Jump to content



Recommended Posts

I caught a bit of the UK's parliament on das radio yesterday and the back and forth about Boris was astounding, everyone including the accusers from the opposition were bending over backwards to say anything but: "Boris went to several parties, all of which, were in contravention of the Covid rules and then he lied about it."

What they were blathering on about, were variations on the themes of "What did he know and when? and was it a work function or a social one? and were any of the participants aware that they were at a party?"

I know that is politics, but FFS, when are straight talkers gonna run for office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect maybe you should read the regulations.

In May 2020 work meetings were allowed,  as Public gatherings, with restrictions, if essential. So an actual work meeting was technically allowed.

The law was broken because the Garden of 10 Downing Street is not a Public space but part of a Private residence unless people attend for work, in which case it becomes a workplace.

The invitation e-mail sent stated that the event was being organized “To make the most of lovely weather and to have socially distanced drinks”, It is hard to argue that it was a work event with that e-mail. 
A person who travelled to 10 Downing Street for essential work would have had a reasonable excuse but once this essential work was complete and they were in attendance at a non-essential work gathering, they would no longer have a reasonable excuse.

Happy to correct a few of your oversights 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has the potential, to drag a few c*nts, blinking and mumbling, from the shadows, into the harsh light of day...

Ghislaine Maxwell ends fight to keep eight 'John Does' secret, court to decide whether names should be unsealed

...Giuffre's attorney had filed a brief on Wednesday, arguing for the names to be revealed.

"[G]eneralized aversion to embarrassment and negativity that may come from being associated with Epstein and Maxwell is not enough to warrant continued sealing of information. This is especially true with respect to this case of great public interest, involving serious allegations of the sex trafficking of minors," Guiffre attorney Sigrid McCawley wrote.

"Now that Maxwell's criminal trial has come and gone, there is little reason to retain protection over the vast swaths of information about Epstein and Maxwell's sex-trafficking operation that were originally filed under seal in this case."...



Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Britain's Prince Andrew on Wednesday asked for a U.S. jury trial as he again denied Virginia Giuffre's accusations that he sexually abused her more than two decades ago when she was 17....


* can't help thinking,  that a Jury trial, vs a Judge only trial, is another error of judgment on Andrew's part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...