This is where we will have to agree to disagree Goldy. To me the breaking of a law that one implemented is nothing short of taking the absolute piss. But the electorate chose this man to lead the country and thats where the blame for a ****ed up mess should be aimed, not actually at the man himself.
Its actually become irrelevant as to what Starmer does. The bar has been set and its pretty ****ing low. Johnson will do whatever he pleases. Dem de rules
Have to say Bob, that in my opinion, your last paragraph is complete nonesense. People vote in good faith generally and it is absolutely the fault of the complete bellends in politics when they **** things up.
Well yes, I think that's what I posted earlier. He should say right now that he would resign if found to have broken the law, thereby putting the pressure back on Johnson. I suspect he'll be exonerated though - I seem to remember that when this came out originally, they were pointing out that there was some kind of dispensation for political campaigning - so no point in actually resigning unnecessarily.
You reap what you sow mate. This bloke was a **** up well before people voted for him to run the country.
He has, in a qualified way. If he has broken the rules but not offered a fine, which I understand is possible, he won't go. That could be the worst of all worlds. For a steady/dull type man, he's taken quite a gamble.
I don't see it as a gamble. He's still insisting that no rules were broken, so what he's saying is, 'I've done nothing wrong, but if I had, I'd resign. Unlike the Prime Minister'. Could be a winner.
Im now at the point where i couldnt care less. The way uk politics has been dragged through the sewers, then pumped into our local rivers is beyond repair. Parliment needs a complete overhaul from not having to call each other honourable for starters, to a constant fact checker or 2 in attendance at all times.
You can break the rules but the Durham Police Force say it's not their policy to issue retrospective fines.
He says he'll go if he's offered a fine i.e. fine, as opposed to being prosecuted. But if he's broken the rules but Durham Police see fit not to issue a fine, because, say, it's not in the public interest to prosecute if he won't accept the fine, then he stays as a rule breaker. Which gets him, where...?
I was just giving an example of breach but no fine. But, yes, there could be a fine. Durham police may go to the CPS for a view. If the CPS say there is a reasonable chance of success in court and it's in the public interest to prosecute if (in theory) Starmer rejected a fine, then Durham may offer Starmer a fine in place of prosecution. My understanding is that it works like motoring offences, where penalty and points are offered in place of a criminal court case.
So if they say its a breach of the rules but we won’t be issuing a notice because of our policy, Starmer won’t walk? And he thinks people won’t see through this? His USP is honesty v Boris. That’s that ****ed then. ****ing lawyers letter of the law bollocks. Even if they say no breach, beers and curries in a big group when the rest of us were being told not to see anyone outside of the people we live with is taking the piss. Campaign planning is not essential work, that can only be done face to face, what a crock of ****. I’m glad some creepy twat took a photo of them at it. These people, whatever ****ing party they represent, are a complete waste of space. I want all that oxygen they use back.
