Starmer cleared

[exiledclaseboy]

The police must have had a pretty reasonable explanation seeing as they decided no laws were broken and issued no finer after looking at all the evidence.

Aye I'm sure the Durham PCC, a Labour councillor herself, took personal responsibility in ensuring that all evidence was thoroughly examined.

He's a lucky boy, as I'm sure you need to be to be successful in politics generally, let alone in the aspiration to become PM

PCCs have literally no input into whether fines are levied or charges brought.

 

[AceJack]

Yet there hasnt been any real explanation as to why allegedly 15-30 individuals needed to be at an office in Durham at 10pm at night, and the nature of the work that they were doing that couldn't be performed remotely.

That combined with Starmers undue pressure on the investigation just creates a sorry stink that can't be ignored just because it's not the Tories getting the flack

Where have you been boiling your head if you don’t think they’ve had a reasonable excuse to be in Durham from the moment this story broke? They were in Durham to campaign for the local elections which was allowed under the guidance, and they needed to eat after a days campaigning.

Starmers undue pressure on the investigation? :lol: He was cleared once, then the investigation was reopened after the mail ran front pages on the non scandal for two weeks straight, then Starmer was cleared again. The police have investigated twice and said there’s no case to answer. Move on.

 

[JustJack]

Yet there hasnt been any real explanation as to why allegedly 15-30 individuals needed to be at an office in Durham at 10pm at night, and the nature of the work that they were doing that couldn't be performed remotely.

That combined with Starmers undue pressure on the investigation just creates a sorry stink that can't be ignored just because it's not the Tories getting the flack

Where have you been boiling your head if you don’t think they’ve had a reasonable excuse to be in Durham from the moment this story broke? They were in Durham to campaign for the local elections which was allowed under the guidance, and they needed to eat after a days campaigning.

Starmers undue pressure on the investigation? :lol: He was cleared once, then the investigation was reopened after the mail ran front pages on the non scandal for two weeks straight, then Starmer was cleared again. The police have investigated twice and said there’s no case to answer. Move on.

There was never any question of their presence in Durham.

But what there are questions as to why a minimum of 15 individuals (including 4 aides of Mary Foy) were needed to be physically present in the office to perform the described tasks, such as conducting an 'online member event', or 'approve press releases', tasks that easily could be done remotely.

Nonetheless, after a permitted break for dinner (again no question on that), then the options were for those 15 individuals to continue working (on the approval of those press releases as the member event had been done), or go home, as per the rules at the time.

The majority stayed on to 'get on with their work' and some report the attendance may have increased.

Again I can't envisage why it was reasonable for all those people to be needed to be physically present in the office at that time at night, but a QC knew that his backside was covered by the technalities.

This thread is interesting as to an understanding of the reasons why no individual was giving a FPN

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1545410298508722176

 

[monmouth]

They got no FPNs because none of them broke the law.

Unlike the 125 criminals in Downing Street.

 

[JustJack]

They got no FPNs because none of them broke the law.

Unlike the 125 criminals in Downing Street.

Or because the fact that they had gathered for 'political purposes' ensured that their hands were tied thrice over.

Ultimately thats the key difference between Downing Street and Durham, the fact the individuals had 'reasonable cause' to be there, despite what the event may actually have turned into.

 

[AceJack]

Where have you been boiling your head if you don’t think they’ve had a reasonable excuse to be in Durham from the moment this story broke? They were in Durham to campaign for the local elections which was allowed under the guidance, and they needed to eat after a days campaigning.

Starmers undue pressure on the investigation? :lol: He was cleared once, then the investigation was reopened after the mail ran front pages on the non scandal for two weeks straight, then Starmer was cleared again. The police have investigated twice and said there’s no case to answer. Move on.

There was never any question of their presence in Durham.

But what there are questions as to why a minimum of 15 individuals (including 4 aides of Mary Foy) were needed to be physically present in the office to perform the described tasks, such as conducting an 'online member event', or 'approve press releases', tasks that easily could be done remotely.

Nonetheless, after a permitted break for dinner (again no question on that), then the options were for those 15 individuals to continue working (on the approval of those press releases as the member event had been done), or go home, as per the rules at the time.

The majority stayed on to 'get on with their work' and some report the attendance may have increased.

Again I can't envisage why it was reasonable for all those people to be needed to be physically present in the office at that time at night, but a QC knew that his backside was covered by the technalities.

This thread is interesting as to an understanding of the reasons why no individual was giving a FPN

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1545410298508722176

What you can and can’t envisage isn’t worth a hill of beans though is it? Unless you’ve got experience running political offices or the logistics of election campaigns, you’re not really in any position to say. But we do have the police who have investigated this incident twice and concluded there is no case to answer.

Better luck next time.

 

[AceJack]

Where have you been boiling your head if you don’t think they’ve had a reasonable excuse to be in Durham from the moment this story broke? They were in Durham to campaign for the local elections which was allowed under the guidance, and they needed to eat after a days campaigning.

Starmers undue pressure on the investigation? :lol: He was cleared once, then the investigation was reopened after the mail ran front pages on the non scandal for two weeks straight, then Starmer was cleared again. The police have investigated twice and said there’s no case to answer. Move on.

There was never any question of their presence in Durham.

But what there are questions as to why a minimum of 15 individuals (including 4 aides of Mary Foy) were needed to be physically present in the office to perform the described tasks, such as conducting an 'online member event', or 'approve press releases', tasks that easily could be done remotely.

Nonetheless, after a permitted break for dinner (again no question on that), then the options were for those 15 individuals to continue working (on the approval of those press releases as the member event had been done), or go home, as per the rules at the time.

The majority stayed on to 'get on with their work' and some report the attendance may have increased.

Again I can't envisage why it was reasonable for all those people to be needed to be physically present in the office at that time at night, but a QC knew that his backside was covered by the technalities.

This thread is interesting as to an understanding of the reasons why no individual was giving a FPN

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1545410298508722176

What you can and can’t envisage isn’t worth a hill of beans though is it? Unless you’ve got experience running political offices or the logistics of election campaigns, you’re not really in any position to say. But we do have the police who have investigated this incident twice and concluded there is no case to answer.

Better luck next time.

 

[JustJack]

There was never any question of their presence in Durham.

But what there are questions as to why a minimum of 15 individuals (including 4 aides of Mary Foy) were needed to be physically present in the office to perform the described tasks, such as conducting an 'online member event', or 'approve press releases', tasks that easily could be done remotely.

Nonetheless, after a permitted break for dinner (again no question on that), then the options were for those 15 individuals to continue working (on the approval of those press releases as the member event had been done), or go home, as per the rules at the time.

The majority stayed on to 'get on with their work' and some report the attendance may have increased.

Again I can't envisage why it was reasonable for all those people to be needed to be physically present in the office at that time at night, but a QC knew that his backside was covered by the technalities.

This thread is interesting as to an understanding of the reasons why no individual was giving a FPN

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1545410298508722176

What you can and can’t envisage isn’t worth a hill of beans though is it? Unless you’ve got experience running political offices or the logistics of election campaigns, you’re not really in any position to say. But we do have the police who have investigated this incident twice and concluded there is no case to answer.

Better luck next time.

Sounds plausible.

Oh and by the way the by-election was a monumental disaster so obviously, they either needed to work harder or maybe such a logistical and complex poltiical operation like the Hartlepool by-election needed at least 50 people to be working Mary Foys office

 

[JackSomething]

They got no FPNs because none of them broke the law.

Unlike the 125 criminals in Downing Street.

Or because the fact that they had gathered for 'political purposes' ensured that their hands were tied thrice over.

Ultimately thats the key difference between Downing Street and Durham, the fact the individuals had 'reasonable cause' to be there, despite what the event may actually have turned into.

Then at the very least that shows that Labour had the sense to ensure they had 'reasonable cause' to be there, while the Tory party have such contempt for the electorate that they held parties and piss-ups without even attempting to disguise what they were doing.

I'm not one of those who think the opposition are heroes who will save this country through their purity of heart (not sure many do think that way to be honest), but having a party in charge who don't even feel the need to try and disguise what they're up to can't be good for the country. It's shocking that we're so polarised that many will happily ignore the fact that the people they're voting for openly show their contempt for them.

 

[Itchysphincter]

They got no FPNs because none of them broke the law.

Unlike the 125 criminals in Downing Street.

Or because the fact that they had gathered for 'political purposes' ensured that their hands were tied thrice over.

Ultimately thats the key difference between Downing Street and Durham, the fact the individuals had 'reasonable cause' to be there, despite what the event may actually have turned into.

It must really ache being so simple.

 

[JustJack]

Or because the fact that they had gathered for 'political purposes' ensured that their hands were tied thrice over.

Ultimately thats the key difference between Downing Street and Durham, the fact the individuals had 'reasonable cause' to be there, despite what the event may actually have turned into.

Then at the very least that shows that Labour had the sense to ensure they had 'reasonable cause' to be there, while the Tory party have such contempt for the electorate that they held parties and piss-ups without even attempting to disguise what they were doing.

I'm not one of those who think the opposition are heroes who will save this country through their purity of heart (not sure many do think that way to be honest), but having a party in charge who don't even feel the need to try and disguise what they're up to can't be good for the country. It's shocking that we're so polarised that many will happily ignore the fact that the people they're voting for openly show their contempt for them.

I don't disagree.

 

[AceJack]

What you can and can’t envisage isn’t worth a hill of beans though is it? Unless you’ve got experience running political offices or the logistics of election campaigns, you’re not really in any position to say. But we do have the police who have investigated this incident twice and concluded there is no case to answer.

Better luck next time.

Sounds plausible.

Oh and by the way the by-election was a monumental disaster so obviously, they either needed to work harder or maybe such a logistical and complex poltiical operation like the Hartlepool by-election needed at least 50 people to be working Mary Foys office

Keep up, they were there campaigning for the local authority elections, not a parliamentary by-election.

Whatever the campaign issues are, looks like they’ve sorted them after Woking.

 

[Neath_Jack]

Or because the fact that they had gathered for 'political purposes' ensured that their hands were tied thrice over.

Ultimately thats the key difference between Downing Street and Durham, the fact the individuals had 'reasonable cause' to be there, despite what the event may actually have turned into.

Then at the very least that shows that Labour had the sense to ensure they had 'reasonable cause' to be there, while the Tory party have such contempt for the electorate that they held parties and piss-ups without even attempting to disguise what they were doing.

I'm not one of those who think the opposition are heroes who will save this country through their purity of heart (not sure many do think that way to be honest), but having a party in charge who don't even feel the need to try and disguise what they're up to can't be good for the country. It's shocking that we're so polarised that many will happily ignore the fact that the people they're voting for openly show their contempt for them.

In fairness, the new wave Tory supporting, right wing gammons, don't know their arseholes from their elbows. So they'd probably struggle with words like contempt, electorate and polarised.

 

[monmouth]

They got no FPNs because none of them broke the law.

Unlike the 125 criminals in Downing Street.

Or because the fact that they had gathered for 'political purposes' ensured that their hands were tied thrice over.

Ultimately thats the key difference between Downing Street and Durham, the fact the individuals had 'reasonable cause' to be there, despite what the event may actually have turned into.

I'm just stating facts. You might not like them but you can't invent your own.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Where have you been boiling your head if you don’t think they’ve had a reasonable excuse to be in Durham from the moment this story broke? They were in Durham to campaign for the local elections which was allowed under the guidance, and they needed to eat after a days campaigning.

Starmers undue pressure on the investigation? :lol: He was cleared once, then the investigation was reopened after the mail ran front pages on the non scandal for two weeks straight, then Starmer was cleared again. The police have investigated twice and said there’s no case to answer. Move on.

There was never any question of their presence in Durham.

But what there are questions as to why a minimum of 15 individuals (including 4 aides of Mary Foy) were needed to be physically present in the office to perform the described tasks, such as conducting an 'online member event', or 'approve press releases', tasks that easily could be done remotely.

Nonetheless, after a permitted break for dinner (again no question on that), then the options were for those 15 individuals to continue working (on the approval of those press releases as the member event had been done), or go home, as per the rules at the time.

The majority stayed on to 'get on with their work' and some report the attendance may have increased.

Again I can't envisage why it was reasonable for all those people to be needed to be physically present in the office at that time at night, but a QC knew that his backside was covered by the technalities.

This thread is interesting as to an understanding of the reasons why no individual was giving a FPN

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1545410298508722176

Doesn’t that thread answer all the questions you posed on this?