You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Starmer & Rayner
May 26 2022 3.10pm

Starmer & Rayner

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 7 of 10 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

 

View Matov's Profile Matov Online Flag 09 May 22 5.51pm Send a Private Message to Matov Add Matov as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Starmer putting his head in the noose before he is sentenced.

He is guilty as hell and he knows it.

The hypocrisy is of a new level.

It is certainly an interesting turn of events for sure.

He is either VERY sure he will not get fined or he is VERY sure he will be.

With the later part perhaps seeming a bit odd but humour me here. This latest round of local elections have shown that Labour are not achieving what they need to if they are going to win a majority come the next election. I am sure they have some clever metrics going on by which they knew they had to achieve a certain level of success, primarily in northern seats, and it's just not happening. Outside of London and Scotland, Labour actually lost councillors.

Now I am adamant that Starmer set out, following what Corybn achieved in the 2017 election, to ensure that Labour lost the next GE, and his role in pushing their moronic second referendum position was the primary cause of that. He then becomes leader and throws Corbyn out of the party. Essentially job done. But this man is not a charismatic politician. He is a civil servant who only got elected in 2015.

So this now offers him an honourable exit. Can be a man of his word and embarrass Johnson at the same time. He then retires to the backbenches, maybe even stands down altogether and gets himself on the circuit, trousering 100,000's a time for giving speeches for the likes of Goldman Sachs. That's how this s*** works.

Leaving room for a new leader to emerge...

Now I don't know enough about how Labour works in terms of its leadership process but I do wonder if they will somehow fudge it, perhaps try and delay it until their next conference. Rayner could step up, and get mauled until such a time as they can bring their 'King over the water' back.

One David Miliband.

Of course, this could all just be me being me, and happy to be torn to shreds on this, but we live in strange times.

 


In 1967, when Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz was asked what it felt like to take human life, replied: "I wouldn't know, I've only ever killed communists."

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View steeleye20's Profile steeleye20 Online Flag Croydon 09 May 22 6.40pm Send a Private Message to steeleye20 Add steeleye20 as a friend

I would say this is nonsensical whether Starmer Johnson or anybody.


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View The Dolphin's Profile The Dolphin Flag 09 May 22 7.01pm Send a Private Message to The Dolphin Add The Dolphin as a friend

They have no doubt both been told that the investigation is lip service only and that no fines will be issued.
They can then have yet another partygate pop at Boris!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Matov's Profile Matov Online Flag 09 May 22 7.28pm Send a Private Message to Matov Add Matov as a friend

Originally posted by The Dolphin

They have no doubt both been told that the investigation is lip service only and that no fines will be issued.
They can then have yet another partygate pop at Boris!

But have they? This is the bit I am struggling with. If that leaked memo is true then this meal was planned. Not just an impromptu decision to quickly call in a curry because we are feeling a bit peckish. Throw in the lies about Rayner as well and you have one almight f*** up.

At this stage, I struggle to see how Durham police don't fine him. That is why I am more than a little perplexed at what is happening. And he could have swerved the fall-out based on Johnson not losing his job. My Spider senses are tingling on this one.

But whoever said a week in politics is a long time got that nailed on. If somebody had said this time last week that it would be Starmers job on the line rather than Boris, they would have been laughed off the stage.

 


In 1967, when Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz was asked what it felt like to take human life, replied: "I wouldn't know, I've only ever killed communists."

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 09 May 22 7.57pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by steeleye20

I would say this is nonsensical whether Starmer Johnson or anybody.


More agreement, what is wrong with me
The problem I have is the Tory policies are just rubbish atm and Labour don't have any.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 09 May 22 8.29pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Matov

It is certainly an interesting turn of events for sure.

He is either VERY sure he will not get fined or he is VERY sure he will be.

With the later part perhaps seeming a bit odd but humour me here. This latest round of local elections have shown that Labour are not achieving what they need to if they are going to win a majority come the next election. I am sure they have some clever metrics going on by which they knew they had to achieve a certain level of success, primarily in northern seats, and it's just not happening. Outside of London and Scotland, Labour actually lost councillors.

Now I am adamant that Starmer set out, following what Corybn achieved in the 2017 election, to ensure that Labour lost the next GE, and his role in pushing their moronic second referendum position was the primary cause of that. He then becomes leader and throws Corbyn out of the party. Essentially job done. But this man is not a charismatic politician. He is a civil servant who only got elected in 2015.

So this now offers him an honourable exit. Can be a man of his word and embarrass Johnson at the same time. He then retires to the backbenches, maybe even stands down altogether and gets himself on the circuit, trousering 100,000's a time for giving speeches for the likes of Goldman Sachs. That's how this s*** works.

Leaving room for a new leader to emerge...

Now I don't know enough about how Labour works in terms of its leadership process but I do wonder if they will somehow fudge it, perhaps try and delay it until their next conference. Rayner could step up, and get mauled until such a time as they can bring their 'King over the water' back.

One David Miliband.

Of course, this could all just be me being me, and happy to be torn to shreds on this, but we live in strange times.

I don't doubt that a bit of 4D chess goes on, but I see this as an attempt to pressure a low level Policeman who now has to decide if the leader of Britain's opposition loses his job. The other play is if Starmer has offered to resign then Boris should do too.
It's desperate gutter level stuff from a party who know they can't beat Johnson in 2 years, and I sincerely hope it backfires.

If you are right and Starmer is deliberately taking himself out then that's fine by me.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Matov's Profile Matov Online Flag 09 May 22 8.46pm Send a Private Message to Matov Add Matov as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I don't doubt that a bit of 4D chess goes on, but I see this as an attempt to pressure a low level Policeman who now has to decide if the leader of Britain's opposition loses his job. The other play is if Starmer has offered to resign then Boris should do too.
It's desperate gutter level stuff from a party who know they can't beat Johnson in 2 years, and I sincerely hope it backfires.

If you are right and Starmer is deliberately taking himself out then that's fine by me.

If a Police force has already fined a sitting Prime Minister, who got elected on the back of a huge victory and who can essentially do what he wants, then this idea that somebody like Starmer can intimidate another Police force makes little sense to me. And even if they do decide not to prosecute him, this does not go away. If anything, the pressure gets ratcheted up.

And based on that leaked memo, then as the law stood at the time, Starmer is guilty as is anybody else who was there. The meal was clearly planned in advance and came at the end of a days 'work'. A cheeky curry for lunch, then he might have a point. But at the end of the day? With it all pre-planned in advance? There is no valid defence as far as I can see.

But Starmer could have survived. Instead, he appears to be committing political suicide. Maybe it is just what it is, but these f***ers plan every move several steps ahead.

Something very fishy going on here. Like an episode of 'The Thick of It'. Whoever leaked that memo is a very, very naughty boy/gir/it/thingy.


 


In 1967, when Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz was asked what it felt like to take human life, replied: "I wouldn't know, I've only ever killed communists."

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 09 May 22 9.01pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Matov

If a Police force has already fined a sitting Prime Minister, who got elected on the back of a huge victory and who can essentially do what he wants, then this idea that somebody like Starmer can intimidate another Police force makes little sense to me. And even if they do decide not to prosecute him, this does not go away. If anything, the pressure gets ratcheted up.

And based on that leaked memo, then as the law stood at the time, Starmer is guilty as is anybody else who was there. The meal was clearly planned in advance and came at the end of a days 'work'. A cheeky curry for lunch, then he might have a point. But at the end of the day? With it all pre-planned in advance? There is no valid defence as far as I can see.

But Starmer could have survived. Instead, he appears to be committing political suicide. Maybe it is just what it is, but these f***ers plan every move several steps ahead.

Something very fishy going on here. Like an episode of 'The Thick of It'. Whoever leaked that memo is a very, very naughty boy/gir/it/thingy.


I see your logic, but we are talking about a specific individual ultimately making this decision. Time well tell if the police bottle it, and we can draw our conclusions from that.

Of course, there is the possibility that Starmer knows he is going to get off because he acted within the letter of the law, as can be determined by an investigation. The spirit of the law is somewhat different.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Matov's Profile Matov Online Flag 09 May 22 9.11pm Send a Private Message to Matov Add Matov as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger


Of course, there is the possibility that Starmer knows he is going to get off because he acted within the letter of the law, as can be determined by an investigation. The spirit of the law is somewhat different.

I don't see how. The law appears quite straightforward. The defence about Boris was that it was just a spontaneous event that he got caught up in by mistake. Sunak was even more hard-done by. But in Starmers case, the meal was pre-planned, as evidenced by that memo. You can make the work-related argument for say lunch, which I assumed originally was the case here because you have something to eat and then go back out on the metaphorical cobbles. Who can deny somebody the chance to grab a bite to eat half way through the day?

But at the end of the day? You get something to eat on the way home or wait until you are back are your hotel or similar. I would have guessed the safest bet for somebody in Starmers position would have been a packed lunch. He is guilty, based on the letter of the law. Seems pretty clear to me and I suspect the legal advice he had received.

So he resigns as a matter of 'principle'. Changes the narrative. The question is who follows him? But I cannot see him surviving this.

However, to be fair, I said the same about Johnson but Starmer is not in his league when it comes to this political malarkey.


 


In 1967, when Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz was asked what it felt like to take human life, replied: "I wouldn't know, I've only ever killed communists."

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 09 May 22 9.53pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

I suspect Starmer, who remember is a lawyer, is very confident he hasn't broken the law.

My understanding is that the rules at the time required you not to socialise indoors with anyone other than your immediate family. There were though exceptions, one of which "if the gathering is reasonably necessary for the purposes of campaigning in an election".

So it would seem that what happened would have been OK, even if it wasn't spontaneous, but pre-planned. Eating together at the end of a long day, and continuing to consider things, is not that unusual when in the middle of a campaign.

For me, that's reasonable defence which has enough doubt as to mean no fine will be issued.

It's a million miles away from Johnson's blatant disregard for the rules, for which he has already been fined, with more to come.

Johnson is also the Prime Minister, whose Government wrote the rules. Starmer isn't.

The Tories searching for spoonfuls of mud to throw, when their man is plastered in it from head to toe, seem likely to regret this if, as I expect, nothing happens to Starmer. He has just made life even more difficult for Johnson, and it already looked bad enough.

We'll see.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Matov's Profile Matov Online Flag 09 May 22 10.04pm Send a Private Message to Matov Add Matov as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I suspect Starmer, who remember is a lawyer, is very confident he hasn't broken the law.

My understanding is that the rules at the time required you not to socialise indoors with anyone other than your immediate family. There were though exceptions, one of which "if the gathering is reasonably necessary for the purposes of campaigning in an election".

You clearly have not researched this. The use of the campaigning get-out still comes with the proviso of it being only with one other person.

Starmer was eating with people, in a pre-planned meal, at the end of a day of campaigning. That most clearly falls outside of the law. As I said, lunch could be excused but why would eating a meal in such a large gathering at the end of the day be justified?

Makes little sense. His only defence is the same one that Johnson claimed in that the gathering was a work-related one. And we know how that ended.

 


In 1967, when Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz was asked what it felt like to take human life, replied: "I wouldn't know, I've only ever killed communists."

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 09 May 22 10.06pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I suspect Starmer, who remember is a lawyer, is very confident he hasn't broken the law.

My understanding is that the rules at the time required you not to socialise indoors with anyone other than your immediate family. There were though exceptions, one of which "if the gathering is reasonably necessary for the purposes of campaigning in an election".

So it would seem that what happened would have been OK, even if it wasn't spontaneous, but pre-planned. Eating together at the end of a long day, and continuing to consider things, is not that unusual when in the middle of a campaign.

For me, that's reasonable defence which has enough doubt as to mean no fine will be issued.

It's a million miles away from Johnson's blatant disregard for the rules, for which he has already been fined, with more to come.

Johnson is also the Prime Minister, whose Government wrote the rules. Starmer isn't.

The Tories searching for spoonfuls of mud to throw, when their man is plastered in it from head to toe, seem likely to regret this if, as I expect, nothing happens to Starmer. He has just made life even more difficult for Johnson, and it already looked bad enough.

We'll see.

Not writing the rules is an odd defence. Not many people accused of any misdemeanours wrote the rules either.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 7 of 10 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Starmer & Rayner