantime let them get on and do some work instead of wasting most of the time with pathetic back stabbing, let him who is with out blame cast the first stone. A politician being found guilty of a criminal offence while in office - the Prime Minister, no less - is a major problem. By paying the fixed penalty notice, at law Johnson has admitted that he committed the offence." Would this spill over to speeding fines, parking fines? They are the same fixed penalty notices | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whoever broke rules should have been fined, like lots of people did and people will look stupid if they shouted for other people to be fined when they were doing it too. However, it is totally different if Joe bloggs was fined to the man making those rules and telling us all to stick to them. If people are not seeing that or not admitting to that then they have blinkers on I do remember the uproar when police started to fine rule breakers, and the disbelief that liberties were being taken away. A memorable one was the guy who refused to follow guidelines and was drinking in the street, going to the shops for more alcohol. The 2 women who travelled to a beauty spot with a coffee. They were breaking the rules / law but it was okay to do that in the eyes of the general public. However when it is a politician or someone in the public eye, those sympathies soon turn the other way. I'm not saying they shouldn't be fined and dealt with, but we we shouldn't be getting to a place that it is okay for person A but we decide it is not for person B There's another one this morning from last year when a guy drove to look at the snow and ended up landed his car on the roof. I lost my mum to this but id rather the police and politicians moved on and started leading us out of the shit we are in than keep going backwards. The hypocrisy is breathtaking and of the tories don't realise that if they step on a crack in the pavement the media will hang them they are truly dim, but if the worst thing they've done is have a few beers and possibly infect eachother I really can't give a stuff. Fine them, treat them as anyone else who breached the rules at the time (most were let off) and if they've lied to police or parliament sack them, but please move on. There are much bigger issues that are being distracted from. " I agree completely. The constant attacks to bring down Boris and the government, is a mirror image of Trump. We know all that managed to do was stoke up more support for him and deflect the real issues away. Time to put this to bed and concentrate on what the hell this government is going to do to help us out of the crisis we are in now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets move on and sort the current major problems, the whole thing is very sad for those who lost loved ones during the crisis. Politicians are human beings of some sort and have largely never been entirely trust worthy. the election is the time to sort it, in the meantime let them get on and do some work instead of wasting most of the time with pathetic back stabbing, let him who is with out blame cast the first stone. A politician being found guilty of a criminal offence while in office - the Prime Minister, no less - is a major problem. By paying the fixed penalty notice, at law Johnson has admitted that he committed the offence. Would this spill over to speeding fines, parking fines? They are the same fixed penalty notices" Parking probably not, speeding depends on the severity. In this case look at what we were all asked to do and how blatantly and flagrantly it was violated. And then the repeated lying to parliament. How would have any of us been treated if we'd broken the law with the resources and venue of our employer, lied about it to the media, lied about it to the governing body of our business, etc? A bit worse than what's happening to these clowns, maybe... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whoever broke rules should have been fined, like lots of people did and people will look stupid if they shouted for other people to be fined when they were doing it too. However, it is totally different if Joe bloggs was fined to the man making those rules and telling us all to stick to them. If people are not seeing that or not admitting to that then they have blinkers on I do remember the uproar when police started to fine rule breakers, and the disbelief that liberties were being taken away. A memorable one was the guy who refused to follow guidelines and was drinking in the street, going to the shops for more alcohol. The 2 women who travelled to a beauty spot with a coffee. They were breaking the rules / law but it was okay to do that in the eyes of the general public. However when it is a politician or someone in the public eye, those sympathies soon turn the other way. I'm not saying they shouldn't be fined and dealt with, but we we shouldn't be getting to a place that it is okay for person A but we decide it is not for person B There's another one this morning from last year when a guy drove to look at the snow and ended up landed his car on the roof. I lost my mum to this but id rather the police and politicians moved on and started leading us out of the shit we are in than keep going backwards. The hypocrisy is breathtaking and of the tories don't realise that if they step on a crack in the pavement the media will hang them they are truly dim, but if the worst thing they've done is have a few beers and possibly infect eachother I really can't give a stuff. Fine them, treat them as anyone else who breached the rules at the time (most were let off) and if they've lied to police or parliament sack them, but please move on. There are much bigger issues that are being distracted from. I agree completely. The constant attacks to bring down Boris and the government, is a mirror image of Trump. We know all that managed to do was stoke up more support for him and deflect the real issues away. Time to put this to bed and concentrate on what the hell this government is going to do to help us out of the crisis we are in now." Thankfully, a complex system is able to focus on and do more than 1 thing at a time. Heinous behaviour by senior government servants should not be ignored, however much they have kicked the can down the road, as the main agonists of creating this having been belatedly dealt with. As PM, he made the laws and was responsible for millions of people, their health and behaviour. He has 24/7 police companions, who could have readily clarified the law for him, if he'd bothered to ask and was ignorant. He repeatedly attended social functions when the public were adhering to strict restrictions. He was grossly abusive to his position and the trust the public invested in him. Likewise, he abused his position in Parliament, attempting to deceive and evade responsibilities. Such abhorrent abuses of power and privileges should not be ignored, because he managed to use delay tactics, to pull the wool over people's eyes, taking no responsibility whatsoever. And in the toughest times, the country deserves a competent, trustworthy, honest leader. Covid hasn't disappeared, it's merely in a transitional phase. We may need further government trustworthy management of it, alongside troubling economic issues and Russian inflicted damage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets move on and sort the current major problems, the whole thing is very sad for those who lost loved ones during the crisis. Politicians are human beings of some sort and have largely never been entirely trust worthy. the election is the time to sort it, in the meantime let them get on and do some work instead of wasting most of the time with pathetic back stabbing, let him who is with out blame cast the first stone. A politician being found guilty of a criminal offence while in office - the Prime Minister, no less - is a major problem. By paying the fixed penalty notice, at law Johnson has admitted that he committed the offence. Would this spill over to speeding fines, parking fines? They are the same fixed penalty notices Parking probably not, speeding depends on the severity. In this case look at what we were all asked to do and how blatantly and flagrantly it was violated. And then the repeated lying to parliament. How would have any of us been treated if we'd broken the law with the resources and venue of our employer, lied about it to the media, lied about it to the governing body of our business, etc? A bit worse than what's happening to these clowns, maybe..." Everyone should face the same consequences. If a person was having a party in their back garden they should get a fixed penalty notice, same as no 10. Plenty of people flouted the law and got a way with it, others didn't. The media are making a song and dance out of partygate, but it is not doing anything other than stoke up support for and resentment against. I mentioned above it mirrors the media attacks on Trump, that is why I think a line needs to be drawn under this, as it didn't damage Trump, only the public. Boris's time will end, he has served his purpose, the Red wall north wont vote for him again. If we let storms in teacups take centre stage, his incompetence on the real issues will never surface and he will last the term. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was never about controlling the spread it was about controlling the public and seeing what freedoms they can take before we say stop" Our freedoms have been returned to us and no-one said stop. Sooooooooooo.......? Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets move on and sort the current major problems, the whole thing is very sad for those who lost loved ones during the crisis. Politicians are human beings of some sort and have largely never been entirely trust worthy. the election is the time to sort it, in the meantime let them get on and do some work instead of wasting most of the time with pathetic back stabbing, let him who is with out blame cast the first stone. A politician being found guilty of a criminal offence while in office - the Prime Minister, no less - is a major problem. By paying the fixed penalty notice, at law Johnson has admitted that he committed the offence. Would this spill over to speeding fines, parking fines? They are the same fixed penalty notices Parking probably not, speeding depends on the severity. In this case look at what we were all asked to do and how blatantly and flagrantly it was violated. And then the repeated lying to parliament. How would have any of us been treated if we'd broken the law with the resources and venue of our employer, lied about it to the media, lied about it to the governing body of our business, etc? A bit worse than what's happening to these clowns, maybe... Everyone should face the same consequences. If a person was having a party in their back garden they should get a fixed penalty notice, same as no 10. Plenty of people flouted the law and got a way with it, others didn't. The media are making a song and dance out of partygate, but it is not doing anything other than stoke up support for and resentment against. I mentioned above it mirrors the media attacks on Trump, that is why I think a line needs to be drawn under this, as it didn't damage Trump, only the public. Boris's time will end, he has served his purpose, the Red wall north wont vote for him again. If we let storms in teacups take centre stage, his incompetence on the real issues will never surface and he will last the term. " I personally think protecting the rule of law is of utmost importance. And I'm capable of focusing on more than one problem at once | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was never about controlling the spread it was about controlling the public and seeing what freedoms they can take before we say stop Our freedoms have been returned to us and no-one said stop. Sooooooooooo.......? Winston" Returned due to getting caught out, otherwise we would still be sacrificing children a education to protect well nobody as it’s been shown that care homes were made worse, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People are able to focus on many things at a time. Not sure why that's even an issue. Nobody's suggesting anyone gets away with anything. Whether it be sturgeon or starmer or Johnson or anyone else... They have broken the rules... As did many others. We have finite resources. They therefore need to be prioritised. I'd rather the police spent their time on investigating real crimes than those that click bait. Fortunately we can have a debate and have different opinions. This government (and its opposition} have been a shambles. Let's not give them more excuses for not focusing on real problems that effect people today. " Yeah, let's not waste police resources to hold people in power accountable, exactly those people who make policies, make the laws and who are supposed to set an example for the rest of the country. But let's keep fining people like Joe Blogg, who have no previous criminal record (while the people running our country have spotless records  ) because they broke restrictions to keep working as a barber "under cover" in order to keep a roof over his family's heads, or Jane Doe, who broke the 5km rule to go for a socially distanced walk with her friends who live miles away because she was fading with loneliness.
Let's never worry that these people in power get away with the likes of tax evasion, tax avoidance, bagging brown paper envelopes, dishing out contracts to family members and friends, rather than those who are actually experts in a certain business with a competitive offer - not once, not twice but time and time and time again!
I can go on but it's futile and sure where would that end? With those in power behind bars and non compliant plebs running the country .
Because you know, maybe, just maybe - if someone actually made a few really serious examples of those in power with hefty, unaffordable fines and actual prison sentences for those who keep getting away with murder, there'd be a little more respect given to the offices held - knowing that you WILL be held accountable and that there are hefty consequences - JUST LIKE FOR THE REST OF US. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was never about controlling the spread it was about controlling the public and seeing what freedoms they can take before we say stop Our freedoms have been returned to us and no-one said stop. Sooooooooooo.......? Winston Returned due to getting caught out, otherwise we would still be sacrificing children a education to protect well nobody as it’s been shown that care homes were made worse," Caught out how? Winston | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People are able to focus on many things at a time. Not sure why that's even an issue. Nobody's suggesting anyone gets away with anything. Whether it be sturgeon or starmer or Johnson or anyone else... They have broken the rules... As did many others. We have finite resources. They therefore need to be prioritised. I'd rather the police spent their time on investigating real crimes than those that click bait. Fortunately we can have a debate and have different opinions. This government (and its opposition} have been a shambles. Let's not give them more excuses for not focusing on real problems that effect people today. Yeah, let's not waste police resources to hold people in power accountable, exactly those people who make policies, make the laws and who are supposed to set an example for the rest of the country. But let's keep fining people like Joe Blogg, who have no previous criminal record (while the people running our country have spotless records ) because they broke restrictions to keep working as a barber "under cover" in order to keep a roof over his family's heads, or Jane Doe, who broke the 5km rule to go for a socially distanced walk with her friends who live miles away because she was fading with loneliness.
Let's never worry that these people in power get away with the likes of tax evasion, tax avoidance, bagging brown paper envelopes, dishing out contracts to family members and friends, rather than those who are actually experts in a certain business with a competitive offer - not once, not twice but time and time and time again!
I can go on but it's futile and sure where would that end? With those in power behind bars and non compliant plebs running the country .
Because you know, maybe, just maybe - if someone actually made a few really serious examples of those in power with hefty, unaffordable fines and actual prison sentences for those who keep getting away with murder, there'd be a little more respect given to the offices held - knowing that you WILL be held accountable and that there are hefty consequences - JUST LIKE FOR THE REST OF US."A quote that could help you... "Choose your battles wisely, be selective of the problems, arguments, and confrontations that you get involved in. Sometimes, it is wiser to save your time and effort only for the things that matter than to choose to fight every problem" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did And that is how people who shill for boris wants us to believe It’s a bit like saying there is no difference between nicking a pen from the office and stealing a car!!!! What is the difference in terms of rule-breaking? Very little. I think the initial Police 'investigation' into Keir-on-the-beer was cursory, much as it was for Neil Kinnock, another Labour bigwig (leader in the 80s/early 90s), who encouraged his son (Stephen Kinnock Lab MP) to his birthday party against 'essential travel' rules. I am not defending anyone if they broke rules but was this a different time than the one in the first lock down when he drove to his fathers home and sat at the end of the front garden to wish him Happy Birthday?" I doubt there was a major risk of virus transmission once he reached Neil's house, unless the photos Stephen posted were not the whole story! The instructions were not to travel unless essential. Had Stephen been involved in a car accident, it could have tied up the emergency services and, later, the hospital, when they were all busy enough with covid. Words of advice was the correct response from South Wales police. But what is troubling people is that Sturgeon, the Kinnocks et al are not handed FPNs, just the Tories | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did And that is how people who shill for boris wants us to believe It’s a bit like saying there is no difference between nicking a pen from the office and stealing a car!!!! What is the difference in terms of rule-breaking? Very little. I think the initial Police 'investigation' into Keir-on-the-beer was cursory, much as it was for Neil Kinnock, another Labour bigwig (leader in the 80s/early 90s), who encouraged his son (Stephen Kinnock Lab MP) to his birthday party against 'essential travel' rules. I am not defending anyone if they broke rules but was this a different time than the one in the first lock down when he drove to his fathers home and sat at the end of the front garden to wish him Happy Birthday? I doubt there was a major risk of virus transmission once he reached Neil's house, unless the photos Stephen posted were not the whole story! The instructions were not to travel unless essential. Had Stephen been involved in a car accident, it could have tied up the emergency services and, later, the hospital, when they were all busy enough with covid. Words of advice was the correct response from South Wales police. But what is troubling people is that Sturgeon, the Kinnocks et al are not handed FPNs, just the Tories " To be fair, anyone who broke rules should have got the fine but I think that the correct information should be written if you are going to use it to strengthen your argument. You mentioned it being a party and his dad encouraged him to go, if you are talking about him driving from Wales to sit at the end of the front garden to say Happy Birthday to his dad , then so it seems his Dad knew nothing about it until he broke rules and drove to his Dad's house. I can't see how that could be described as a party, more a get together with family which was also against rules at the time Making this political is not helping the debate. Whatever political party you support or work for shouldn't be taken into account, the only thing that should count is whether you broke the rules enough for a fine. Only the police decide that as hopefully they will have more facts than the rest of us and they must think some people deserve fines and some don't , going by what they have done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Starmer said: “I was in a constituency office just days before the election. We were very busy. We were working in the office. “We stopped for something to eat and then we carried on working. No party, no breach of the rules and absolutely no comparison with the prime minister.” “It was perfectly lawful to meet for work, which is what we were doing. The party that was put to the prime minister on Wednesday happened because an invitation was sent to 100 people saying ‘let’s have some socially distant drinks in the garden and bring your own booze’. There is simply no comparison.” I see no difference whatsoever between what Starmer did and what Boris did And that is how people who shill for boris wants us to believe It’s a bit like saying there is no difference between nicking a pen from the office and stealing a car!!!! What is the difference in terms of rule-breaking? Very little. I think the initial Police 'investigation' into Keir-on-the-beer was cursory, much as it was for Neil Kinnock, another Labour bigwig (leader in the 80s/early 90s), who encouraged his son (Stephen Kinnock Lab MP) to his birthday party against 'essential travel' rules. I am not defending anyone if they broke rules but was this a different time than the one in the first lock down when he drove to his fathers home and sat at the end of the front garden to wish him Happy Birthday? I doubt there was a major risk of virus transmission once he reached Neil's house, unless the photos Stephen posted were not the whole story! The instructions were not to travel unless essential. Had Stephen been involved in a car accident, it could have tied up the emergency services and, later, the hospital, when they were all busy enough with covid. Words of advice was the correct response from South Wales police. But what is troubling people is that Sturgeon, the Kinnocks et al are not handed FPNs, just the Tories To be fair, anyone who broke rules should have got the fine but I think that the correct information should be written if you are going to use it to strengthen your argument. You mentioned it being a party and his dad encouraged him to go, if you are talking about him driving from Wales to sit at the end of the front garden to say Happy Birthday to his dad , then so it seems his Dad knew nothing about it until he broke rules and drove to his Dad's house. I can't see how that could be described as a party, more a get together with family which was also against rules at the time Making this political is not helping the debate. Whatever political party you support or work for shouldn't be taken into account, the only thing that should count is whether you broke the rules enough for a fine. Only the police decide that as hopefully they will have more facts than the rest of us and they must think some people deserve fines and some don't , going by what they have done." I agree. I also think Boris Johnson’s gathering with birthday cake in the cabinet room was not a party, but the media paint it as such. Maybe that's fair? In each case, it's the day of the politician's birthday and there's a party of people present. One hopes, as you say, the Police are full of all the facts to determine who gets a FPN and who gets words of advice and they assess those facts apolitically. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree. I also think Boris Johnson’s gathering with birthday cake in the cabinet room was not a party, but the media paint it as such. Maybe that's fair? In each case, it's the day of the politician's birthday and there's a party of people present. " However, his wife arranged to be there too and so it is reported the designer who was doing up the flat so it sounds like it was a planned get together rather than lots of people working in the same room and said Happy Birthday to the boss His excuse for that was he was going in there for a cabinet meeting and they sang Happy birthday, in which case the wife and decorator would and should not have been in there. Either way it was probably a get together rather than a party, but neither was allowed at the time no matter what label is put on it. I doubt if all were get togethers....there is one where they were all in different rooms on zoom doing a quiz with tinsel round his neck, I would say that was what lots of people did every week at home with family or friends and was not a party | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree. I also think Boris Johnson’s gathering with birthday cake in the cabinet room was not a party, but the media paint it as such. Maybe that's fair? In each case, it's the day of the politician's birthday and there's a party of people present. However, his wife arranged to be there too and so it is reported the designer who was doing up the flat so it sounds like it was a planned get together rather than lots of people working in the same room and said Happy Birthday to the boss His excuse for that was he was going in there for a cabinet meeting and they sang Happy birthday, in which case the wife and decorator would and should not have been in there. Either way it was probably a get together rather than a party, but neither was allowed at the time no matter what label is put on it. I doubt if all were get togethers....there is one where they were all in different rooms on zoom doing a quiz with tinsel round his neck, I would say that was what lots of people did every week at home with family or friends and was not a party" I personally don't care if his wife was there. One assumes she would reasonably be discounted, as in a bubble. I don't know about the decorator, that doesn't sound right, but as we both agree, the Police hopefully considered all the facts, without political bias, and came to the decision they did both in the PMs case and cases involving politicians from other parties. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"May appears to have been a busy period for partying. Immediately after Keir Starmer called for Boris to resign, film footage emerged of Starmer and Labour staff eating and drinking beer in a Labour office. You couldn't make it up!" Laughing my head off here , Cpt Hindsight wiggle out of this one whiter than white Labour  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop complying to the plandemic and live your life x" Well said! Lucy X | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
