Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2023 20:36:08 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 .A fucking brain would even be better.... That's you screwed then, lol |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 1, 2023 21:02:30 GMT
Children. Children. Stop and take a breath. You’re all looking ridiculous… You should see the utter fools they are making of themselves in the "Murdoch sending in the bitches" thread. lol This forum is full of old fools whose main achievement on this forum is to so effectively disprove the adage that wisdom comes with age. Oh my mistake. I thought they were trying to kill it like they did the last one. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 1, 2023 21:14:34 GMT
Children. Children. Stop and take a breath. You’re all looking ridiculous… You should see the utter fools they are making of themselves in the "Murdoch sending in the bitches" thread. lol This forum is full of old fools whose main achievement on this forum is to so effectively disprove the adage that wisdom comes with age. Perhaps if you were bright enough........ |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 1, 2023 21:17:39 GMT
My post was in context to the post I was replying to. So the tone of your post is silly. Not in context at all , completely silly post from you , immature ,irrelevant and an total inability on your behalf to distinguish between a defendant charged with corruption currently in the criminal courts and ancient history defence witness evidence called in a civil law libel trial a whole 23 years ago.. My post was not about guilt or innocence, or about when, it was about the practice of handing over brown envelopes. Which the person who handed them over claimed that is what she did. You really have no need to continue to prove your stupidity to me it is already too obvious and well noted. Now trot along and see if you can find a juvenile forum to practice on. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 1, 2023 23:52:13 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. Oh ffs stop the world I'm getting off. Oyez Oyez, everyone logged on past present and future, hear this: According to See2, sitting in a room necking back the San Miguel with 30 people as they scoff a £200 take out curry was perfectly acceptable and within social distancing rules. Especially if the Labour Police and Crime Commissioner was on the table doing the dance of the flaming arseholes. Well lets face it, if she had the police would have still said, nothing to see hear folks. Now lets move onto more serious things. Ahh yes, that peice of cake. How dare he eat cake when the country was in lockdown. He should have been court martialled damn him. |
|
|
|
Post by Morgan on Feb 2, 2023 9:06:52 GMT
Of course the police found Starmer not guilty. It took the police months to quietly announce that Starmer didn't break the rules, even though he was on the piss with 25 to 30 people during lockdown. Perhaps the fact that Labour councillor Joy Allen attended Starmers beer & curry bash had an influence on the police decision, she is after all Durham's Police and Crime Commissioner. Except that there was no "beer & curry bash", just your stinging wound over the stupidity of BOJO. I think you need to read up on the differences in the situations. I'm not going to sit here arguing if you can't accept the basic facts and the differences in the two situations. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Feb 2, 2023 9:09:00 GMT
Except that there was no "beer & curry bash", just your stinging wound over the stupidity of BOJO. I think you need to read up on the differences in the situations. Up not going to sit here arguing if you can't accept the basic facts and the differences in the two situations. Seems to me they were both extracting the urine, arguing the toss who did it better is a bit pedantic. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Feb 2, 2023 10:40:59 GMT
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. Oh ffs stop the world I'm getting off. Oyez Oyez, everyone logged on past present and future, hear this: According to See2, sitting in a room necking back the San Miguel with 30 people as they scoff a £200 take out curry was perfectly acceptable and within social distancing rules. Especially if the Labour Police and Crime Commissioner was on the table doing the dance of the flaming arseholes. Well lets face it, if she had the police would have still said, nothing to see hear folks. Now lets move onto more serious things. Ahh yes, that peice of cake. How dare he eat cake when the country was in lockdown. He should have been court martialled damn him. Cake was between meetings , wasn't Rishi only fined because he turned up early fr the after lunch meeting? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2023 10:52:28 GMT
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. Oh ffs stop the world I'm getting off. Oyez Oyez, everyone logged on past present and future, hear this: According to See2, sitting in a room necking back the San Miguel with 30 people as they scoff a £200 take out curry was perfectly acceptable and within social distancing rules. Especially if the Labour Police and Crime Commissioner was on the table doing the dance of the flaming arseholes. Well lets face it, if she had the police would have still said, nothing to see hear folks. Now lets move onto more serious things. Ahh yes, that peice of cake. How dare he eat cake when the country was in lockdown. He should have been court martialled damn him. This forum needs a shit bucket to dump crap like that in. If you cannot tell the difference between a curry and a glass of beer late into the evening at a work event and a full on party you are an utter fool. All were investigated by the police, including so called beergate, which from the start was nothing more that a pitiful and utterly transparent attempt at whataboutery designed to deflect attention away from Tory shenanigans. Unlike any senior Tory however, Starmer said he would resign if found guilty. He was cleared of what was quite obviously a dubiously motivated charge. Unlike Bozo, Sunak and many others who were fined for breaking their own laws and attending parties. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 2, 2023 11:27:06 GMT
Now lets move onto more serious things. Ahh yes, that peice of cake. How dare he eat cake when the country was in lockdown. He should have been court martialled damn him. Red, the rule is very simple You could theoretically organise an wife-swapping orgy involving dozens of people. So long as the orgy is work related, you have not broken the rules. Boris's cake was not work related cake and he was therefore breaking the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 2, 2023 11:33:02 GMT
So…Boris and co didn’t do anything worse than Starmer and co but because Starmers booze and curry was ‘work related ‘it doesn’t count ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 2, 2023 11:33:35 GMT
Now lets move onto more serious things. Ahh yes, that peice of cake. How dare he eat cake when the country was in lockdown. He should have been court martialled damn him. Red, the rule is very simple You could theoretically organise an wife-swapping orgy involving dozens of people. So long as the orgy is work related, you have not broken the rules. Boris's cake was not work related cake and he was therefore breaking the rules. So what's classed as 'work related food', curry?
I don't know how you define work related food, most people who work in any job often take cake, sweets, biscuits to work, does that mean they get fined because it's not work related food?
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 2, 2023 11:38:49 GMT
Red, the rule is very simple You could theoretically organise an wife-swapping orgy involving dozens of people. So long as the orgy is work related, you have not broken the rules. Boris's cake was not work related cake and he was therefore breaking the rules. So what's classed as 'work related food', curry?
I don't know how you define work related food, most people who work in any job often take cake, sweets, biscuits to work, does that mean they get fined because it's not work related food?
Indeed it is vague. This allows the person with the discretion to effectively apply one set of rules to one defendant and a second set of rules to another. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 2, 2023 12:05:32 GMT
So what's classed as 'work related food', curry?
I don't know how you define work related food, most people who work in any job often take cake, sweets, biscuits to work, does that mean they get fined because it's not work related food?
Indeed it is vague. This allows the person with the discretion to effectively apply one set of rules to one defendant and a second set of rules to another. Which is precisely why Johnson deserved to get fined - if he wants to bring in such daft rules he deserves everything he gets. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 2, 2023 12:15:01 GMT
Indeed it is vague. This allows the person with the discretion to effectively apply one set of rules to one defendant and a second set of rules to another. Which is precisely why Johnson deserved to get fined - if he wants to bring in such daft rules he deserves everything he gets. I agree. He was daft and inattentive enough to walk straight into it. |
|
