Sue Gray

[IT Minion]

And Boris isn't going to get booted out of parliament because he broke lockdown rules. He's going to be booted out because he lied to parliament about it repeatedly and only admitted the truth after the newspapers had already spilled the beans.

 

[motorbiking]

It's been analysed by many Legal experts. The conclusion is that there were different policies in place in Durham vs the Met for retrospective fines. It also appears that Durham accepted Starmer's fib, that he simply ate while working, ignoring the fact that it was indeed a pre-planned event. Starmer and Rayner also had the luxury of not being the ones that created the law. A law that was designed to give every citizen the benefit of the doubt. At the time of the offences, plod up and down the country were struggling to understand the laws and were inspecting shopping baskets and possibly checking strava to ensure people were out for the right reasons.

But all this is side tracking from the fact, that it is highly likely, Starmer secretly plotted to recruit Gray and Gray failed to report the meetings to the proper authorities as she is required to. She has questions to answer and her independence, if this all occurred while carrying out key supposedly impartial roles is shot.

 

[IT Minion]

Apparently Sue Gray was requested for a senior role by one of the cabinet, but it was blocked by Simon Case as she didn't have enough seniority. That effectively killed her career progression dead and she was annoyed.

Then Starmer heard about it and went in with a job offer. When you're headhunting someone the recruitment process is massively shorter than a general search.

 

[Brigadier]

Lying, entitled Tories get outflanked.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It's been analysed by many Legal experts. The conclusion is that there were different policies in place in Durham vs the Met for retrospective fines. It also appears that Durham accepted Starmer's fib, that he simply ate while working, ignoring the fact that it was indeed a pre-planned event. Starmer and Rayner also had the luxury of not being the ones that created the law. A law that was designed to give every citizen the benefit of the doubt. At the time of the offences, plod up and down the country were struggling to understand the laws and were inspecting shopping baskets and possibly checking strava to ensure people were out for the right reasons.

But all this is side tracking from the fact, that it is highly likely, Starmer secretly plotted to recruit Gray and Gray failed to report the meetings to the proper authorities as she is required to. She has questions to answer and her independence, if this all occurred while carrying out key supposedly impartial roles is shot.

another load of blinkered prejudiced rubbish

 

[carmanmemoranda]

When Kier has a drink with the the workers (and working was allowed) that's kewl, when BJ has a drink with the workers (in the workplace), it's PARTAY, PARTAY, PARTAY.

Not sure that anyone other than raving left wing window licking scum would really believe that but, hey ho, tis the world we live in.

oh to be so blinkered that you cannot understand the difference

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I'm PMSL Notch. In your wildest teenage years, if you ever were a wild teenager, did you ever, ever cruise around with a 'suitcase' full of booze.
**** me Notch, I've always considered myself a bit of a 'lad', but meeting up with an 'interior designer' with a 'suitcase' full of booze even stretches my warped imagination, and that's before we even start on the birthday cake.

You are denying they carried in a suitcase of booze ? Or that it's a normal thing to do?

 

[blup]

It's been analysed by many Legal experts.

And they pretty much all agree there was no breach

The conclusion is that there were different policies in place in Durham vs the Met for retrospective fines.

Durham were politically pressured into a second investigation, the guidance was the same.

It also appears that Durham accepted Starmer's fib, that he simply ate while working, ignoring the fact that it was indeed a pre-planned event

It was a meal, pre planned or not.

At the time of the offences, plod up and down the country were struggling to understand the laws and were inspecting shopping baskets and possibly checking strava to ensure people were out for the right reasons.

Lol, so Starmer is guilty because of a few jobsworth coppers.

The guidance allowed gatherings reasonably necessary for work, people have to eat they don't have to party. It doesn’t matter, apart from PR purposes, whether he was swigging from can of coke, drinking a cup of coffee, or necking down some beer.

Blup

 

[IT Minion]

It's been analysed by many Legal experts. The conclusion is that there were different policies in place in Durham vs the Met for retrospective fines. It also appears that Durham accepted Starmer's fib, that he simply ate while working, ignoring the fact that it was indeed a pre-planned event

If memory serves there was no mention of planning a working meal ahead being forbidden. Unless I'm missing something you're being unfair there.

 

[transam]

Politics is a dirty bussiness
Full of hypocrites and porkie piers
Has always been so

Blimey rumour has it that some people ( Joe public) actually join political parties

Yes exactly ( fruit cakes )

 

[blup]

There are fruit cakes and there are party fruit cakes.

Blup

 

[Notch7]

I'm PMSL Notch. In your wildest teenage years, if you ever were a wild teenager, did you ever, ever cruise around with a 'suitcase' full of booze.
**** me Notch, I've always considered myself a bit of a 'lad', but meeting up with an 'interior designer' with a 'suitcase' full of booze even stretches my warped imagination, and that's before we even start on the birthday cake.

I see Filly doesn’t like being reminded of the truth.

 

[Notch7]

Starmer has played a blinder, the Sue Gray appointment has woken up the “BringBackBoris” brigade, inflicting further misery on Sunak.

 

[motorbiking]

If memory serves there was no mention of planning a working meal ahead being forbidden. Unless I'm missing something you're being unfair there.

It is one thing to say we were working, ended up working late and ordered out for food. It is another to organise a dinner in advance.

I very much doubt it’s possible to distinguish between a works “do” and a “working dinner”.

I see no difference between either and suggest retrospective FPNs were dodgy for both. The idea of the legislation was to give police power to disperse gatherings at the time.

As I said at the time (posted here). There would have been many problems to secure a conviction.

 

[JohnD]

I very much doubt it’s possible to distinguish between a works “do” and a “working dinner”.

Do you now.