Sad day for justice

So Starmer and Rayner have slithered out of being fined for breaking covid rules, even though it was clear for all to see they did. Obviously its good to have you’re buddies in the CPS (criminal protection society) and police top knobs.
A sad day for serving and retired police officers let alone what president it sets.
So many were fined for less infringements than Starmer and Rayner including Boris.
It doesn’t matter who you support politically, this is just not right.
It just stinks of the old boys club. Rant over !


exactly what planet are you on?
There was NO CASE TO ANSWER there never was… they broke no rules. Get over it!

The only question remaining now is whether the hacks who filmed them will be done for stalking and trespass :slightly_smiling_face:
Perhaps even wasting Police time…


Ok, I’ll bite.

Why is it not right?


This utter nonsense does not even warrant a proper response. Their actions were deemed not to have broken the rules - unlike the 120 times in Downing Street.


and what is the OP’s commentary on Dominic Cummings drive in Durham to “test his eyesight”? I don’t recall DC ever having been a member of the CPS, let alone being a lawyer.
Your rant is fatally flawed.


Watch this - it explains the whole situation pretty clearly:


Stupid post which makes me feel totally justified in doing something I never do!
It’s “it’s”, “your”, “precedent” and “fewer”.
Sorry (not sorry)!!!


Don’t forget boys’ :wink:


I did wonder just how many errors had I made!


Dear Jane,

Starmer and Rayner put their careers on the line based in their judgement that having a takeaway with the team while campaigning wasn’t a breech of the rules. Had Johnson the same integrity he would have been gone when he recieved his fine.

The liar in No. 10 had sixteen parties on his watch, including an Abba party in his flat so that the latest woman stupid enough to marry him could celebrate Cummings demise, and he wouldn’t dream of taking responsibility, as Starmer and Rayner did.

There is a golden circle, which we should deplore, but whatever their faults Starmer and Rayner aren’t part of it.


Is Jane trolling us? She doesn’t seem to have stuck around or attempted to defend her ill-advised post suggesting Sir Kier and his deputy have “slithered out” of being fined.


I am no troll and resent that remark.

Civility costs nothing and I thought you could give an opinion without reducing to playground antics on this site.

1 Like

If you want to say things like

Don’t say things like

Just makes you look like a complete hypocrite, or a troll.


Being uncharacteristically charitable, I think she’s just ill informed. I hope I get over this, :face_with_hand_over_mouth: I think it is just post Boris relief.

1 Like

Fair enough. I thought you were being provocative rather than trolling.

But Sir Keir will, all along, have known he hadn’t broken the regulations of the time. If you have a look at them (I’ve posted a link elsewhere, iirc) you’ll see that there was absolutely no reason to suppose he’d breached them, and (again, iirc) the only reason Durham police felt obliged to investigate was a complaint by some tories. Once the complaint had been made, and despite the fact that they’d have realised straight away it would be a waste of time, they had to complete an investigation.

1 Like

I don’t think the original post was trolling, though bound to create a robust response on this particular forum.

EDIT: Thank you - @Jane_Hurst - I have asked Graham to remove the direct accusation of trolling, and he has done so, perhaps you would care to re-join the conversation?

1 Like

Yes, as Johnson found out when he received only one FPN rather than the several which might properly have been applied.

The main “improper” action was that the RW media (the Daily Mail’s Paul Dacre) lent on Durham police to re-open an investigation which had already taken place and concluded no wrong-doing had occurred.

It is also “convenient” that the student who filmed Starmer (possibly illegal itself as it was not, AIUI, from a public vantage point and might reasonably be considered to violate Starmer’s right to privacy) was the son of James Delingpole - well known right wing writer and former editor of Breitbart.

As has been pointed out Starmer was involved in a single incident, which has been investigated twice and found not to have contravened the rules in place at the time - compare this to the culture at number 10 with multiple, regular, gatherings - bring your own booze etc.

You can bet your last dollar that if the Tories had any more on Starmer it would be all over the media.


there was no direct accusation of trolling.
I amended my post merely to keep the peace.

perhaps the OP might like to change her dreadful slur on the Labour leadership accordingly in the light of the correct information.
Justice was done and was seen to have been done.

1 Like

It is well worth remembering that there are many who can vote in UK that will share the views of @Jane_Hurst so it is interesting to see them - I don’t agree with them but some people will.

We do not all agree with everything someone else thinks and I certainly have changed my mind on many subjects after further investigation - I despair with people who have an entrenched position that are not prepared to consider other views.


My post I hope highlighted the discrepancies in issuing the covid fines. Numerous everyday people were fined and a lot of them appealed or the fines removed.

Many Police officers didn’t fully understand the rules and issued fines incorrectly. shows the many cases that were excessively pursued or issued incorrectly. Some for just standing in the street or walking their dog.

Boris paid his fine and it was obvious he had no control over the many offices in no 10. Nor his office managers.
Even though I now understand the video was filmed covertly. Looking at it and knowing 17 people were in that property eating and drinking, with 2 clearly not social distancing, doesn’t look right to me. Thats my opinion.
I respect what most of you are saying, but I simply don’t agree with the outcome.