This might explain why Saint Keir Starmer wasn’t so gobby at PMQ’s last wednesday:
The Rt Hon. Sir Keir Starmer MP
(opened 8 June 2022)
Paragraph 14
Registration of interests under Category 1 of the Guide to the Rules (Employment and earnings]
Registration of interests under Category 3 of the Guide to the Rules [Gifts, benefits and hospitality from UK sources]
Oh dear…
I like it 
Remember when he got thrown out of that pub for not wearing a facemask ?
Starmer has more investigations on him than Johnson now 
Here is another report
It’s the hypocrisy of the man and his supporters that I can’t stand. At least Boris doesn’t proclaim to be an angel.
And he said he thought Boris should resign if he was being investigated by the police, but then when he’s under investigation by the police he doesn’t resign.
Yep, we have established the lot of them are a bunch of hypocrites, what now, who is the lesser hypocrite? 
Parliament’s standards commissioner is investigating whether Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer broke the rules by being late in registering earnings and gifts.
MPs must declare within 28 days any interest which might be reasonably considered to influence their actions.
Standards commissioner Kathryn Stone is believed to be looking into tickets received by Sir Keir for football matches involving Arsenal - whom the Labour leader supports - against Crystal Palace and Watford, worth £720 and £1,416 respectively.
These were declared more than 28 days late, as was an £18,450 advance payment from publisher Harper Collins for a book outlining his early life and plans for governing the UK, and making “a fierce argument for the vital role of respect and integrity in political life”.
The fee for this work is being donated to charity.
Sir Keir also received an oil painting worth £1,500 from a donor called Tim Benson on 23 November last year, which was registered on 20 December.
Food delivery firm Just Eat also gifted him tickets to the British Kebab Awards and Taste of London event, passed on to the Labour leader’s staff, which were declared more than 28 days after they were received.
A spokesperson for the Labour leader said: “Keir Starmer takes his declaration responsibilities very seriously and has already apologised for the fact that administrative errors in his office have led to a small number of late declarations. The standards commissioner has asked for more information which we are happy to provide.”
Prime Minister Boris Johnson was found by the standards commissioner to have breached the rules on late declarations in 2018 and 2019.
The first occasion involved earnings of more than £50,000 and the second involved part-ownership (worth over £100,000) of a property in Somerset.
Boris Johnson has been ordered to apologise for failing to declare £52,722.80 in income by the Commons standards watchdog.
The former foreign secretary offered a “full and unreserved” apology in a 35-second statement in the House of Commons.
The Committee on Standards said Mr Johnson “acted in breach of the House’s rules on the registration of his financial interests by failing to register remuneration within the required timetable on nine occasions”.
In its report the watchdog said this referred to a total amount £52,722.80 which represents almost seventy per cent of a Member’s salary.
It covers books penned by Mr Johnson, trips to the Oval cricket ground and his weekly Telegraph column.
It said: “The number of late registrations suggested a lack of attention to the House’s requirements, rather than inadvertent error.”
The report advised that Mr Johnson make an apology to the House of Commons.
Boris Johnson breached House of Commons rules by failing to declare a financial interest in property in Somerset within the required time limit.
He was investigated by the Commons Standards Committee over his 20 per cent share in the house.
MPs have to declare any land or property within 28 days if it’s part of a portfolio worth over £100,000.
The latest censure comes after he was criticised in November last year for failing to declare financial interests.
The report today said: ‘We conclude with concern that these two investigations by the Commissioner in rapid succession demonstrate a pattern of behaviour by Mr Johnson.
‘While there is no suggestion that he has at any time tried deliberately to conceal the extent of his interests, this latest breach reinforces the view which we expressed in our previous Report, that he has displayed “an over-casual attitude towards obeying the rules of the House”, in conjunction with “a lack of effective organisation within [his] office”.
BJ and rules have met on several occasions but have never seen eye-to-eye … 
Bump and I thought this thread was started so that Keir Starmer wasn’t discussed on one of the loads of Boris’ threads. Please note what I say above about the hypocrisy of Keir Starmer and his ‘supporters’.
Well, you introduced BJ to the thread … 
I thought the inclusion of details of Sir Keir’s alleged infringements with a size comparison to BJ’s proven rule-breaks was appropriate … 
I know I can hear the burning from here.
Are BJ’s pants burning again … 
They are all as bad as each other. Starmer now faces more probes 
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer faces parliamentary standards INVESTIGATION | Daily Mail Online
I think my previous post links to a similar article …
You’ve changed your post from thinking to what you were thinking about lol And I thought it was good on the Boris’s threads to show that Starmer isn’t as sweet and innocent as he tries to proclaim, as I say his supporters are just as big hypocrites as he is. One rule for you and another rule for anybody who disagrees with you.
And I posted before you:
This might explain why Saint Keir Starmer wasn’t so gobby at PMQ’s last wednesday:
The Rt Hon. Sir Keir Starmer MP
(opened 8 June 2022)
Paragraph 14
Registration of interests under Category 1 of the Guide to the Rules (Employment and earnings]
Registration of interests under Category 3 of the Guide to the Rules [Gifts, benefits and hospitality from UK sources]
No, I haven’t.
Omg and you have the cheek to accuse Boris of lying. Your post previously was just a simple ‘thinking’ with an emoji and nothing else.
In this thread, which I created for you, you failed to include the detail of Sir Keir’s alleged infringements so I did that for you, too. The article that I linked to also included links to BJ’s proven rule-breaks so it seemed appropriate to include the comparison.
Of course, if Sir Keir’s alleged infringements are not proven then the comparison becomes moot.
No, it wasn’t.
Indeed you did - it’s the link without detail - but why are you replying to me with it?
What two edits did you make to your post then? And why would I have initially replied to it with this reply:
