Charlie Farley

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Ah, yes. Labour’s obsession with cakes!

Labour’s obsession?

Posted by you in the last week…

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I know what it was, but it was still a social event that went on the the wee small hours, and some were worse for wear when they departed. There was no falsehood in my post.

I don’t see how any of you can view that as not being worse than Boris receiving a cake just as he was assembling for a pre-planned meeting.

But there you go…

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But it was the cake what clinched it.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Boris should have eaten all the cake instead of leaving it behind as evidence.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Are you sure about that, Dave? There are a lot of people who think that eating cake or drinking alcohol are proof of a party.

Clearly, that is not the case, but it appears to have swayed the Met. If there hadn’t been cake, Boris would not have been fined. Ridiculous, I know, but true.

It’s also true that Kier attended a function with curry and alcohol at a party member’s house. Police reaction? Move on, nothing to see here….

The ONLY difference apart from the fact that Kier was at a social event and Boris was at a work event was that Boris had cake.

Think about it. If it wasn’t so glaringly obvious and tragic, it would make a hilarious comedy. How to make something out of nothing, and do it so inconsistently, citing cake as the final arbiter when cake isn’t even mentioned in the rules. Yet a social event is OK, when it really isn’t!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Thank you, Hugh. Glad I nailed that one first.

It’s the logical conclusion. If there hadn’t been cake, Boris would not have been fined. Why else was he fined?

[Mr K]

Bet OBs favourite is Fruit cake

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Labour’s obsession?

Posted by you in the last week…

My point being, of course, that it was the cake that appears to have ‘proved’ in the eyes of the Met that this was a social event. It was Labour’s leader constantly banging on about the blasted cake that eventually led to this nonsense being played out.

I am the only one on here to claim that the cake was irrelevant and that we should be looking at what was actually happening - Boris had arrived for a legitimate meeting. The cake did not make that a social event.

Unlike Kier’s curry and booze evening…

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

My point being, of course, that it was the cake that appears to have ‘proved’ in the eyes of the Met that this was a social event. It was Labour’s leader constantly banging on about the blasted cake that eventually led to this nonsense being played out.

I am the only one on here to claim that the cake was irrelevant and that we should be looking at what was actually happening - Boris had arrived for a legitimate meeting. The cake did not make that a social event.

Unlike Kier’s curry and booze evening…

Please provide the evidence to support this proposition…

It was the fact that he attended a a pre-planned non-work event that got him fined - even he accepted that (unless you are calling him a liar?). As previously posted (many, many times) "Mr Johnson said "in all frankness at that time it did not occur to me that this might have been a breach of the rules".

After the fine, however, he "now humbly accepts" he did breach COVID-19 laws."

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

My point being, of course, that it was the cake that appears to have ‘proved’ in the eyes of the Met that this was a social event. It was Labour’s leader constantly banging on about the blasted cake that eventually led to this nonsense being played out.

I am the only one on here to claim that the cake was irrelevant and that we should be looking at what was actually happening - Boris had arrived for a legitimate meeting. The cake did not make that a social event.

Unlike Kier’s curry and booze evening…

You're the only one on here to claim the cake was relevant. A birthday celebration was deemed as a social event, post work meal was not deemed as one.

[Sephiroth]

Where was Charlie on his birthday during Covid lockdown?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Where was Charlie on his birthday during Covid lockdown?

Eating Out?

How about we dont descend into the gutter.

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by Paul

How about we dont descend into the gutter.

Fine by me . Please note that King Charles said that, I merely repeated it, google camillagate

[jfman]

Paul means the post i deleted.

Originally Posted by jfman

Paul means the post i deleted.

Actually, no, I deleted a post by Ms NTL that I presume you didnt see.

---------- Post added at 20:29 ---------- Previous post was at 20:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Ms NTL

Fine by me . Please note that King Charles said that, I merely repeated it, google camillagate

I'm perfectly aware what it was, if you want to sink into the depths, twitter awaits you.

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Where was Charlie on his birthday during Covid lockdown?

Pizza Express in Woking? Apparently, he was avoiding sweating in the hot weather.

Did you spot him? It's about 25 min from your place.

What or who the hell is this thread actually about now?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Maggy

What or who the hell is this thread actually about now?

It is about the unsuitability (or not) of the current incumbent of the office of constitutional monarch.

Coincidentally, there is a new book out that adds to the debate:

Abolish The Monarchy : Why we should and how we will

The 2020s should be the decade when we finally get to decide who we have as our elected head of state. The accession of King Charles has fundamentally changed the monarchy and the public’s relationship with it. Charles is controversial, outspoken and far less popular than his mother ever was. Prince Andrew remains a person of interest in a criminal investigation. And Harry and Meghan continue to show that monarchy isn't just bad for Britain, it's bad for the royals too.

The country needs an honest, grown-up debate about the monarchy. We need to stop and ask ourselves: Can't we just choose our next head of state?

Abolish The Monarchy renews and informs the debate, eviscerating the nonsensical claims of the royalists and setting the tone for a full-throated challenge to the monarchy. The book also sets out a clear blueprint, not just of what kind of republic we should aspire to be – something that is often lacking in other republican texts – but also of the road to that republic. How we get there and where we end up are crucial issues that must be addressed if we’re to get people away from the dead-end debates about tourism, celebrity and warring royal houses.

[Mr K]

Well he's been a bit of a disappointment so far hasn't he ? No ones seen him since he was given that crown, Questions should be asked, and Crimewatch alerted.