Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2024 18:59:58 GMT
But Boris was caught on multiple occasions... Caught by who? FFS why didn't the MET officers guarding no 10 never report any wrong doings? That's a very cushy Constable's job, it doesn't pay to see too much.  |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 11, 2024 19:11:27 GMT
Caught by who? FFS why didn't the MET officers guarding no 10 never report any wrong doings? That's a very cushy Constable's job, it doesn't pay to see too much. I am sure the lefty media would have made it worth their while.. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Apr 11, 2024 19:30:14 GMT
Starmer was not filmed with a pint in his hand, he was filmed with a bottle of beer in his hand, which was not breaking any rule or law, as concluded TWICE by the police. But you people cant / wont accept the outcome Poor old fiddles reduced to arguing over the size of the beer that starmer had in his hand at his illegal pissup... Was there any dancing ?, did it look like there was any dancing, what about a DJ or music or a buffet. ? Ask yourself the simplist of questions - was it actually legal and within the rules for people to actually consume beer with food during a working meeting. Why do you need to exaggerate and call it a "piss up" simply because some people had a bottle of beer. I sometimes have wine with a meal, or a pint if I am out somewhere for Sunday Lunch, but its not a "piss up", its just a drink with a meal. But people like you add bits on, make things up, just like The Daily Mail, what they dont know they make up and then print a pack of lies. It does not matter at what angle you choose to come from, I will win this argument A gathering of 15 Labour Party officials and workers in the constituency office of the local MP, all legal and allowed, an arranged business meeting as proven by written on-line schedules seen by the police. a break from business to eat and drink ( all within rule ), and then afterwards a continuation of work ( again proven by date and time stamped video ). No - the meeting did not take place at a private address No - the meeting could not have taken place in a hotel, some people lived locally, and others were in different hotels. No - there were not 30 people at the meeting, there were 15 in total. No - there was no police officers at the meeting Admit .. you have well and truly lost this argument |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 11, 2024 20:07:11 GMT
Erm there were actual photographs of him, at a party, when parties were illegal. Didn't need to be a genius to work it out, did we? Heck my mother, who was up until that point Boris Johnson's biggest fan and defender, worked it out in less than 30 seconds. All The Best Yes just like pictures of Starmer on his curry night guzzling beer from bottle, along with the rest of the drunks, but they got off with it, thanks to his handy connections. Wasn't the difference that the Starmer incident called out for food for people that were already there working, and the Johnson incident was food specifically laid on for people who were not already there working, but were invited to attend just for the food. That is one was a "working lunch" and the other was a "party by invitation". Subtle difference I know, perhaps too subtle for you to have picked up on; but the Police certainly did. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 11, 2024 20:08:36 GMT
Oh she should definitely provide any and all evidence asked for by a relevant authority, competent to assess the alleged wrongs she has allegedly committed. Does that mean spilling everything to a rabid Tory sympathiser press-rabble? No. She is beholden to The Law, Parliament and her Constituents. Everyone else has the right to fuck off and leave her alone, me included. All The Best LOL - Left Wing hypocrisy at its finest...  Well, that certainly would appear to make Rayner a hypocrite. No argument there. It does not however, make me a hypocrite. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Apr 11, 2024 20:58:27 GMT
Posters stated that "senior police were present" - a lie Posters stated that "crates of beer were ordered for 30 people" - a lie You were also present at the booze up to know this as a fact? |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Apr 11, 2024 21:08:31 GMT
In the worst possible scenario, if Angela Rayner did in fact fail to declare a profit of £48,500 on the sale of a property that was not her home. Her liabilities to HMRC in terms of Capital Gains Tax would amount to about £1500 ( One Thousand, Five Hundred Pounds ). However, as someone who has sold property which was not my home, I know that if I had made valuable improvements to that property, I can offset those improvements against CGT, and with a relatively small liability that Angela Rayner would owe ( around fifteen hundred quid ) it wouldn't take much to offset such an amount. As with every other poster, I do not know what it is that Angela Rayner is not telling the media, but I find it hard to believe that she would have attempted to swindle HMRC, cover it up, and then tell a lie that she sought legal advice and is convinced that she has done nothing wrong. I also do not believe that Labour Party officials who have ( according to them ) seen the legal advice, would not act in the interests of the party if they thought she had done wrong. Rayner is not a Billionaire, or a Millionaire, she's hard faced and tough, she refuses to publish her tax returns simply because some Right wing dirt rag says she has to, or because the Tory "Attack Dogs" wont let go, because they think they smell blood. There are several perfectly legal ways in which Rayner might not ever have been liable to pay the piddling amount of fifteen hundred quid in Capital Gains Tax, and I am sure that - IF - the police or HMRC want to know the fine detail, she will tell them. She would have to pay interest on the tax owed plus a penalty for wilful non declaration , Zahawi(not a deputy leader)had to resign because he settled a HMRC decision against him |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 11, 2024 21:13:34 GMT
Well one slice of cake was considered enough for Boris and Rishi.. Partygate became a scandal for No 10 because it involved multiple allegations of law-breaking at Downing Street...
Ah - allegations are enough. Boris was only fined for the cake - Rishi was not even attending the 'party' he was just passing by on the way to another meeting and he was offered a slice but that was enough to be found guilty. But if you are now saying that all it needs is an allegation then Starmer is bang to rights for the Curry and Beer night. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 11, 2024 21:15:02 GMT
LOL - Left Wing hypocrisy at its finest... Well, that certainly would appear to make Rayner a hypocrite. No argument there. It does not however, make me a hypocrite. All The Best Oh I think it does.. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 11, 2024 22:31:49 GMT
Poor old fiddles reduced to arguing over the size of the beer that starmer had in his hand at his illegal pissup... Was there any dancing ?, did it look like there was any dancing, what about a DJ or music or a buffet. ? Ask yourself the simplist of questions - was it actually legal and within the rules for people to actually consume beer with food during a working meeting. Why do you need to exaggerate and call it a "piss up" simply because some people had a bottle of beer. I sometimes have wine with a meal, or a pint if I am out somewhere for Sunday Lunch, but its not a "piss up", its just a drink with a meal. But people like you add bits on, make things up, just like The Daily Mail, what they dont know they make up and then print a pack of lies. It does not matter at what angle you choose to come from, I will win this argument A gathering of 15 Labour Party officials and workers in the constituency office of the local MP, all legal and allowed, an arranged business meeting as proven by written on-line schedules seen by the police. a break from business to eat and drink ( all within rule ), and then afterwards a continuation of work ( again proven by date and time stamped video ). No - the meeting did not take place at a private address No - the meeting could not have taken place in a hotel, some people lived locally, and others were in different hotels. No - there were not 30 people at the meeting, there were 15 in total. No - there was no police officers at the meeting Admit .. you have well and truly lost this argumentJust more of your lety bollocks fiddles...Not olyt have you lost the atguement it seems you have lost your mind.. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 11, 2024 22:33:26 GMT
Yes just like pictures of Starmer on his curry night guzzling beer from bottle, along with the rest of the drunks, but they got off with it, thanks to his handy connections. Wasn't the difference that the Starmer incident called out for food for people that were already there working, and the Johnson incident was food specifically laid on for people who were not already there working, but were invited to attend just for the food. That is one was a "working lunch" and the other was a "party by invitation". Subtle difference I know, perhaps too subtle for you to have picked up on; but the Police certainly did. All The Best Boris had a bitrhday surprise sprung on him... |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 11, 2024 22:42:05 GMT
In the case of Boris Johnson, the emails and WhatsApp messages which went out, clearly stated that one of the events at least WAS A SOCIAL GATHERING, it specifically stated "Get Together", and it further stated "BYO booze". It was conclusively proved that it was not a working meeting. There is absolutely no comparison between the two events involving Johnson and Starmer, the event involving the Labour leader has been conclusively proved that it was as part of a working meeting, proven by date and time stamped videos, and proven by on-line activity during and after the consumption of food. As I recall, one of the Boris partys was a birthday party which involved a buffet and birthday cake - do posters REALLY not know the difference. ? What happened to open legs rayners and sturgeons whatsapp messages fiddles?
Oh and BTW just for your meagre lefty education...
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 11, 2024 23:03:18 GMT
It seems starmer is getting his own knickers in a twist over loose knickers rayners imprpropreiety... FFS ‘Don’t play games’: Starmer reprimands reporter for Angela Rayner question......
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 11, 2024 23:28:04 GMT
Well, that certainly would appear to make Rayner a hypocrite. No argument there. It does not however, make me a hypocrite. All The Best Oh I think it does.. That does demonstrates that you haven't thought about it. Or if you did, it was too confusing for you. For it to make me a hypocrite I would have to have made a statement similar to the one you linked to by Rayner; I have made no such comment. For the record, I think anyone paid from the Public Purse should be required by law to publicly release their tax records, every year. However, currently that is not the case, and the only bodies that can reasonably make that request of a person so paid is a body that has the authority to investigate crimes, or alleged crimes, that would require such a revelation. Has Rayner been asked to provide such records, by such a body? If she has and has complied what is the issue? If she has not been asked what is the issue? If she has been asked and has refused then we clearly have an issue. Remember, we have an assumption of Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty in this country, and no one is required by law to self-incriminate. I should also remind you that even if she were called to court to defend against claims of legal wrongdoing she is still not required to provide any verbal statement. As long as what Rayner is doing is legal then I have no problems with that. It is not Rayner's duty to provide evidence, or refuting evidence, of her alleged guilt... ...end of. It is solely the duty of the Prosecution to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that Rayner is guilty of any offences of which she is accused. Of course, were she to refuse to defend herself then it would be fair, and legal, for a court to draw adverse inferences from that. So, if this goes to court we will then see what happens. If the CPO decides the threshold has not been met to proceed to court then Rayner's reputation could be harmed by her lack of willingness to engage in the public discourse, but she still would NOT have done anything that was legally, or morally, reprehensible. I am genuinely confused as to why this is an issue that seemingly requires one to get one's panties in a twist. It is akin to "woke snowflakes" having a temper tantrum when they discover that reality is not what they want it to be. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 11, 2024 23:58:03 GMT
Wasn't the difference that the Starmer incident called out for food for people that were already there working, and the Johnson incident was food specifically laid on for people who were not already there working, but were invited to attend just for the food. That is one was a "working lunch" and the other was a "party by invitation". Subtle difference I know, perhaps too subtle for you to have picked up on; but the Police certainly did. All The Best Boris had a bitrhday surprise sprung on him... Well, Boris may have been surprised by it. But all the invitees clearly weren't surprised, as they arrived after being invited. However, did the investigation conclude that Baris was surprised? I don't think it did... All The Best |
|
