talkFORUM

Everyone knows why Starmer and the others at that after work party were not fined, and only the blinkered think otherwise. Starmer knew he wouldn't be fined which was why he said that in the unlikely event of a fine he would resign.
Plod fined hundreds of people for doing nothing other than going about their business but, seemingly, falling foul of regulations which applied to Joe Bloggs but not to Labour politicians.

Can't you see that Beergate was totally different to Partygate. Kier was just having a quiet beer and munching down a curry.


Those included being “reasonably necessary for work purposes”.

Durham Constabulary found the exemption applied to the Labour gathering at Durham’s Miners’ Hall on 30 April 2021.

Farce isn't it. I thought the criteria was don't go to a gathering period.

Black and white.

The meeting for work thing is in the governments regulations.

I think there are two positions here:

1. Normal persons position where the police investigated and found he did nothing wrong.
2. Flat earth position where Labour and the police had a secret scheme to cover it up.

If Rayner ends up quitting over a £1500 tax bill it'll be funny but hardly material. We've just had a Tory MP send naked pictures to some unknown person which led him to send MPs details to them. Two of those MPs then sent naked pictures to this unknown person. But no investigation into that ... maybe the funding cuts to the police are severe. Although I'd bet if they were Labour it would still be a front page story. I'm sure if Labour get in they'll fuck up, but I doubt it'll be at the lunatic levels of the current mob.

Plod had more positions on who was or wasn't fined for beergate, partygate, currygate, or mindingyourownbusinessgate than the sodding Kama Sutra, most unprobable, mind boggling and only fathomable to, err, plod.

More do as i say not do as i do from Labour :

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-row.html

Ray-Ray has also said she will quit as deputy Labour leader if found to have committed a crime after a police investigation , which suggests to me that she already knows what the outcome will be ( see also 'Beergate' in Durham) .

I suppose she can call on her old mate Burnham to have a word in the ear of the Commissioner of the Greater Manchester Police

Pure filth

This is the MP who wrote to the police about Rayner but doesn't have the nerve to say what about.

Vespa wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 7:15 am This is the MP who wrote to the police about Rayner but doesn't have the nerve to say what about.

Because he knows its made up and he doesn't want to get sued...

subsub wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 7:25 am

Vespa wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 7:15 am This is the MP who wrote to the police about Rayner but doesn't have the nerve to say what about.

Because he knows its made up and he doesn't want to get sued...

It's weird to attack people and then not say what the attack is. Not sure attacking someone over a £1500 tax bill is a wise move for the Tories.

Vespa wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 8:50 am It's weird to attack people and then not say what the attack is. Not sure attacking someone over a £1500 tax bill is a wise move for the Tories.

The current crop of Tories aren't reknowned for 'wise moves' though are they.

As I understand it, and I'm happy to be corrected, anyone who contacts the police with regard to any matter does so in the knowledge that what they say will not be made public until, and if, the matter comes to court.
Should anyone make the same statement in public which proves to be unfounded, they are open to legal action by the person to whom the statement relates, so it's obvious why Daly refused to answer the question by a shonky TV station reporter.

Any bar room lawyer could tell you that.

As I also understand it if the same statement were made in the Chamber it would come under Parliamentary Privilege and therefor not liable to any legal charges which could, were the same statement to have been made in public, be subject to, which is why there have been things said about members in the Chamber which the person so said them refuses to repeat outside of the Chamber.

birdie wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:03 am it's obvious why Daly refused to answer the question by a shonky TV station reporter.

"shonky"?

A cunt.

Zambo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 3:07 pmA cunt.

Asking an MP about the allegations he's publicly made and has been reported in the press is a reasonable question. He's just scared he's talking shit.

Vespa wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 3:19 pm

Zambo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 3:07 pmA cunt.

Asking an MP about the allegations he's publicly made and has been reported in the press is a reasonable question. He's just scared he's talking shit.

Yeah, I'm just sorting an answer out for subsub. He wanted to know what a shonky was.