Rayner shining example of her double standard hypocrisy

Total BOLLOCKS both Boris and fishy were surprised. And as for an ivestigation  do you mean the fucking lefty instigated hypocritical sanctimonious witchunt?

Total BOLLOCKS both Boris and fishy were surprised. And as for an ivestigation  do you mean the fucking lefty instigated hypocritical sanctimonious witchunt?

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

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

Well whoever investigates her if she's found guilty as charged I just hope the person heading any inquiries is offered a plum job in the Tory party once she has been forced to resign, isn't that what happened to Johnson.

Yes indeed, I wonder how many "essential beers" were required to wash down the "essential curry" during this "working lunch", which was from 8.30pm until 10pm... before Rayner (Who was not there) staggered off to bed singing the red flag. 

Of course drinking beer was not prohibited during lockdown, in the same way that eating cake wasn't.