|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 1, 2023 10:51:34 GMT
The advantage of vague law is it can be applied selectively and nobody has a legal leg to stand on.
The advantage if piddling and interfering law is that can be applied selectively and look like generosity.
The advantage of overly restrictive law is that everyone is technically guilty
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 1, 2023 11:02:55 GMT
You'd have to be pretty naive or stupid, or maybe even gullible, not to believe that a ex-DPP still doesn't have any clout in that department, it goes with the territory, he's got lifelong protection because of the highly sensitive data he's been privy to, it sure is paying off for him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2023 13:26:51 GMT
Red Rackham ... "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"
----------------------------------------
Under no circumstances can any police & crime commissioner become involved in any on-going police investigation, it would be a gross over-stepping of their role, and would be regarded as missconduct.
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.
Unlike Boris Johnson, Kier Starmer is not a fully proven liar, or corrupt, and there is no evidence to suggest that Starmer feels that the rules dont apply to him ( unlike Boris Johnson ).
Two inquiries now ... both found that Starmer did nothing wrong, but of course some people cannot accept official verdicts.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 1, 2023 13:29:44 GMT
Red Rackham ... "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" ---------------------------------------- Under no circumstances can any police & crime commissioner become involved in any on-going police investigation, it would be a gross over-stepping of their role, and would be regarded as missconduct. 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. Unlike Boris Johnson, Kier Starmer is not a fully proven liar, or corrupt, and there is no evidence to suggest that Starmer feels that the rules dont apply to him ( unlike Boris Johnson ). Two inquiries now ... both found that Starmer did nothing wrong, but of course some people cannot accept official verdicts.
Hardly surprising when there is photographic evidence of both doing the exact same thing yet apparenty only one is deemed guilty...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2023 13:55:21 GMT
No they were not both doing the same thing
The rules made it clear that meeting for work purposes were allowed, but that meeting for purely social purposes were not allowed.
The get-togethers and party which Johnson and others attended were social gatherings, advertised as social gatherings, and where the emailed invites made it clear they were social gatherings.
The Labour Party officials inside the Union Offices had been attending a meeting, advertised as official working business, with invites clearly stateing the purpose and agenda of business. It was "work" and just as people in factories and shops were allowed meal / refreshment breaks, so were politicians in their workplace.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 1, 2023 13:59:20 GMT
No they were not both doing the same thing The rules made it clear that meeting for work purposes were allowed, but that meeting for purely social purposes were not allowed. The get-togethers and party which Johnson and others attended were social gatherings, advertised as social gatherings, and where the emailed invites made it clear they were social gatherings. The Labour Party officials inside the Union Offices had been attending a meeting, advertised as official working business, with invites clearly stateing the purpose and agenda of business. It was "work" and just as people in factories and shops were allowed meal / refreshment breaks, so were politicians in their workplace. Slammer was getting pissed and his slapper was getting laid... |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 1, 2023 14:18:52 GMT
No they were not both doing the same thing The rules made it clear that meeting for work purposes were allowed, but that meeting for purely social purposes were not allowed. The get-togethers and party which Johnson and others attended were social gatherings, advertised as social gatherings, and where the emailed invites made it clear they were social gatherings. The Labour Party officials inside the Union Offices had been attending a meeting, advertised as official working business, with invites clearly stateing the purpose and agenda of business. It was "work" and just as people in factories and shops were allowed meal / refreshment breaks, so were politicians in their workplace. Slammer was getting pissed and his slapper was getting laid... Slammer caught on camera swigging a bottle of beer, and proof curries were ordered, yet the fuss that was made over Johnson with his sip of wine and nibble on a cake, Slammer/Labour committed worse breaches than Johnson was accused of, yet smirking Slammer has a word in the right ear and he's let off scot free.
This is the corrupt Labour government that might get in to power.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 1, 2023 14:19:54 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," I never said the Tories were squeaky clean, but it's the moral high ground double standard hypocritical Labour who bring the Tories to our attention, like Starmer and his beergate, Johnson got the boot for sip of wine and a nibble of cake, while Starmer and his cronies guzzled beer and stuffed their faces with curries... are you starting to get it now? Johnson "got the boot" because the majority of Tory MPs realised that his jolly rogue japes and prevarication would no longer deflect from the lies, personal money-gathering, and sleaze covering the Pincher affair, Partygate, rising cost of living and Owen Paterson attempted cover up... |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 1, 2023 14:22:16 GMT
Slammer was getting pissed and his slapper was getting laid... Slammer caught on camera swigging a bottle of beer, and proof curries were ordered, yet the fuss that was made over Johnson with his sip of wine and nibble on a cake, Slammer/Labour committed worse breaches than Johnson was accused of, yet smirking Slammer has a word in the right ear and he's let off scot free.
This is the corrupt Labour government that might get in to power.
Slammer was so pissed he first stated that his slapper never attended.......You would have to be pissed not to hear that big mouthed slag... |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 1, 2023 14:26:37 GMT
Slammer caught on camera swigging a bottle of beer, and proof curries were ordered, yet the fuss that was made over Johnson with his sip of wine and nibble on a cake, Slammer/Labour committed worse breaches than Johnson was accused of, yet smirking Slammer has a word in the right ear and he's let off scot free.
This is the corrupt Labour government that might get in to power.
Slammer was so pissed he first stated that his slapper never attended.......You would have to be pissed not to hear that big mouthed slag... LOL, could have been worse jonks, double vision he might have seen two of her, the amount he drank. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 1, 2023 14:30:16 GMT
Slammer was so pissed he first stated that his slapper never attended.......You would have to be pissed not to hear that big mouthed slag... LOL, could have been worse jonks, double vision he might have seen two of her, the amount he drank. Fucking hell mate now that would be evill on the eyes......LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 1, 2023 14:32:26 GMT
LOL, could have been worse jonks, double vision he might have seen two of her, the amount he drank. Fucking hell mate now that would be evill on the eyes......LOL LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 1, 2023 15:12:12 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. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 1, 2023 15:21:52 GMT
And there was an investigation, and no guilt found. Doesn’t mean no one was guilty . Only the gullible would think that. Are you gullible? 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 1, 2023 15:30:11 GMT
Doesn’t mean no one was guilty . Only the gullible would think that. Are you gullible? 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 . |
|
