|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 1, 2023 15:32:42 GMT
Except that there was no "beer & curry bash", just your stinging wound over the stupidity of BOJO. LABOUR ordered £200-worth of takeaway curries for dozens of MPs and aides at Sir Keir Starmer’s Beergate lockdown bash. The group, which included deputy leader Angela Rayner, tucked in while swigging bottles of San Miguel — as those in England were banned from socialising indoors. Witnesses say the gathering went late into the evening, with little sign of anyone going back to work as Sir Keir claims. www.thesun.co.uk/news/18452395/labour-takeaway-curry-starmer-lockdown/But after discovering Joy Allen, the Durham Police and Crime Commissioner attended Starmers beer & curry bash, the police decided no rules had been broken, LOL. Do you have any evidence that what went on was against the rules? No, all you have is speculation. From what I've seen on TV Bojo was at an organised party, it appears that Starmer was at a late meal that followed directly from a days work that finished late and was expected to finish late. That appears to be the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Feb 1, 2023 15:41:52 GMT
What's so hard about taking brown envelopes rammed with cash, just ask Joe Anderson the 'ex Labour' Liverpool Mayor, he's on trial for corruption, it will be coming up soon, the one that involves him and other 'Labour figures' taking wads of cash from developers so they could secure contracts... Good old Labour LOL Or ask "Mohamed Al Fayed's former personal assistant yesterday told the high court how on at least three occasions large cash payments were made in brown envelopes to the former Conservative minister," Just googled your unreferenced highly selective c&p It's from an account of a libel trial in the Guardian , nearly 23 years ago Tue 30 Nov 1999 01.35 GMT www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/nov/30/hamiltonvalfayed.stuartmillar |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 1, 2023 15:45:00 GMT
Or ask "Mohamed Al Fayed's former personal assistant yesterday told the high court how on at least three occasions large cash payments were made in brown envelopes to the former Conservative minister," Just googled your unreferenced highly selective c&p It's from an account of a libel trial in the Guardian , nearly 23 years ago Tue 30 Nov 1999 01.35 GMT www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/nov/30/hamiltonvalfayed.stuartmillarNot to mention the Conservatives weren't even in power then, it was Blair/Labour LOL |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 1, 2023 15:47:27 GMT
You are posting your opinion as if it was a fact again. IMO only cynical people would go as far as you have gone. Is there room for speculation? Perhaps. Is there any positive evidence? Absolutely not. If you had read my post without your usual juvenile emotional approach then you would of realised that I did not claim that there was positive evidence and did allude to there being room for speculation . Reading lessons for the elderly would be a great help to you . I never suggested you made such a claim, your imagination is wandering again. You made a statement "Only the gullible would think that". The only way I could claim not to be gullible would be to agree with that statement. So now, just because you have been exposed as a numptie once again you turn to juvenile insults. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 1, 2023 15:47:50 GMT
Or ask "Mohamed Al Fayed's former personal assistant yesterday told the high court how on at least three occasions large cash payments were made in brown envelopes to the former Conservative minister," Just googled your unreferenced highly selective c&p It's from an account of a libel trial in the Guardian , nearly 23 years ago Tue 30 Nov 1999 01.35 GMT www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/nov/30/hamiltonvalfayed.stuartmillarThat was like yesterday for see2 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 1, 2023 15:50:24 GMT
Or ask "Mohamed Al Fayed's former personal assistant yesterday told the high court how on at least three occasions large cash payments were made in brown envelopes to the former Conservative minister," Just googled your unreferenced highly selective c&p It's from an account of a libel trial in the Guardian , nearly 23 years ago Tue 30 Nov 1999 01.35 GMT www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/nov/30/hamiltonvalfayed.stuartmillarMy post was in context to the post I was replying to. So the tone of your post is silly. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 1, 2023 15:53:09 GMT
LABOUR ordered £200-worth of takeaway curries for dozens of MPs and aides at Sir Keir Starmer’s Beergate lockdown bash. The group, which included deputy leader Angela Rayner, tucked in while swigging bottles of San Miguel — as those in England were banned from socialising indoors. Witnesses say the gathering went late into the evening, with little sign of anyone going back to work as Sir Keir claims. www.thesun.co.uk/news/18452395/labour-takeaway-curry-starmer-lockdown/But after discovering Joy Allen, the Durham Police and Crime Commissioner attended Starmers beer & curry bash, the police decided no rules had been broken, LOL. Do you have any evidence that what went on was against the rules? No, all you have is speculation. From what I've seen on TV Bojo was at an organised party, it appears that Starmer was at a late meal that followed directly from a days work that finished late and was expected to finish late. That appears to be the difference. The other point is that it was a takeaway meal connected to working away from home or the normal office. Something I did a couple of times legally during the restrictions... |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 1, 2023 15:54:12 GMT
If you had read my post without your usual juvenile emotional approach then you would of realised that I did not claim that there was positive evidence and did allude to there being room for speculation . Reading lessons for the elderly would be a great help to you . I never suggested you made such a claim, your imagination is wandering again. You made a statement "Only the gullible would think that". The only way I could claim not to be gullible would be to agree with that statement. So now, just because you have been exposed as a numptie once again you turn to juvenile insults. Oh dear . See2 needs a reading lesson “Doesn’t mean no one was guilty “ ….I think even you can work that out “Only the gullible would think that” ….. that means only the gullible would think there that no one was guilty if “there was an investigation, and no guilt found.” Ie that there was room for speculation. I’ll be charging for the next lesson . Teaching English to geriatrics is tiring but rewarding . |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 1, 2023 16:00:05 GMT
Not to mention the Conservatives weren't even in power then, it was Blair/Labour LOL What did the claimed actions of a Tory MP have to do with Blair/Labour? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 1, 2023 16:03:56 GMT
Not to mention the Conservatives weren't even in power then, it was Blair/Labour LOL What did the claimed actions of a Tory MP have to do with Blair/Labour? I don't know you tell us, you were the one who brought it up.
Why would we be interested in a case from 1999 involving a Conservative who might have had dodgy dealings?
We are talking about the here and now. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 1, 2023 16:07:21 GMT
I never suggested you made such a claim, your imagination is wandering again. You made a statement "Only the gullible would think that". The only way I could claim not to be gullible would be to agree with that statement. So now, just because you have been exposed as a numptie once again you turn to juvenile insults. Oh dear . See2 needs a reading lesson “Doesn’t mean no one was guilty “ ….I think even you can work that out “Only the gullible would think that” ….. that means only the gullible would think there that no one was guilty if “there was an investigation, and no guilt found.” Ie that there was room for speculation. I’ll be charging for the next lesson . Teaching English to geriatrics is tiring but rewarding . So your answer to the fact that Starmer was found not guilty is “Doesn’t mean no one was guilty". That is to insinuate that there was guilt, hence my reply. Now stop playing with words because you are letting yourself down AGAIN. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 1, 2023 16:08:08 GMT
That was like yesterday for see2 😁 Oy you, I'm older than see2 thouigh it doesn't show.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 1, 2023 16:10:37 GMT
Oh dear . See2 needs a reading lesson “Doesn’t mean no one was guilty “ ….I think even you can work that out “Only the gullible would think that” ….. that means only the gullible would think there that no one was guilty if “there was an investigation, and no guilt found.” Ie that there was room for speculation. I’ll be charging for the next lesson . Teaching English to geriatrics is tiring but rewarding . So your answer to the fact that Starmer was found not guilty is “Doesn’t mean no one was guilty". That is to insinuate that there was guilt, hence my reply. Now stop playing with words because you are letting yourself down AGAIN. There was no insinuation See2 except between your ears . |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Feb 1, 2023 16:11:56 GMT
We know why Kier Starmer was not prosecutted, it was all fully explained, it was food, nourishment, or a meal break involving work ... work meaning "a meeting" inside a workplace, offices affiliated to the Labour Party. No 10 is a workplace - everyone who was at the Big Boris Birthday Bash worked in No10. You misremembered. Boris's birthday bash did not take place in 10 Downing Street. (If you'd argued that other parties were worse breakers of the rules than the one that he was fined for, I'd agree. Be interesting to see how his committee hearing goes.) |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 1, 2023 16:11:56 GMT
That was like yesterday for see2 😁 Oy you, I'm older than see2 thouigh it doesn't show. Yes but do you put your glasses in the fridge and your pajamas in the dishwasher ? |
|
