The United Kingdom and the Death of Boris Johnson as we know it.

[Fan The Flames]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Say he's fined, he steps down, but Boris doesn't citing Starmers hypocrisy as their difference... where's the blinder?

He's taken control of the narrative, he stalls the constant questioning with Johnson's line of wait until the investigation concludes, but it doesn't make him look like a spineless sleazebag because he's backed it up with substance. He can legitimately claim he honestly thought no rules were broken, otherwise he wouldn't have put his neck on the line. 

He's putting honour back into the honour system and acting with integrity and highlighting everything that Johnson isn't. 

If he's not fined he can keep digging away at Boris without a sniff of hypocrisy. If he's fined then Labour can claim they've done the right thing and they can keep digging away at the Tories.

There's an integrity deficit with this government enabled up by the idea that they are all the same, this provides Starmer with clear water between Labour and the Tories.

Durham Police have sucked the energy out of Starmers position, his call today has given him the power back. It's an insane decision, if this decision was a Saints signing it would be Livramento.

[sadoldgit]

7 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

🤣🤣🤣

Tell me it’s an act, you’re not really like this in real life.

The Durham police waited until after polling had closed to announce they were re-investigating, it’s why Starmer wouldn’t answer the bird from sky when he knew full well they were.

“On Friday” 

Sadly Duckie you are like this in real life.

That Tory mouthpiece the Daily Duckhunter constantly ran a front page splash about “Beergate” right up to and through the local election period. Surprise surprise, when we all should have been talking about and celebrating the kicking the Tories got in the polls, the news finally drops that Durham police are going to re investigate and it’s all about “Beergate” again. Perhaps Duckie, you can tell us why the Met decided to wait until after the local elections before they announce the next round of fines for Johnson and his party party? Nothing dodgy about that 🥴.

So Starmer and Rayner have answered your question. Not that Johnson will be rattled because a man without shame cannot be shamed into doing the right thing. 
 

Back to my original point which you don’t seem to be able to get your head around. Johnson should resign because he deliberately lied to Parliament about parties and not attending them. At this point in time, when Starmer addressed Parliament he did not lie as the police had investigated the incident and had found no rules had been broken. Starmer now says that he will stand down if he is issued a fine. How can Johnson continue in office when he has broken the same rules multiple times, has already been fined (with his wife) and is likely to be fined again? And before you start to play down these rules, people were dying or seriously ill because of others who did not follow the rules. Your esteemed leader himself was also ill and was also a superspreader. No problem with that? I guess not, despite the slagging you gave to Butch Wilkins when he passed away for drunk driving, your moral compass doesn’t seem to extend to illegal activities carried out by a Tory government that have cost lives and wasted huge sums of money sorting out their business mates. You guys must all be cut from the same cloth.

Oh, bye the way. As I have told you several times before, I have only voted Labour twice in my life. This was in the last 2 elections and I did so because they are the second party in my constituency and I want to get the Tory MP out. I know it gives you pleasure to call people by labels and feel free to carry on calling me a “soft Lefty” if it makes you happy, but as usual, you are just talking bollocks.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/labour-says-can-prove-starmer-team-worked-past-1am-beergate-night

Edited 9 May, 2022 by sadoldgit
Added link

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

He's taken control of the narrative, he stalls the constant questioning with Johnson's line of wait until the investigation concludes, but it doesn't make him look like a spineless sleazebag because he's backed it up with substance. He can legitimately claim he honestly thought no rules were broken, otherwise he wouldn't have put his neck on the line. 

He's putting honour back into the honour system and acting with integrity and highlighting everything that Johnson isn't. 

If he's not fined he can keep digging away at Boris without a sniff of hypocrisy. If he's fined then Labour can claim they've done the right thing and they can keep digging away at the Tories.

There's an integrity deficit with this government enabled up by the idea that they are all the same, this provides Starmer with clear water between Labour and the Tories.

Durham Police have sucked the energy out of Starmers position, his call today has given him the power back. It's an insane decision, if this decision was a Saints signing it would be Livramento.

But that avoids my question. It's not "a blinder" if he's fined and has to resign. He'll be shown as a hypocrite , who the tories will say, resigned as a consequence. If he's not fined though, different story. As you say, it's a bold move and I'd hate to see him go as Labour have a bit of momentum now and I'd hate to see the opposition weakened.

[Fan The Flames]

1 minute ago, egg said:

But that avoids my question. It's not "a blinder" if he's fined and has to resign. He'll be shown as a hypocrite , who the tories will say, resigned as a consequence. If he's not fined though, different story. As you say, it's a bold move and I'd hate to see him go as Labour have a bit of momentum now and I'd hate to see the opposition weakened.

I don't get why he will be seen as a hypocrite if he's fined, he wants Johnson to face the consequences of his actions. By resigning he will be doing exactly that himself.

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

I don't get why he will be seen as a hypocrite if he's fined, he wants Johnson to face the consequences of his actions. By resigning he will be doing exactly that himself.

I’ll ask again.
 

What if he isn’t fined, but judged to have broken the rules in a “minor” way (as Dom was). Seeing as he called for Dom to be sacked, should he resign?  

[Lord Duckhunter]

26 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Perhaps Duckie, you can tell us why the Met decided to wait until after the local elections before they announce the next round of fines for Johnson and his party party? Nothing dodgy about that 🥴

 

 

 

Dear god. But you’re right, there was nothing dodgy about it. They’d have done the same with Labour. As Durham police did. 

Edited 9 May, 2022 by Lord Duckhunter

[badgerx16]

20 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

I don't get why he will be seen as a hypocrite if he's fined, he wants Johnson to face the consequences of his actions. By resigning he will be doing exactly that himself.

All that will happen is that Labour will have to go through a new leadership election whilst BoJo stays in office and continues to bluff it out because "there are more important issues that need to be addressed". Boris is gambling that by the time of the next GE this will all be ancient history.

[Fan The Flames]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I’ll ask again.
 

What if he isn’t fined, but judged to have broken the rules in a “minor” way (as Dom was). Seeing as he called for Dom to be sacked, should he resign?  

No.

[Fan The Flames]

48 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

All that will happen is that Labour will have to go through a new leadership election whilst BoJo stays in office and continues to bluff it out because "there are more important issues that need to be addressed". Boris is gambling that by the time of the next GE this will all be ancient history.

That's Boris's take, but he won't be able to not fuck between now and 2025 and it will all add up with either the back benches or the electorate.

[CB Fry]

Quite clever how these people can just slither from one whataboutery routine to another. All of a sudden the benchmark is now what happened to Dominic Cummings who until about four hours ago was never mentioned in relation to this story. 

Quite breathtaking really.

 

[Tamesaint]

45 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Quite clever how these people can just slither from one whataboutery routine to another. All of a sudden the benchmark is now what happened to Dominic Cummings who until about four hours ago was never mentioned in relation to this story. 

Quite breathtaking really.

 

They are struggling...  and the more they flounder, the worse the damage to the Conservative party.

If they had any sense Tory MPs would sack Johnson tomorrow and try to rebuild their party.

 

 

 

 

 

[Warriorsaint]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I’ll ask again.
 

What if he isn’t fined, but judged to have broken the rules in a “minor” way (as Dom was). Seeing as he called for Dom to be sacked, should he resign?  

I think you are wrong.

[sadoldgit]

The Mail have managed to do exactly what they set out to do, muddy the waters and pretend that all MPs are the same. It doesn’t matter if Starmer is not charged, mud sticks. It was the same with the nonsense about him being responsible for not charging Savile. People believe because they want to believe it. Johnson has got away with being the worst PM in living memory (so far) because some who voted for him think he is the best of a bad bunch and others don’t want to admit they have made a terrible mistake and keep making excuses for him. Like Trump he has taken this country to a new low and for that alone should be kicked out of office. Whatever you think of Partygate he needs to go because you can’t have the person setting the rules ignoring them. An honourable person would have resigned ages ago once the whiff of scandal was in the air. He doesn’t care about this country. He doesn’t care about his party. He only cares about himself. We now have the unedifying prospect of him desperately clinging on by his fingertips until his party finally find a successor and kick him out. The only upside with him staying in power is that the longer he is in office, the more votes the Tories will lose. The downside of course is that he and his incompetent cabinet will continue to wreck this country (and possibly the union) for the next two years. His legacy will be less of Churchill, more of Mr Bean.

[Sheaf Saint]

And so it begins. Johnson's enablers are already defending the possibility of him staying in post if Starmer resigns.

Kit Malthouse said on LBC “Obviously in any situation where, you know, the rules were moving around, there were misunderstandings or mistakes were made, and apologies are made and they are accepted, then people of all walks of life should be able to keep their jobs. But Keir Starmer has to speak for himself and set his own standards.”

A more shameless bunch of sycophants you will never find.

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

And so it begins. Johnson's enablers are already defending the possibility of him staying in post if Starmer resigns.

Kit Malthouse said on LBC “Obviously in any situation where, you know, the rules were moving around, there were misunderstandings or mistakes were made, and apologies are made and they are accepted, then people of all walks of life should be able to keep their jobs. But Keir Starmer has to speak for himself and set his own standards.”

A more shameless bunch of sycophants you will never find.

They should not resign. Starmer absolutely not. The rules (which they all voted for) were completely ridiculous. 
 

losing a PM or leader of the opposition to the equivalent of a parking ticket is just insane.

next time, they may all dwell a pause before voting through pathetic ‘rules’.

Edited 10 May, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[Lord Duckhunter]

14 hours ago, CB Fry said:

Quite clever how these people can just slither from one whataboutery routine to another. All of a sudden the benchmark is now what happened to Dominic Cummings who until about four hours ago was never mentioned in relation to this story. 

Quite breathtaking really.

 

So the fact the same police force that investigated Dom are investigating Starmer and the fact that they didn’t issue a fine to Dom,stating that they don’t issue retrospective fines for covid offences has no relevance? 
 

Once Starmer said he’d resign if he got a fine from Durham police , Doms previous became an issue seeing as Starner called for him to go despite no receiving a fine from the same force. 

 

 

[Sheaf Saint]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

They should not resign. Starker absolutely not. The rules (which they all voted for) were completely ridiculous. 
 

losing a PM or leader of the opposition to the equivalent of a parking ticket is just insane.

next time, they may all dwell a pause before voting through pathetic ‘rules’.

That argument doesn't make any sense. If a Prime Minister presents a set of rules to the nation, goes on air and explains these rules to everyone and why it is critical that everyone follow them, then wilfully breaks them himself on multiple occasions (and claims ignorance, and then lies about it, over and over again) and refuses to resign because some people think the rules were stupid and unnecessary - what message does that send out? 

Whether or not you agree with the rules being introduced in the first place is completely irrelevant. The fact is they were, and for the man who set and announced them to break them numerous times, claim he didn't even know he had broken them, and then repeatedly lie to the house about it, in any sane society is a resigning matter. The fact that Johnson thinks it's OK for him to carry on shows that he and his cronies have no integrity whatsoever.

[Lord Duckhunter]

9 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

They should not resign. Starmer absolutely not. The rules (which they all voted for) were completely ridiculous. 
 

losing a PM or leader of the opposition to the equivalent of a parking ticket is just insane.

next time, they may all dwell a pause before voting through pathetic ‘rules’.

He won’t get a fine. Durham police has previously said they don’t issue retrospective fines to covid offenders. Fucking hell, if they do the lefties will be going ballistic and quite frankly who can blame them? Nobody should be above the law, but nobody should be treated differently because of who they are. Starmer is a slimy hypocrite, but if they don’t issue fines retrospectively, they shouldn’t make an exception for him. If Dom didn’t get one, it’s pretty hard to think what you need to do for Durham police to do so, 

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

That argument doesn't make any sense. If a Prime Minister presents a set of rules to the nation, goes on air and explains these rules to everyone and why it is critical that everyone follow them, then wilfully breaks them himself on multiple occasions (and claims ignorance, and then lies about it, over and over again) and refuses to resign because some people think the rules were stupid and unnecessary - what message does that send out? 

Whether or not you agree with the rules being introduced in the first place is completely irrelevant. The fact is they were, and for the man who set and announced them to break them numerous times, claim he didn't even know he had broken them, and then repeatedly lie to the house about it, in any sane society is a resigning matter. The fact that Johnson thinks it's OK for him to carry on shows that he and his cronies have no integrity whatsoever.

They were voted through with Labour (who wanted even more strict rules)

they were all at it. Kinnock, Corbyn, Blackfoot, Boris, Starmer

the rules were ridiculous, and to lose any of them over what is a parking ticket is equally stupid.

but hey, cake and curry is what it is all about, right!?

[Sheaf Saint]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

They were voted through with Labour (who wanted even more strict rules)

they were all at it. Kinnock, Corbyn, Blackfoot, Boris, Starmer

the rules were ridiculous, and to lose any of them over what is a parking ticket is equally stupid.

but hey, cake and curry is what it is all about, right!?

But that's exactly my point. They were voted through almost unanimously because they all felt it was necessary.

They can't possibly now play it down and say "well the rules were pointless anyway so it doesn't matter".

It's not what the specific rules were that matters here, it's the principle. How do you not understand that?

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Sheaf Saint said:

But that's exactly my point. They were voted through almost unanimously because they all felt it was necessary.

They can't possibly now play it down and say "well the rules were pointless anyway so it doesn't matter".

It's not what the specific rules were that matters here, it's the principle. How do you not understand that?

If they felt they were necessary, why were so many of them ignoring the rules?

they were not scared of the virus we were told to be scared of. 
 

next time, let’s hope these things are considered a bit more.

if it was all about principle, when is Stephen kinnock being sacked? Ian Blackfoot?

they were all at it. What we are watching is political theatre.

as said, losing an elected official over nothing more than a parking ticket is barking mad, and will ensure we dig further into the gutter for future MPs 

[aintforever]

23 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

So the fact the same police force that investigated Dom are investigating Starmer and the fact that they didn’t issue a fine to Dom,stating that they don’t issue retrospective fines for covid offences has no relevance? 
 

Once Starmer said he’d resign if he got a fine from Durham police , Doms previous became an issue seeing as Starner called for him to go despite no receiving a fine from the same force. 

 

 

Durham police have issued over a 1000 Covid fines.

[Sheaf Saint]

6 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

If they felt they were necessary, why were so many of them ignoring the rules?

they were not scared of the virus we were told to be scared of. 
 

next time, let’s hope these things are considered a bit more.

if it was all about principle, when is Stephen kinnock being sacked? Ian Blackfoot?

they were all at it. What we are watching is political theatre.

as said, losing an elected official over nothing more than a parking ticket is barking mad, and will ensure we dig further into the gutter for future MPs 

If you mean Ian Blackford, he caught a train to his home in Skye to isolate himself from his wife who was in a high risk category. "Stay at home" was the message, remember? Not even in the same ball park as organising a party is it.

You just don't get it do you. It doesn't matter whether you think the rules should have been introduced or not. Johnson set the rules and wilfully broke them because he didn't think they applied to him, becoming the first ever sitting Prime Minister of this country to be found guilty of a criminal offence, and repeatedly lied to the house about it. You can't get much further into the gutter with morals like that. 

[badgerx16]

36 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

If they felt they were necessary, why were so many of them ignoring the rules?

 

What other laws ( rules ) introduced by Parliament can we dismiss and ignore then ? Who gets to choose ?

Edited 10 May, 2022 by badgerx16

[sadoldgit]

33 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

If they felt they were necessary, why were so many of them ignoring the rules?

they were not scared of the virus we were told to be scared of. 
 

next time, let’s hope these things are considered a bit more.

if it was all about principle, when is Stephen kinnock being sacked? Ian Blackfoot?

they were all at it. What we are watching is political theatre.

as said, losing an elected official over nothing more than a parking ticket is barking mad, and will ensure we dig further into the gutter for future MPs 

Tell that to the ten of thousands who died or are still ill with long covid. Even superspreader Boris Johnson himself was supposed to be very I’ll with it. I didn’t have you down as one of the MLT brigade Batman. Oh, and as has already been said, Johnson has set a new low for someone in public office and that is probably deeper than the gutter. As well you know this is not about being issued with the equivalent of a parking ticket and you are either deliberately being obtuse or you really are at the level of a Daily Mail reader.

[AlexLaw76]

23 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

What other laws ( rules ) introduced by Parliament can we dismiss and ignore then ? Who gets to choose ?

Well, we have convicted criminals sitting in Parliament, and few give a toss. So who knows!

Edited 10 May, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[AlexLaw76]

42 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

If you mean Ian Blackford, he caught a train to his home in Skye to isolate himself from his wife who was in a high risk category. "Stay at home" was the message, remember? Not even in the same ball park as organising a party is it.

You just don't get it do you. It doesn't matter whether you think the rules should have been introduced or not. Johnson set the rules and wilfully broke them because he didn't think they applied to him, becoming the first ever sitting Prime Minister of this country to be found guilty of a criminal offence, and repeatedly lied to the house about it. You can't get much further into the gutter with morals like that. 

Didn’t Tony Blair get a parking ticket?

[CB Fry]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

He won’t get a fine. Durham police has previously said they don’t issue retrospective fines to covid offenders. Fucking hell, if they do the lefties will be going ballistic and quite frankly who can blame them? Nobody should be above the law, but nobody should be treated differently because of who they are. Starmer is a slimy hypocrite, but if they don’t issue fines retrospectively, they shouldn’t make an exception for him. If Dom didn’t get one, it’s pretty hard to think what you need to do for Durham police to do so, 

The Met Police weren't issuing retrospective fines before Partygate either.

The Cummings thing is just the latest whataboutery bolocks now you people can no longer go on about "Starmer won't say he will resign". Now he has said he will suddenly it's all about Cummings. Who didn't resign and had the entire Shadow Cabinet defending him in a co-ordinated response saying what he did was fine.

If tomorrow he comes out and says "I'll resign if I get the same type of letter as Cummings" you'll just slither on to the next demand, probably based on Steven Kinnocks cup of tea or Neil Ferguson's affair or that SNP woman on a train.

[Tamesaint]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

Durham police have issued over a 1000 Covid fines.

Don't let the facts spoil Dickie's fantasy "whataboutery" world. 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

Durham police have issued over a 1000 Covid fines.

Retrospectively?

[Tamesaint]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Well, we have convicted criminals sitting in Parliament, and few give a toss. So who knows!

Out of interest who are the convicted criminals currently sitting in Parliament?

Imran Khan the Wakefield MP resigned as soon as he was convicted. Who are the other convicted criminals?

 

 

 

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Out of interest who are the convicted criminals currently sitting in Parliament?

Imran Khan the Wakefield MP resigned as soon as he was convicted. Who are the other convicted criminals?

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/04/can-claudia-webbe-continue-as-an-mp-after-her-criminal-conviction

[Tamesaint]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/04/can-claudia-webbe-continue-as-an-mp-after-her-criminal-conviction

Thanks.

So there are not convicted criminalS sitting in Parliament. There was 1 MP who left office 3 years ago and 1 now who is appealing (as she is fully entitled to ) against her conviction.

People do "give a toss" as they were both suspended from their parties. It is hardly a thieves's kitchen. 😁

 

 

[aintforever]

23 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Retrospectively?

The MET don't routinely investigate retrospective breaches of the Covid-19 regulations either.

[AlexLaw76]

13 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Thanks.

So there are not convicted criminalS sitting in Parliament. There was 1 MP who left office 3 years ago and 1 now who is appealing (as she is fully entitled to ) against her conviction.

People do "give a toss" as they were both suspended from their parties. It is hardly a thieves's kitchen. 😁

 

 

She is an MP who has been found guilty and appealing that guilty conviction.  Good luck to her.

Edited 10 May, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[badgerx16]

41 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Out of interest who are the convicted criminals currently sitting in Parliament?

I think the way the country is being governed is criminal.

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, CB Fry said:

The Met Police weren't issuing retrospective fines before Partygate either.

 

Which is why Boris shouldn’t have been fined. He should be treated as an ordinary Joe, not above the law or treated more harshly. Same with Starmer. I’ve been consistent, neither should be fined.
 

Most on here take a different view, they think Boris should be retrospectively fined but Starmer not. I’m pretty sure you’d be using your famous cutting put downs if it was the other way round. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Tamesaint said:

Don't let the facts spoil Dickie's fantasy "whataboutery" world. 

The only fantasy is people trying to claim Starmer has somehow done something honourable or courageous. If Dom didn’t get a fine for conducting his eye sight “test”, what on Earth possess people to think Starmer will get fined for a couple of noggins and a Ruby. If they conclude (as they did with Dom) that he broke the rules but don’t fine him, then surely whether he’s fined is irrelevant. 
 

I’d bet my bottom dollar that more allegations come out regarding Starmer bending the rules. Somebody in the know will want him replaced and he’s left himself wide open to be stabbed in the back. Anyone who thinks this is a one off is in fantasy world. The rules were so poorly written and so confusing they’ll be more. 

Edited 10 May, 2022 by Lord Duckhunter

[CB Fry]

38 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Which is why Boris shouldn’t have been fined. He should be treated as an ordinary Joe, not above the law or treated more harshly. Same with Starmer. I’ve been consistent, neither should be fined.
 

Most on here take a different view, they think Boris should be retrospectively fined but Starmer not. I’m pretty sure you’d be using your famous cutting put downs if it was the other way round. 

Do me a favour. I'll not take lessons on consistency from the most predictable teeth achingly partisan contributor on the forum.

If Starmer was found to have multiple parties, pre planned non work events and lied to Parliament then yes I would react the same as I do with  Boris.

You of course don't give a shit because Steven Kinnock had a cup of tea once and the leader of the opposition has an agenda written out for a field visit. You can pat yourself on the back as much as you like, but you're not consistent.

Powered by the likes of Guido you're just trying to wring as much "they're all the same they're all the same" whataboutery as you can manage.

Boris is not an "ordinary Joe". Jesus fucking wept.

Paint by numbers stuff.

 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

The MET don't routinely investigate retrospective breaches of the Covid-19 regulations either.

And that's relevant to Durham police issuing 1,000 covid fines (not retrospectively), how?

[aintforever]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

And that's relevant to Durham police issuing 1,000 covid fines (not retrospectively), how?

Because they might think it’s in the public interest to do so, just like the MET did.

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, aintforever said:

Because they might think it’s in the public interest to do so, just like the MET did.

Did the MET police announce that they do not issue retrospective fines for Covid like Durham police have?

[aintforever]

8 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Did the MET police announce that they do not issue retrospective fines for Covid like Durham police have?

They said: 

"It is our policy not to routinely investigate retrospective breaches of the Covid-19 regulations.” 

 

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

They said: 

"It is our policy not to routinely investigate retrospective breaches of the Covid-19 regulations.” 

 

The MET?

[aintforever]

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

The MET?

Yes

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-12-08/met-police-will-not-probe-no10-party-allegations-due-to-absence-of-evidence

Edited 10 May, 2022 by aintforever

[badgerx16]

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

The MET?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59532066

"The Metropolitan Police has said it does not routinely probe "retrospective breaches" of Covid laws amid calls for an investigation of a No 10 Christmas party held during 2020's restrictions."

 

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Yes

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-12-08/met-police-will-not-probe-no10-party-allegations-due-to-absence-of-evidence

So they defintiely didn't say they don't issue retrospective fines, like Durham did.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-statement-resign-beergate-b2074889.html

Quote

In 2020 the force said it had a “general approach” not “to take retrospective action” regarding Covid fines, “since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public”.

Pretty safe bet to say you'll resign if you're issued a fine when the police force investigating have previously said they don't issue them as that would treat the accused differently from other members of the public.

[aintforever]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

So they defintiely didn't say they don't issue retrospective fines, like Durham did.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-statement-resign-beergate-b2074889.html

Pretty safe bet to say you'll resign if you're issued a fine when the police force investigating have previously said they don't issue them as that would treat the accused differently from other members of the public.

That just says it had a “general approach” not “to take retrospective action”.

Do you have a link to where they say they will not issue any?

[RedArmy]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

So they defintiely didn't say they don't issue retrospective fines, like Durham did.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-statement-resign-beergate-b2074889.html

Pretty safe bet to say you'll resign if you're issued a fine when the police force investigating have previously said they don't issue them as that would treat the accused differently from other members of the public.

Probably an even safer bet when the Durham police and crime commissioner has been part of the Labour Party for 27 years. 

[whelk]

Is Gove regularly doing drugs? Just doing ‘calm down’ in scouse accent when being interviewed and loads of other mocking voices. Weird. Oh and of course fck all substance in his answers.