Beergate

comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Wetherby White (U6810)

He knows they aren't going to find him guilty, so he can say that. 100% would not quit if he did.

He's an idiot and just wrecked it for the labour party, for being a massive hypocrite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, Really?

If you had even the slightest of handles on this topic you would understand that Starmer called for Johnson’s resignation - not because of the many boozy events in Number Ten - but because he repeatedly lied to Parliament about it, you oaf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is why mud slinging is such an effective weapon and why Boris does it. To idiots, Starmer is guilty regardless of the outcome of the investigation and even though there is no equivalence; they'll trot out the line that they're all the same.

I'm not really sure you can have an effective opposition when they have an 80 seat majority and 95% of the Tory's have no spine.

comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 5 minutes ago
I'm not really sure you can have an effective opposition when they have an 80 seat majority and 95% of the Tory's have no spine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, there is not a lot you can do when the Prime Minister spends parliament lying and not answering question.

Starmer has to wrestle with a pig every week. When you wrestle a pig you both get dirty and the pig will enjoy it.

But considering the initial "scandal" was the birthday cake episode which Labour attacked him for vehemently at the time, this strikes me as rank hypocrisy when Starmer did the same thing.
======
Is it the same thing? Depends on the rules in place at the time.

He's backed himself into a korma

comment by Ladmin 3 (U1250)
posted 8 seconds ago
He's backed himself into a korma
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by Ladmin 3 (U1250)

He's backed himself into a korma
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, dear. John Craig’s article on the Sky News website this morning - from which you took this risible quote - simply demonstrates the level to which british journalism has sunk.

The only reason Starmer should resign is due to the fact he demanded it of Boris.

Neither of the fixed penalty notices are a reason to step down imo but maybe Starmer should have reigned it in a bit when he demanded Boris resigned. Raynor too should fall on her sword for the same stupid demands. They even demanded it just for the investigation!

It’s just coming home to roost I guess but I’m sure Boris would rather Forensic Starmer remained as Labour leader

comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 9 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Wetherby White (U6810)

He knows they aren't going to find him guilty, so he can say that. 100% would not quit if he did.

He's an idiot and just wrecked it for the labour party, for being a massive hypocrite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, Really?

If you had even the slightest of handles on this topic you would understand that Starmer called for Johnson’s resignation - not because of the many boozy events in Number Ten - but because he repeatedly lied to Parliament about it, you oaf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Starmer called for his resignation as soon as Boris was investigated. Then again when he got his FPN. Then he lied about his own misdemeanours and again lied that Angela Raynor wasn’t present,

Starmer keeps saying he broke no rules. Boris was told he broke no rules by his advisers and stated that in Parliament.

Who’s lying?

Boris is.