New Partygate video ‘shows Tories dancing, drinking and laughing at lockdown rules’

[Eleftheros]

On 6/20/2023 at 4:20 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Obviously you don’t understand the basic principle that a law cannot be broken if the law isn’t in place at the time.

That is a convenient fiction. The application of ex post facto law, as it is technically known, is permitted in the UK (and many other countries, though not the US) under the doctrine of "parliamentary sovereignty", which allows Parliament to pass any laws it wants. This has been used on a number of occasions.

 

(You could argue that the Nuremberg Trials were an application of ex post facto law as the Nuremberg Charter was not signed until after WWII ended. The concept of "crimes against humanity" did not exist until then.)

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 6/20/2023 at 4:46 PM, Wobblybob said:

Starmer is a liar, he said he that he couldn't remember A Raynor being there, surely someone with a mouth as big as Raynors he definitely would have heard her.

That's untrue. Starmer never said any such thing. What happened was that a Labour Party spokesperson initially said she wasn't there, before correcting the record after finding out that in fact, she was there.

 

And just to remind you what Durham constabulary found, here's part of their statement on it.

 

Quote

"A substantial amount of documentary and witness evidence was obtained which identified the 17 participants and their activities during that gathering. Following the application of the evidential Full Code Test, it has been concluded that there is no case to answer for a contravention of the regulations, due to the application of an exception, namely reasonably necessary work."

This one, work-related meal stands in sharp contrast to the multiple, clearly and obviously non work-related, parties held week after week at No 10 and as now seems apparent, Conservative Party HQ.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

I know what Durham police found.

 

However, I can see the pictures with my own eyes. If Durham police told you that water isn't wet presumably you'd stop taking showers?

 

The UK police force are pathetic. Proven liars. I wouldn't trust them to tell me the time. The pictures tell me everything I need to know and no amount of gaslighting from clowns in uniforms or from you will convince me I did not see what I saw.

The pictures tell you nothing about the law and the rules in place when they were taken.

 

‘Gaslighting’, nah, stick with irrelevant whataboutary.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Eleftheros said:

That is a convenient fiction. The application of ex post facto law, as it is technically known, is permitted in the UK (and many other countries, though not the US) under the doctrine of "parliamentary sovereignty", which allows Parliament to pass any laws it wants. This has been used on a number of occasions.

 

(You could argue that the Nuremberg Trials were an application of ex post facto law as the Nuremberg Charter was not signed until after WWII ended. The concept of "crimes against humanity" did not exist until then.)

You’ll need to come up with evidence that Starmer broke a law, any law.

 

Durham Police found nothing.

 

Perhaps the Tories could take a break from destroying the economy and engage in a bit of ‘ex post facto‘ law making in order to help you and other  out of the conspiracy hole you’ve dug for yourselves.

 

Perhaps you could take a break from conspiracy laced whataboutary.

 

Let’s stick to the facts, the law and the topic of discussion.

 

 

[Eleftheros]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You’ll need to come up with evidence that Starmer broke a law, any law.

Why? I have said nothing about Starmer, and I have no interest in doing so. I simply pointed out that laws in the UK can be applied retrospectively under "parliamentary sovereignty".

 

How does that equate to "conspiracy laced whataboutary", whatever that may be?

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Why? I have said nothing about Starmer, and I have no interest in doing so. I simply pointed out that laws in the UK can be applied retrospectively under "parliamentary sovereignty".

 

How does that equate to "conspiracy laced whataboutary", whatever that may be?

It applies to conspiracy laced whataboutary because that’s the whole basis of ‘Starmer’ being inserted into this thread.

 

I think the Government have a few other more pressing problems to deal with to be retrospectively enacting laws against their political opponents.

 

[Eleftheros]

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It applies to conspiracy laced whataboutary because that’s the whole basis of ‘Starmer’ being inserted into this thread.

As it wasn't me who inserted 'Starmer' into this thread, it would make a lot more sense if you leveled your accusations of "conspiracy laced whataboutary" at somebody else rather than me.

[dunroaming]

22 hours ago, RayC said:

He - and others - were otherwise engaged; boozing it up at a Tory garden party.

Actually JRM was in the house for the debate and vote.  He even had a go (stupidly) at Harriet Harman over their handling of the committee findings There were cries of "shame" from a few MPs on the Tory benches but Harman said she would respond.  And respond she did, leaving Mogg lost for words and the other MPs shouting "that is what you call a mic drop" amidst much laughter

[OJAS]

On 6/19/2023 at 2:50 AM, James105 said:

The only thing for those people in the video to be embarrassed about is the standard of dancing which was awful

The Pogues' "Fairy Tale Of New York" was certainly an odd choice of tune to cavort freneticly to. Wonder how this renegade pair of "Come Dancing" aspirants coped with the long slow intro to this particular song?????