The whiff is growing- £2k worth of football tickets for Mr Starmer

[Craig the cyclist]

Any criticism should, and will start, after decisions of the investigators are made,

Are you for real? Seriously?

You are now advocating that people should only start criticising after the results of investigations are released? You are very critical of the governments Covid policies, but the inquiry hasn't even begun yet!

Obviously I will enjoy reminding you of this statement every time you say something critical of any politician who has not yet been found to have broken the rules

 

[Rusty Nails]

Are you for real? Seriously?

You are now advocating that people should only start criticising after the results of investigations are released? You are very critical of the governments Covid policies, but the inquiry hasn't even begun yet!

Obviously I will enjoy reminding you of this statement every time you say something critical of any politician who has not yet been found to have broken the rules

If you cannot see the difference between criticising a government’s policies/actions and your chancer’s attacks on Starmer that explains a lot. The inquiry into government handling of the pandemic is not an investigation into alleged wrongdoing but a chance to review the effectiveness of those actions. That is a desirable stage in a parliamentary democracy.

No one is saying that we should not criticise Starmer, or any other politician, in relation to issues/allegations about law/rule breaking but those criticisms carry little weight until the investigations are finalised.

I am doing jury service in July so I hope I can avoid your approach of no smoke without fire.

 

[newfhouse]

Ah got you, if people are under immense pressures then they may make honest mistakes?

Honest mistakes are made by honest people.

 

[Mr Celine]

Forgetting to timeously declare the receipt of football tickets is not in the same league as forgetting to declare earnings as a linesman.



Though to be fair he's as much use as a linesman as he is as Scottish tory leader.

 

[spen666]

.....

I am doing jury service in July so I hope I can avoid your approach of no smoke without fire.

I have a nice letter from the Jury Summonsing Officer telling me I'm not to turn up for my Jury service in July. Apparently I'm not the sort of person they want on a Jury

A nice brown envelope to the local masonic charity email to the court works wonders

 

[Milzy]

He would never screw the system like all the Tories are doing. A few poxy grand. Borris & his cronies have creamed millions of tax payers money off for themselves.

 

[icowden]

Oh dear, another investigation in to the whiter than white Keir Starmer. “Mr Rules” also forget about £18,000 worth of earnings, which he blamed some other people for, he “apologised for the fact that administrative errors in his office have led to a small number of late declarations”

Time for a Craigsplainer...

Starmer didn't "forget" about the earnings. He declared them, but declared them late. So he didn't try to hide them, or pretend they didn't happen, he did actually declare them - just not on time according to the rules.

Let's contrast that with Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson shall we...

Boris Johnson has offered MPs a “full and unreserved apology” over the late declaration of more than £52,000 in income. He made the apology to the House of Commons having been told to do so after he repeatedly failed to register payments from his newspaper column and books within the set time limit. Stone’s report said that in October she received a letter of complaint about Johnson’s weekly column in the Daily Telegraph, for which he is paid nearly £23,000 a month and which he resumed after quitting the cabinet in July, saying this did not seem to have been properly registered.

So Boris never intended to register his payments, it was only when he got dobbed in, that he then tried to backpedal and produce some fatuous twaddle about not getting round to it because the payments were unpredictable.

So given the choice between a man who did what he was meant to do, and a man who only did what he was meant to do because he was caught out, I think I'll go with the first. The difference is that one man is fundamentally honest and one is fundamentally dishonest.

 

[spen666]

Time for a Craigsplainer...

Starmer didn't "forget" about the earnings. He declared them, but declared them late. So he didn't try to hide them, or pretend they didn't happen, he did actually declare them - just not on time according to the rules.

Let's contrast that with Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson shall we...



So Boris never intended to register his payments, it was only when he got dobbed in, that he then tried to backpedal and produce some fatuous twaddle about not getting round to it because the payments were unpredictable.

So given the choice between a man who did what he was meant to do, and a man who only did what he was meant to do because he was caught out, I think I'll go with the first. The difference is that one man is fundamentally honest and one is fundamentally dishonest.

So, Boris declaring payments late is somehow a different thing to Kier declaring them late?


declaring them late is declaring them late
it is blind loyalty to one or other leader to suggest that declaring earnings late is somehow different to declaring earnings late

somehow one is fundamentally dishonest for a late declaration whereas the other is not for the same breach of rules

 

[Bromptonaut]

So, Boris declaring payments late is somehow a different thing to Kier declaring them late?


declaring them late is declaring them late
it is blind loyalty to one or other leader to suggest that declaring earnings late is somehow different to declaring earnings late

somehow one is fundamentally dishonest for a late declaration whereas the other is not for the same breach of rules

Not that binary.

Late declaration by oversight and on one declaration cycle is one thing.

Persistent failure to declare with a cavalier attitude to the process is on another plane.

 

[spen666]

Not that binary.

Late declaration by oversight and on one declaration cycle is one thing.

Persistent failure to declare with a cavalier attitude to the process is on another plane

Late declaration is the offence


on the evidence available both parties were late in their declarations.


An offence is an offence

 

[newfhouse]

An offence is an offence

Why is a range of sanctions available if this is true?

 

[icowden]

Late declaration is the offence
on the evidence available both parties were late in their declarations.
An offence is an offence

I agree. But only one of the two people reviewed actually intended to make declarations.

It's the difference between taking your library books back late by accident and accepting the consequences vs stealing the library books then returning them because your mum found out but trying to pretend that there shouldn't be any consequences because I'm the king of the castle.

 

[spen666]

I agree. But only one of the two people reviewed actually intended to make declarations.

......

And the evidence for this is? That is evidence

 

[spen666]

Why is a range of sanctions available if this is true?

Sanctions in this scenario only apply if an offence has been committed, so as I said an offence is an offence

If both make late declarations both are guilty of the offence

 

[newfhouse]

Sanctions in this scenario only apply if an offence has been committed, so as I said an offence is an offence

If both make late declarations both are guilty of the offence

Well yes, but what’s your point? In everyday life we make judgements about seriousness, intent and track record, don’t we?