It is the poorest defence of all. You could argue that Downing street is Boris Johnsons place of work. Hence his defence had some credibility. But a constituency office in Durham?

If Johnson got fined, based on the law as it was, then I really struggle to see how Starmer escapes. It's the pre-planning of the evening meal that nails him. Clearly not a spontaneous act.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Downing St isn't Johnson's only place of work, is it? Nor is it, only his place of work.

The primary difference was though that what was organised there has been clearly regarded as being "parties". Social gatherings to mark a departure, or celebrate an event.

Starmer was there to campaign. Eating at the end of a day, with those involved, isn't a party.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

It is not about whether or not any of the events. were a " party ".

It is about whether or not the breached the rules in force at the time.

Starmer is cynically gambling the Durham police will their precedent of not issuing a fine on a first offence, rather a warning.

It is quite pathetic all round on both parties that in a time of significant crisis the political bandwidth is being expended on the semantics of what is a party and whether one tweet past a certain time is enough to constitute work

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Well he certainly 'had' a choice, but in resigning if he's fined it will put more pressure on Boris for his lack of integrity and will rid Labour of a leader that isn't particularly the man of the moment either.

A clever move really. If the deflecting and finger pointing at Starmer leads to him going the pressure is on Bojo to go also, and if he's exonerated it's hot air, rather than the numerous gov parties we know about. Either way, Boris staying or going is made to look weak.

Exactly if he is guilty he will receive a ticking off same as Cummings did. He can then say that's not the same as a fine so not guilty. It's a lawyers trick.

If he is guilty of course.

One more point

It seems that was updated. This is from the BBC:-

"On 30 April, England was under "Step 2" rules, which had been introduced on 12 April.

Gathering indoors with people from outside your household or support bubble was against the law.

There was an exemption for "work purposes", although working from home was recommended in the guidance, but the rules did not mention socialising at work.

And there was an exemption if "the gathering is reasonably necessary for the purposes of campaigning in an election"."

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.