BJ let’s the Mail do his dirty work:
Hysterical … 
I do love it when people complain about a particularly newspaper as there is a really simple solution don’t read it. 
But it really does not matter what it is publishing as I go back to what I have said again and again, Johnson would prefer it if Starmer was not found guilty of breaking lockdown rules.
I wish the police would get back to not investigating burglaries as they usually do .
I agree Morty, this tit for tat is really boring now, sometimes it’s easier to accept the “Desired Effect” than keep on going in circles ad infinitum.
It’s not just me that’s noticed the fanaticism of the Mail:
Feeling that you just can’t win when it comes to the Daily Mail presumably comes with the territory if you are Labour leader, but Keir Starmer could be forgiven for thinking his treatment is particularly unfair.
“Starmer accused of piling pressure on police,” the paper’s front-page headline said on Tuesday, directly below a red banner saying, “Beergate: Day 13”, a tally of how many days, some might argue, the paper has been trying to persuade Starmer to do exactly what he has now done.
The Labour leader’s decision to pledge that he would resign if issued with a penalty over an April campaign event in Durham last year, where he was pictured holding a beer, “placed detectives in the difficult position” of knowing their decision would have major political ramifications, the Mail story warned.
One unnamed government source said “ministers were concerned that Sir Keir’s intervention could place ‘undue pressure’ on Durham Constabulary to clear Sir Keir, or at least refrain from fining him”.
A separate editorial comment from the paper said, in typically steadfast style, that Starmer’s televised statement announcing the decision “combined lawyerly weasel words with trademark sanctimony”.
In a section that seemingly hints at a lack of contact between those writing the editorials and the team in charge of news, the comment added: “Superficially of course, he appears to be doing the decent thing, though frankly, he didn’t have much choice.”
The lack of choice would arguably be the message regular readers would have taken from the 13 days – and counting – of Mail coverage about “beergate”. One front page, on 30 April, boomed: “Police told to investigate Labour’s lies.”
A series of other similar front pages urged Durham police to look again at an incident that they had concluded in February had broken no Covid rules, and then explained at length how untenable Starmer’s position would be if the force changed its mind.
Other stories have detailed what the paper insists are inconsistencies in Labour’s narrative about the evening in question, and reasons why it demonstrably broke guidelines in place at the time.
It is, of course, now a matter for Durham police, who have some experience in politically charged Covid investigations, having decided to take no action against Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s then-chief adviser, for his ill-advised drives through their territory in the peak of lockdown.
No one, beyond perhaps a handful of experienced detectives, knows what they will decide. But one thing seems clear: whatever happens, the Daily Mail will not be especially happy.
Th fanatics are the ones defending Starmer.
1 Like
Watching politics live this afternoon and rather than answer the questions and points put to her Labours Thangam Debbonaire decided to do what the Tories have done all along by either ridiculing the question or resorting to the usual politicians speak by heaping praise on Starmer, how Labour expects the public to accept that not knowing the deputy leader was there was a mistake is another example of the contempt all politicians have for us plebs.
When newspapers, politicians and people in the general public have a determined agenda, objective reporting goes out of the window.
I can’t be doing with media outlets who don’t at least report all facts of a situation and the other parties rebuttals, even if the media or individual’s opinion pieces argue for one side.
Everyone can have their own opinion but it’s disingenuous - or downright dishonest - to look only at the facts that suit you and ignore or gloss over the rest.
I think The Guardian is obsessed with The Daily Mail, it’s always got articles slagging it off. I scroll both of them every evening. The Mail first then The Guardian one day they even stated that the Mail hadn’t reported on so and so and I’d only just read the article in the mail, so that was a load of poo.
The potentially career-ending video of Keir Starmer drinking a beer in Durham was filmed by Ivo Delingpole, the student son of the Breitbart (1) writer James Delingpole.
Delingpole, who graduated from the University of Durham last year, was at his student house in the city, close to a venue where the Labour leader held a political campaign event on 30 April 2021.
According to individuals with knowledge of the video’s creation, it was Delingpole who spotted the Labour leader through the window of Durham Miners Hall. Starmer was drinking with a team of campaigners eating a takeaway curry at a time when the country was still under partial lockdown and large indoor social gatherings were banned.
The short video was subsequently passed to the anti-lockdown activist Laurence Fox, who tweeted it out to his followers.
Mainstream media outlets largely ignored the footage for nine months, but as public fury over parties in Downing Street escalated over the winter, the Daily Mail put the Starmer video on its front page in January and accused the Labour leader of hypocrisy.
The newspaper, along with the Sun and the Telegraph, has since led a concerted campaign to investigate the circumstances surrounding the video, resulting in an announcement from Durham police that the force would launch an investigation into whether Starmer and his fellow campaigners broke lockdown rules.
(1) Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart, or Breitbart.com) is an American far-right syndicated news, opinion and commentary website founded in mid-2007 by American conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, who conceived it as “the Huffington Post of the right”. Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and much of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and traditional conservatives alike. The site has published a number of conspiracy theories and intentionally misleading stories.
Breitbart News aligned with the alt-right under the management of former executive chairman Steve Bannon, who declared the website “the platform for the alt-right” in 2016. In 2016, Breitbart News became a virtual rallying spot for supporters of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The company’s management, together with former staff member Milo Yiannopoulos, solicited ideas for stories from, and worked to advance and market ideas of neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups and individuals. After the election, more than 2,000 organizations removed Breitbart News from ad buys following Internet activism campaigns denouncing the site’s controversial positions.
Obviously coincidental … 
Hi
Keir Starmer is an Ex Director of Public Prosecutions and a Barrister.
He is no idiot, I recognise that even though I do not agree with him on certain things.
I am not a great fan of his, but recognise how boringly astute he is.
He does not believe he broke any rules, but has said that if he is fined he will resign.
That puts Boris in a very difficult position.
Starmer has the high ground, whatever happens.
Even The Guardian has sussed what he’s up to:
Starmer has a loophole where he could potentially be criticised by the police but not fined – an approach the Durham force took after an inquiry into alleged lockdown breaches by Dominic Cummings, who was then the prime minister’s senior aide.
Answering questions from the media, Starmer indicated he would not necessarily step down if police did not fine him yet said the event could have breached rules.
I posted similar news at 05:22:
and, it seems, that you posted your link even earlier … 20:58 last night … 
Ans I posted my own Cummings link 2 days ago:
We have yet to hear about any investigation into this case:
Boris Johnson raised a beer indoors with at least 10 aides in County Durham to celebrate the Tories winning the Hartlepool by-election, while restrictions banned socialising inside pubs.
The PM was photographed in the bar of the Jackson’s Wharf Inn on the city’s waterfront, where they stayed for around 45 minutes while Tier 2 restrictions were still in place banning socialising indoors and drinking inside pubs.
Durham Constabulary have, so far, let Tories off the hook … 
I was replying to Swim’s post. Haven’t a clue what your post is about.
This is what I replied:
Starmer has a loophole where he could potentially be criticised by the police but not fined – an approach the Durham force took after an inquiry into alleged lockdown breaches by Dominic Cummings, who was then the prime minister’s senior aide.
Answering questions from the media, Starmer indicated he would not necessarily step down if police did not fine him yet said the event could have breached rules.
And there’s also this from The Express yesterday:
Ms Rigby asked the Labour leader: "On January 31 you put out a tweet you said ‘honesty and decency matter after months of denial, the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigation for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.’
"So you said then that the Prime Minister should resign because he was under criminal investigation, which you now are as well.
"Isn’t it rather hypocritical? That you said that of him but you’re not prepared to resign right now?
“What do you say to people that say you’re a hypocrite?”
Isn’t your BIB a repeat of a previous post?
If you mean the bit in bold, yes it is. Because although I’d supplied a link before, this site automatically puts a bit I wasn’t discussing, which you are. So I emboldened the bit I was discussing.
And I thought you started this thread to discuss Starmer, but you keep making posts about Boris.
1 Like
I started this thread for YOU to discuss Sir Keir because you kept going off-topic to discuss Sir Keir on my BJ threads …
BJ is relevant in this thread because he’s not obeying COVID rules while drinking alcohol in County Durham - the same “crime” that Sir Keir, allegedly, committed.
And if Durham investigate that they’ll do the same as they will do with Starmer, which is the same as they did with Cummings. And why Starmer was so confident in saying he’ll resign if he’s fined, but won’t say he’ll resign if they say that he broke the rules.
It’s the Met Police who’s caused all this because the police shouldn’t issue fines retrospectively. Which they did due to the pressure by Labour with Cummings help.
The photo of Boris’ birthday cake was first published in The Times right at the beginning during the first lockdown, but has only been latched onto now. Why wasn’t a fuss made of it at the time. And if Boris thought it was illegal why did Downing Street pass it onto The Times.
P.S. The rest of the Guardian article wasn’t worth discussing unless you think that because somebody sent Starmer texts it’s proof that Starmer was working.