Starmer Beergate Investigation

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Fri May 13, 2022 6:13 am

Not wishing to pass judgement yet on whether the above conversation about Corbyn will stay here, no more on Corbyn in this thread please.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
After Pie
Posts: 2347
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by Stranger Mouse » Fri Jul 08, 2022 11:37 am

We are going to have six months of Daily Mail front pages complaining about this

https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status ... kGE9Z1_d5g

Starmer and Rayner get away it!!!!!!!

Why couldn’t it have been a pie? Then it would be Pie Crimes And Misdemeanours.
78838270-8973-44EC-AB08-B43CDACF133E.jpeg
78838270-8973-44EC-AB08-B43CDACF133E.jpeg (186.78 KiB) Viewed 1088 times
I’ve decided I should be on the pardon list if that’s still in the works

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
After Pie
Posts: 2347
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by Stranger Mouse » Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:05 pm

Life moves pretty fast
F69FF4F4-A958-4146-A7E5-02277E21DBF9.jpeg
F69FF4F4-A958-4146-A7E5-02277E21DBF9.jpeg (80.68 KiB) Viewed 1070 times
969C21BC-46D8-468C-A97B-43D1B42125E4.jpeg
969C21BC-46D8-468C-A97B-43D1B42125E4.jpeg (144.88 KiB) Viewed 1070 times
I’ve decided I should be on the pardon list if that’s still in the works

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by EACLucifer » Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:10 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:05 pm
Life moves pretty fast

F69FF4F4-A958-4146-A7E5-02277E21DBF9.jpeg

969C21BC-46D8-468C-A97B-43D1B42125E4.jpeg
lol. lmfao.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by jimbob » Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:12 pm

But... but... I saw lots of anonymous twitter accounts claiming that they "had heard" that Starmer had taken out a superinjunction to hide the fact he'd been issued with a FPN.

Surely that wasn't fake?

----
Edit
Managed to read up and see where it came from

ROFL
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by IvanV » Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:36 pm

jimbob wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:12 pm
But... but... I saw lots of anonymous twitter accounts claiming that they "had heard" that Starmer had taken out a superinjunction to hide the fact he'd been issued with a FPN.

Surely that wasn't fake?

----
Edit
Managed to read up and see where it came from

ROFL
Modern mentions of "superinjunctions" being taken out are usually rubbish, as they are more or less unavailable any more.

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by WFJ » Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:46 pm

IvanV wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:36 pm
jimbob wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:12 pm
But... but... I saw lots of anonymous twitter accounts claiming that they "had heard" that Starmer had taken out a superinjunction to hide the fact he'd been issued with a FPN.

Surely that wasn't fake?

----
Edit
Managed to read up and see where it came from

ROFL
Modern mentions of "superinjunctions" being taken out are usually rubbish, as they are more or less unavailable any more.
So the Boris-hairdresser story is b.llsh.t, or the injunction he is alleged to have taken out is not technically a superinjunction.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by jimbob » Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:59 pm

IvanV wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:36 pm
jimbob wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:12 pm
But... but... I saw lots of anonymous twitter accounts claiming that they "had heard" that Starmer had taken out a superinjunction to hide the fact he'd been issued with a FPN.

Surely that wasn't fake?

----
Edit
Managed to read up and see where it came from

ROFL
Modern mentions of "superinjunctions" being taken out are usually rubbish, as they are more or less unavailable any more.
I assume unless it's a credible source, that an extraordinary claim presented without evidence is just that.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by IvanV » Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:16 pm

WFJ wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:46 pm
So the Boris-hairdresser story is b.llsh.t, or the injunction he is alleged to have taken out is not technically a superinjunction.
What I had in mind is DAG's recent comment in this post this post that "‘Super-injunctions’ are also now almost impossible to obtain." And as a prominent media lawyer, he ought to know. And if you look at lists of (properly described) super-injunction cases, they dry up about 10 years ago.

There is a modern tendency for people to refer to injunctions as super-injunctions, when they do not amount to what is commonly understood as a super-injunction. What makes something a super-injunction, as commonly understood, is an injunction that prevents people even mentioning the existence of the injunction. So if you legally know there is an injunction, it's a not a super-injunction. It's only super-injunctions that are kept legally secret, and they are now almost impossible to obtain.

So it is very unlikely that we are being prevented from knowing something about a Canadian hairdresser due to an injunction whose existence is legally undisclosable.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:24 pm

WFJ wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:46 pm
IvanV wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:36 pm
jimbob wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:12 pm
But... but... I saw lots of anonymous twitter accounts claiming that they "had heard" that Starmer had taken out a superinjunction to hide the fact he'd been issued with a FPN.

Surely that wasn't fake?

----
Edit
Managed to read up and see where it came from

ROFL
Modern mentions of "superinjunctions" being taken out are usually rubbish, as they are more or less unavailable any more.
So the Boris-hairdresser story is b.llsh.t, or the injunction he is alleged to have taken out is not technically a superinjunction.
I've not managed to find a decent source for this story, and have largely missed it. What's the goss?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Little waster
After Pie
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by Little waster » Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:25 pm

IvanV wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:16 pm
And if you look at lists of (properly described) super-injunction cases, they dry up about 10 years ago.

It's only super-injunctions that are kept legally secret, and they are now almost impossible to obtain.
Although ... how would we know? ;)
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by WFJ » Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:30 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:24 pm

I've not managed to find a decent source for this story, and have largely missed it. What's the goss?
Supposedly a pregnant Canadian hairdresser bundled off back home with an NDA.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by jimbob » Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:32 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:24 pm
WFJ wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:46 pm
IvanV wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:36 pm

Modern mentions of "superinjunctions" being taken out are usually rubbish, as they are more or less unavailable any more.
So the Boris-hairdresser story is b.llsh.t, or the injunction he is alleged to have taken out is not technically a superinjunction.
I've not managed to find a decent source for this story, and have largely missed it. What's the goss?
Johnson had a hairdresser who was Canadian ( allegedly)

and the existence of said hairdresser was such an affront to the profession that the guild of hairdressers took out a superinjunction to keep this secret
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:33 pm

WFJ wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:30 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:24 pm

I've not managed to find a decent source for this story, and have largely missed it. What's the goss?
Supposedly a pregnant Canadian hairdresser bundled off back home with an NDA.
More of the same then, really. Not that that's a good thing.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Little waster
After Pie
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by Little waster » Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:37 pm

WFJ wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:30 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:24 pm

I've not managed to find a decent source for this story, and have largely missed it. What's the goss?
Supposedly a pregnant Canadian hairdresser bundled off back home with an NDA.
His defence to Carrie was he'd forgotten he'd left his penis inside the hairdresser. Easily done.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by IvanV » Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:48 pm

Little waster wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:25 pm
IvanV wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:16 pm
And if you look at lists of (properly described) super-injunction cases, they dry up about 10 years ago.

It's only super-injunctions that are kept legally secret, and they are now almost impossible to obtain.
Although ... how would we know? ;)
Such injunctions are available only as a prelude to the matter being tried in court. So we know eventually, because either the case comes to trial, or is dropped. And we haven't seen any become revealed for a long time, so it seems they aren't being taken out. There was a reform in about 2011 that is relevant.

But they are only "almost impossible" to obtain. So if one has, somehow, been taken out, then, as you say, we wouldn't know.

Similarly, if someone has been paid off in return for a NDA that they are keeping to, then we wouldn't know.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by dyqik » Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:03 pm

IvanV wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:48 pm
Little waster wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:25 pm
IvanV wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:16 pm
And if you look at lists of (properly described) super-injunction cases, they dry up about 10 years ago.

It's only super-injunctions that are kept legally secret, and they are now almost impossible to obtain.
Although ... how would we know? ;)
Such injunctions are available only as a prelude to the matter being tried in court. So we know eventually, because either the case comes to trial, or is dropped. And we haven't seen any become revealed for a long time, so it seems they aren't being taken out. There was a reform in about 2011 that is relevant.

But they are only "almost impossible" to obtain. So if one has, somehow, been taken out, then, as you say, we wouldn't know.

Similarly, if someone has been paid off in return for a NDA that they are keeping to, then we wouldn't know.
And the idea that you could get one to hide the fact that you'd received a Fixed Penalty Notice - which is a matter of public record - is ludicrous.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by jimbob » Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:21 pm

dyqik wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:03 pm
IvanV wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:48 pm
Little waster wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:25 pm


Although ... how would we know? ;)
Such injunctions are available only as a prelude to the matter being tried in court. So we know eventually, because either the case comes to trial, or is dropped. And we haven't seen any become revealed for a long time, so it seems they aren't being taken out. There was a reform in about 2011 that is relevant.

But they are only "almost impossible" to obtain. So if one has, somehow, been taken out, then, as you say, we wouldn't know.

Similarly, if someone has been paid off in return for a NDA that they are keeping to, then we wouldn't know.
And the idea that you could get one to hide the fact that you'd received a Fixed Penalty Notice - which is a matter of public record - is ludicrous.

Which is completely on brand for anti Starmer conspiracy blogs from Momentum and Johnson supporters
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Grumble
Light of Blast
Posts: 4747
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by Grumble » Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:45 pm

Johnson getting a hairdresser pregnant is a story that’s plausible and panders to our dislike of the man, so definitely worth being sceptical about.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by EACLucifer » Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:27 pm

Grumble wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:45 pm
Johnson getting a hairdresser pregnant is a story that’s plausible and panders to our dislike of the man, so definitely worth being sceptical about.
Is it plausible to think that that man has a hairdresser? Really?

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by dyqik » Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:37 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:27 pm
Grumble wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:45 pm
Johnson getting a hairdresser pregnant is a story that’s plausible and panders to our dislike of the man, so definitely worth being sceptical about.
Is it plausible to think that that man has a hairdresser? Really?
It's plausible to think that he's charging expenses for a private "hairdresser" who undertakes certain activities that result in his hair being rearranged.

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by Gfamily » Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:39 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:27 pm
Grumble wrote:
Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:45 pm
Johnson getting a hairdresser pregnant is a story that’s plausible and panders to our dislike of the man, so definitely worth being sceptical about.
Is it plausible to think that that man has a hairdresser? Really?
If true, he should have used "something for the weekend"
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
After Pie
Posts: 2347
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by Stranger Mouse » Sat Jul 09, 2022 10:20 am

Daily Mail isn’t taking it well
A258C0A4-DEE2-4057-99CD-39F44BF1E934.jpeg
A258C0A4-DEE2-4057-99CD-39F44BF1E934.jpeg (626.8 KiB) Viewed 776 times
I’ve decided I should be on the pardon list if that’s still in the works

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat Jul 09, 2022 11:31 am

Sir Beer Korma is hilarious though. Definitely more likely to vote for him now.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Starmer Beergate Investigation

Post by jimbob » Sat Jul 09, 2022 11:47 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Jul 09, 2022 11:31 am
Sir Beer Korma is hilarious though. Definitely more likely to vote for him now.
I preferred a reply to one of those pushing for equivalence between Starmer and Johnson

"Daily Mail, ain't Korma a bitch"
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

Post Reply