Talk:Beergate/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Partygate's significance?

Can someone (@Dave souza perhaps?) please remind us what the significance of Partygate is to this article? Currently we have a whole section on it which does not make it clear, and it is mentioned and elaborated upon about a dozen other times in the article, and it's not made clear in any of those either. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It's covered in various sources. Clarification in progress, will review the wording. . dave souza, talk 10:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It might be mentioned in sources, but where we mention it in this article, we need reasons and context for the mentions, rather than just the random stand-alone and context-free paragraphs and sentences we currently have. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I've edited to show the reasons and context, your recent edits removed well sourced context so I've undone them. You need to explain yourself better. . dave souza, talk 10:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Your changes changed it into a party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party. You changed the emphasis from Beergate to Partygate in several places, and made it sound like it had all been contrived by the Tory Party. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, obviously mistaken. All contrived by the Tory Party press. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

As I have said before, in my view (an not just mine, I'm sure) Partygate provided the entire context for Beergate. Without Partygate, it's unlikely there would never have been any Beergate. Ivo Delingpole or no Ivo Delingpole. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Partygate provides background sure, but only because if Starmer hadn't behaved the way he did in reaction to it, Beergate may never have been seen as a big deal. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Where's your RS source for that claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The article's full of them - do you require me to single them out for you? Or if you want something new, try this for starters. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Your "RS" is an opinion piece, which seems to have the view that lawbreaking and dishonesty is ok politically, after all it's working for Johnson. If Starmer hadn't joined others in calling on Johnson to resign for misleading parliament, Partygate might have been no big deal, hence no Beergate. Whatiffery isn't a good source for this. . . dave souza, talk 14:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It was a commentary that supported, in a much more eloquent way than I would have the ability to muster, the proposition that was being argued against, that Starmer's remarks had indeed fuelled the revival of the Beergate story. Not that it is needed though, as there are plenty of other RSes, not least those already used in the article, which support the same argument. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

One might ask exactly why is the article "full of them"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite understand your question, but I'll have a stab at answering it... Because it's what happened? A more relevant question might be (assuming I haven't misunderstood yours): So why don't we accept what they are saying, and reflect it more appropriately in the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe the claim that "if Starmer hadn't behaved the way he did in reaction to it, Beergate may never have been seen as a big deal" is specious and politically biased. "May never" arguments are counterfactual wishful thinking. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you categorise yourself as a neutral observer? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It's increasingly difficult to remain "a neutral observer" when faced with your constant stream of Tory-favouring edits and arguments. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Ooh, I wasn't expecting that. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Had you ever considered giving up Wikipedia to become a full time "neutral observer"? We could have a whip round and get you an ormolu carriage clock. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Nah, even with such a generous offer on the table. I tried it once, and it didn't work. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You obviously need a clock mender. It actually goes on the mantlepiece. N.B. Staffordshire dog figurines also available. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Look out folks..... looks like Carriegate is now just kickin' off.... fill ya boots. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree 100%. "Beergate" was happening before Starmer reacted to it in that way. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

But it didn't attract mainstream attention, or 'take off', until Starmer's Partygate remarks backfired on him. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not convinced they did "backfire". Don't think he's had to resign yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, per the DT source below, you seem to be arguing that it attracted mainstream attention, or 'took off', on 13 January when Conservatives took issue with Starmer's Partygate remarks. That's "backfired on him"? . . dave souza, talk 14:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

DT source? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Torygaf, if you prefer. . .dave souza, talk 15:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Torygaf? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, why do you appear to be trying to make this and other pages party political broadcasts on behalf of the Tory Party? . . dave souza, talk 11:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Very good, tu quoque? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

So don't allege that I've been doing that. WP:AGF. . . dave souza, talk 14:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I gave evidence, you have not. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Since you ask, your changes changed this article into more of a party political broadcast on behalf of the Tory Party. You changed the emphasis from Partygate to Beergate in several places, removing reliable sources that make the connection, and ignored reliable sources that show Conservatives used the Tory press to fire up controversy from 13 January. . . dave souza, talk 14:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you categorise yourself as a neutral observer? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

And you? See WP:TALK and let's focus on article improvements. . . dave souza, talk 15:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That last bit is my sole raison d'être, and I would enjoy nothing more! -- DeFacto (talk). 15:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, and you must assume the same of others. . . dave souza, talk 08:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Before the term "Beergate" was coined, the Daily Telegraph, hardly pro Labour, said on 13 January at the outset of serious controversy "Hitting back on Thursday, a senior Tory pointed out that Sir Keir had himself been photographed drinking with a number of party staff in a constituency office in Durham last May."[1] So they attributed the controversy to Conservative briefing. They also made the point that "Mr Johnson also highlighted the incident last month during a row over the party-gate allegations with Sir Keir at Prime Minister's Questions, stating: 'Sir Keir might explain why there are pictures of him quaffing beer - we have not heard him do so.' " That shows the incident hadn't been forgotten, though it only featured as a minor attack line at that time. Significant enough to note briefly in the lead. Both points tie these counter-attacks directly to Partygate. . .dave souza, talk 11:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I wholly agree. Yet again here we see a selective use of sources to re-write history with a Tory-friendly tone. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Regrettably, DeFacto's comments above focus on distractions rather than reading this source and others. I'm sure they mean well and don't know 'if their intent is pro Tory, but clearly this article should show the interaction with Partygate. . . dave souza, talk 15:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I've read most, if not all of the sources, and even past the headlines to the nub of what they are saying. And that is why I am questioning the way the content of this article has been re-directed. I do agree that there is a relationship to Partygate though, but I don't think the article currently reflects it very accurately. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think it was more accurate before you removed text in your recent edits. Please provide sources for discussion showing the relationship you perceive. . . dave souza, talk 16:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that source says a senior Tory was "hitting back", but it didn't attribute the controversy to that. It also says what they were hitting back at: 'With Boris Johnson under mounting pressure over a series of gatherings in Downing Street, the Labour leader on Wednesday claimed that the public could see he was "lying through his teeth"'. I'd suggest that was the catalyst for the chain reaction that followed. Would you, knowing that your adversary had also been accused of breaching Covid regulations and had also said they hadn't broken any rules, accept that allegation of lying without "hitting back"? And the senior Tory says more: "Sir Keir has spent the past two months criticising people for doing the exact same thing he's been doing himself... He is an absolute hypocrite". It definately gives the impression that the "lying" allegation was the last straw, the trigger, the catalyst. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

So? That statement is in the article, and you're arguing for a direct causal link between the Partygate dispute and the escalation of what became Beergate. Note that the "senior Tory pointed out that Sir Keir had himself been photographed drinking with a number of party staff in a constituency office in Durham last May." before "the exact same thing he's been doing himself". It's also well sourced in the article that there were unlike the multiple Partygate events being compared to this one event, so a reasonable summary is that Conservatives alleged it was equivalent to the multiple Partygate events where Conservative Party staff and prime minister Boris Johnson had been accused of breaching COVID-19 social distancing rules. . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a ridiculous spin by the Tories and their supporters. But that is what happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

What is? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That Starmer's take-away and bottle of beer in some way "equated" to Partygate. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

And where is that said? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"drinking with a number of party staff [is] the exact same thing he's been doing himself". Also elsewhere. . . dave souza, talk 20:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

But that's literally true - I cannot see the problem with that, you'll need to explain further. That is fully supported and, as such, could be said in Wiki's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It's literally what the Tory said, multiple sources in the article point out why it's a misleading comparison. Sorry to see you misled by Tory spin. . . dave souza, talk 20:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not just "Tory spin" though, it's literal fact. It's irrelevant that Tory's said it, as it is what actually happened. If a Tory said night follows day, would you dismiss that as "Tory spin"? Starmer ate and drank with colleagues, he has admitted it. He also said it was within the rules, he's quoted as doing so. What there is 'spin'? Or are you saying he did, but Johnson didn't, which would be nonsense too? Either way, what you are saying is inconsistent with the facts we know. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, "Sir Keir has spent the past two months criticising people for doing the exact same thing he's been doing himself" is not a literal fact, it's what a Tory source said. Your statement "it is what actually happened" is inconsistent with the facts we know, either unhelpfully narrow, or WP:OR which has no weight. If you want to argue that, please show a reliable secondary source that makes the argument in its own voice rather than attributing it to a Tory source. . . dave souza, talk 04:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dave souza, you are conflating two facts there.

• Fact 1: a senior Tory was responding to the language and allegations made by Starmer when they said, "Sir Keir has spent the past two months criticising people for doing the exact same thing he's been doing himself".
• Fact 2: that Starmer had been drinking with a number of party staff was not Tory spin, "it is what actually happened".

Do you really require me to confirm either of those again with REes. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, that confirms your response was unhelpfully narrow, and ignored the point that the thread followed Martinevans123 discussing the spin that Starmer's take-away and bottle of beer in some way "equated" to Partygate. Noted. . . dave souza, talk 08:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Spin 1: The phrase "he's been doing" suggests some kind of continuous past action, not a single one-off event. Why didn't the senior Tory not say "he did once"?
• Spin 2: The phrase "had been drinking with a number of party staff" suggests that that's what the main activity was and/or that the other people were also drinking. Why not say "had a planning meeting with a number of party staff during which he drank a bottle of beer"? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I was responding to precisely the points you made. The facts are as I presented them, that is what the senior Tory was responding to, no matter how you choose to interpret or re-phrase that response, and Starmer had undeniably been drinking with party staff, no matter how you would like to spin that. We need to use plain English and reflect the sources, not add our own interpretations thus obfuscating and editorialising it into something unverifiable and not reflecting the sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Plain English, yes fine. So "drinking with party staff" i.e. he had a bottle of beer, during a break in a planning meeting, with other party staff. That's not any kind of "spin". Or are there RS sources that tell us which other staff members were drinking? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources used in the article say he was drinking with staff. Do you doubt their veracity? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

They say a lot more. They actually provide the context. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to expand upon it then. If you see more in the sources - and remember it has to be in the balance of the sources, and not just a cherry-picked one saying what you want to hear - then why not add it? What's the worst than can happen? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

So? So, I'm disagreeing with your summary that "they attributed the controversy to Conservative briefing", and suggesting rather that the controversy was attributed to Starmer's "lying through his teeth" allegation. I can't follow anything you said after the "So?" statement. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry you can't follow a summary of what's in the article. Ok, baby steps. Think we're agreed that the controversy developed in 2022 following Conservative allegations, but you want to add in that Starmer first accused Johnson of misleading the public about Partygate? . . dave souza, talk 20:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't follow your reasoning. And no, We're not agreed that the Conservative allegations carried that much weight, they would not command that much interest in isolation. No, the sources suggest that the main triggers were Starmer's accusations and language used, and his apparent hypocrisy. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"Apparent hypocrisy"? More manufactured, I'd say. When was Starmer repeatedly accused of lying to Parliament? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Eh? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

When did he even deny the event took place? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Did someone claim he did? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

No, many people claimed that Johnson did. I'm trying to understand where "his apparent hypocrisy" has come from. Perhaps it's in one or more of the sources used in the article - if it is, then please let us know which. I'm suggesting that a claim of hypocrisy is a bit wide of the mark when it was Johnson who denied, for as long as he could, that any parties took place at all. There might have been "hypocrisy" if the two things - Partygate and Starmer's meeting - were really comparable. They were not. That was just Tory spin. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

As I read it, the 'hypocrisy' accusations were related to Starmer demanding Johnson's resignation from the moment the first Partygate allegations were made, and again when the Gray inquiry started, and again when the police inquiry started, and yet not heeding his own words and resigning himself, either when he was first accused over Beergate, or even when the police inquiry started on that. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You seem to believe, just like the Tory Party and the Tory press, that the entire Partygate scandal and the one meeting in Durham were "comparable". We'll have to disagree on that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not necessarily what I believe, it's what I read in the sources. As you know, I read past the headlines, and I read the broadest spectrum of RSes I can get access to. And as I said, that's what I gleaned from them. Basically, he's being accused (whether by the media, Tory politicians, the general public, or whoever) of saying one thing (when it was about Johnson) and doing another when it's himself. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The working meeting in Durham wasn't a "party". But I can accept that "the media, Tory politicians, the general public, or whoever" tried to make it look comparable. I think they were mistaken. I think the charge of "hypocrisy" was mistaken. But then it doesn't matter what I think either, does it. So we're quits in that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but you constantly give the impression that you think the No 10 version of events is what actually happened, which is worrying. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

And what impression do you think you give? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

No idea. Perhaps that of someone who has utter contempt for a Prime Minister who's happy to lie to the country. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC) p.s. still sure we can't tempt you?

DeFacto, it's plausible that the immediate "triggers" were Partygate and Starmer's accusations at PMQs, what wording do you propose? . . dave souza, talk 04:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dave souza, keep to the known facts, avoid personal speculation or "reading between the lines", and do not draw personal conclusions that are not explicitly drawn in the sources, and, of course, closely attribute all subjective opinions incorporated. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, since you've no proposal for article improvement, this discussion is at an end. Open a new section when you've thought to the wording. . dave souza, talk 01:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

We were discussing the significance of Partygate to this article, and in particular your OR surrounding that. We have not agreed on your views, so closing without that agreement means we need to remove the OR you have been adding. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, despite your use of the "royal we" when saying "We have not agreed on your views", you're on your own. Martinevans123 and myself have come to a reasonable consensus with as wide an agreement as can be reached so far, so Ill restore the wording. I've set out the sourcing in more detail in a new section below. Please discuss constructively, and stop edit warring to remove this well sourced point. . . dave souza, talk 19:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Seriously?

From the policy section you link:

• A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal.
• Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies.
• Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

How did you miss those? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Relationship to Partygate

On the point that the lead should note that "Beergate" developed from "Partygate", and Starmer's opponents have kept insinuating their equivalence, we've come to a reasonable consensus with as wide an agreement as can be reached so far, input from more editors will be welcome. Both myself and evidently Martinevans123 ([2]) agree. The odd one out is DeFacto, who's done a lot of reverting to remove such mention. DeFacto said above "the sources suggest that the main triggers were Starmer's accusations and language used, and his apparent hypocrisy",[3] and since the sources explicitly state that Starmer's accusations were about Partygate, I expressed willingness to seek a consensus version – "it's plausible that the immediate "triggers" were Partygate and Starmer's accusations at PMQs, what wording do you propose?"[4] but regrettably no proposed wording or constructive engagement followed. After some to and fro, we got to this wording;
The Beergate political controversy developed in 2022 following allegations that an event in Durham in April 2021, attended by Labour Party leader Keir Starmer, had been a social rather than a work event, implying that it could have been in breach of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions in the same way as alleged Partygate breaches.
DeFacto removed the Partygate connection, claiming it is "totally irrelevant",[5] and reverted it out again, commenting "only if we accept your OR interpretation, take to talk per WP:BRD)".[6] Clearly, this removal is contrary to reasonable consensus after a lot of discussion. If I've made any typing errors, please point them out helpfully so I can correct them. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
We've discussed at length a source, the telegraph.co.uk 13 January 2022 which said "With Boris Johnson under mounting pressure over a series of gatherings in Downing Street, the Labour leader on Wednesday claimed that the public could see he was “lying through his teeth”. Hitting back on Thursday, a senior Tory pointed out that Sir Keir had himself been photographed drinking with a number of party staff in a constituency office in Durham last May. " Looking at the Telegraph's links;

• mounting pressure – "Mr Johnson has already confirmed that Sue Gray, the second permanent secretary in the Cabinet Office, has been tasked with not only investigating this party, but all government parties that took place during coronavirus restrictions."
  clearly about Partygate. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• series of gatherings – "There are currently thought to be 12 parties that took place in Number 10 or government departments between May and December"
  clearly about Partygate. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• could see he was “lying through his teeth” – "Keir Starmer had to score in his contest with Boris Johnson at Prime Minister's Questions. And he did — the Labour leader was excoriating. He channelled the views of many, many voters when he raised the examples of citizens who had denied themselves visiting time with dying relatives due to Covid rules, while the Prime Minister enjoyed a boozy party in his back garden with scores of colleagues."
  clearly about Partygate. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The telegraph.co.uk story then says;

• Mr Johnson also highlighted the incident last month during a row over the party-gate allegations with Sir Keir at Prime Minister's Questions, stating: “[Sir Keir] might explain why there are pictures of him quaffing beer - we have not heard him do so.”
  clearly about Partygate. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Other sources support the same point. Looking at a few:

• Keir Starmer and Beergate: what happened and when? 15 January 2022 With the idea of politicians potentially breaching lockdown rules in the news due to events in Downing Street, the Daily Mail ran a still image from the video on its front page calling Starmer “the Covid party hypocrite”
  clearly relates start of Beergate to Partygate. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keir Starmer cleared of breaking lockdown rules over office beer He has previously insisted he did nothing wrong, despite comparisons by his opponents to the “partygate” allegations at 10 Downing Street.
  clearly relates Beergate to Partygate. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• What has Sir Keir Starmer said about the PM's Covid rule-breaking? "Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab said the Labour leader was guilty of "rank double standards" because he had previously called for Boris Johnson to step down over breaking lockdown rules. .... Here is a timeline of what the Labour leader and his deputy, Angela Rayner - who was also at the event in Durham - have said on the subject, including calls for the prime minister's resignation. ... 12 January 2022... Following the revelations, Boris Johnson apologised for attending the drinks party but added he believed it was a work event, which 'could be said to technically fall within the guidance'. Sir Keir responded by accusing the prime minister of "months of deceit" over lockdown parties in Downing Street and asked if he would "do the decent thing and resign".
  –at the same PMQs, Starmer followed this with "the public could see he was “lying through his teeth' " – clearly relates Beergate to Partygate. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Starmer says police decision to clear him shows ‘contrast’ with No 10 partygate
  clearly relates Beergate to Partygate. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Tory MP Richard Holden demands police probe Keir Starmer's Durham effort to secure a partygate-style probe into the Labour leader, as Boris Johnson continues to come under pressure for gatherings held in Downing Street and Whitehall during lockdown. [tweet] The rules and the way they are interpreted should apply equally to the Prime Minister, @BorisJohnson, & to those who seek that office like @Keir_Starmer "
  clearly relates Beergate to Partygate. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Minister piles more pressure on police to investigate Keir Starmer ‘beergate’ | Evening Standard Ms Trevelyan said on Tuesday that Durham constabulary should “look at the situation” in the “same way” the Metropolitan Police has investigated lockdown breaching events in Downing Street and across Whitehall.
  clearly relates Beergate to Partygate. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I still agree with what you say. I maintain that Partygate provided the entire context for Beergate. To argue they are wholly separate seems to me to be absurd in the extreme. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Hope we'll now get more input from other editors. . dave souza, talk 19:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you show us that that is the consensus amongst reliable sources, rather than nothing more than your personal POV though? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, the above is verifiable source based research, and you will of course assume that it's my best assessment of the consensus amongst reliable sources of various political viewpoints. If you think other views should be represented, please provide the same level of verification for other editors to assess. . . dave souza, talk 13:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That each of those snippets is supported is not in question, and many, if not all, are already mentioned in the article. That doesn't mean you can therefore draw unsupported conclusions from them though. For instance, there is no consensus amongst those sources that:

1. '"Beergate" developed from "Partygate"'
2. That alleged breaches in Durham happened "in the same way as alleged Partygate breaches"
3. Johnson's "mounting pressure", "series of gatherings", or the "lying through his teeth" attack by Starmer has anything at all to do with anything other than Partygate, and certainly nothing to do with Beergate

Partygate is one thing, Beergate is another. The two involve different places, different people, different police forces, different circumstances, and have almost nothing in common other than the two leaders have been accused of breaking Covid lockdown regulations, and both denied the allegations with similar defences. To knit them together, in the way you appear to be trying to do, is total OR with no basis in the reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dave souza, Your dissertation lacks context and you misrepresent my contributions and totally disregard/belittle my policy-based criticism of what I see as total and shameless OR on your part.

1. Why should the lead 'note that "Beergate" developed from "Partygate"'?
   • The event now known as "Beergate" started long before "Partygate" was a thing. That Starmer's holier than thou attitude, when Johnson first became the subject of an investigation into the allegations made against him, led to the press and complaints about Beergate that persuaded the police to revisit the Beergate event does not mean Partygate was the cause of Beergate, rather it means that Starmer's behaviour backfired on him.
2. And "Starmer's opponents have kept insinuating their equivalence" - equivalence in what respect?
   • Are you saying that they weren't both alleged to have breached lockdown rules? At the end of the day, Johnson was found to have breached the regulations at only one event, one which he attended for a few minutes and which he thought was a works event and was within the rules. And the allegations against Starmer are similar, and his defence is similar. That other government workers (mainly civil servants) were also involved in Partygate does not make Johnson's single contravention any more serious, regardless of Starmer's indignation with the comparison.
3. And you say "we've come to a reasonable consensus" - over what?
   • Your OR leading to your conclusions which are otherwise unsupported? I've explained why your conclusions, based on unsubstantiated, and frankly ridiculous assumptions, are not verifiable.
4. You say I'm the odd one out because I've "done a lot of reverting to remove such mention"
   • Too right I have! Because it is OR and has not achieved a policy-based consensus.
5. You say that in response to your novel interpretation that because Starmer's behaviour was in response to Partygate (although it was in response to Johnson's answers when asked if he had broken the regulations) that it was Partygate, rather than Starmer's behaviour that was the trigger, "no proposed wording or constructive engagement followed"
   • Well I explained exactly what was wrong with your OR fantasy and described how I thought we should proceed.
6. Each of your bullet points only serve as evidence of the lengths you seem to be prepared to go to convince yourself that your POV and OR is somehow acceptable content for this article
   • I think it is evidence that your spin is not verifiable, otherwise it would be easy to see it in the RSes.

Your reluctance to drop the stick of your POV that Partygate was to blame for everything to do with Beergate is verging on disruptive now. You have been trying to push your point relentlessly despite it having no RS support, and enough is enough I think. The article is currently an illogical mess because of your continuous insertions of irrelevant and trivial details in your attempt to move the focus from Starmer and the Labour party to Johnson and the Tories. Please take a break, and give the article time to recover and get back to what is supported by the sources.

The fact is, that this article is about Beergate, not Partygate, and we should not be trying to exaggerate the significance Partygate played in this subject.

(Disclaimer: the arguments I present are not necessarily my personal views, but it is my view that they are an entirely plausible interpretation of the events, from the reading of a broad selection of RS accounts and analyses.) -- DeFacto (talk). 20:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, what I've presented in good faith is verifiable source based research showing significant RS views. Before getting into detail, the central point seems to be your "entirely plausible interpretation of the events, from the reading of a broad selection of RS accounts and analyses". Until you provide verification of these RS accounts and analyses, that's your WP:OR and is mere hand-waving, with no weight. Please show your sources in sufficient detail for others to assess. . dave souza, talk 13:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not denying that you've presented it in good faith, but I am saying that I think you are mistaken in your attempts to draw unsupported conclusions from supported facts.

I was offering an alternative and entirely plausible interpretation, based on what I've read in the sources. There is a mid-ground though, and that is where we just stick to reporting the accepted facts and only fully attributed (non-politically motivated) opinions, and avoid the pitfalls of attempting to agree on which politically motivated and subjective opinions related to behaviour, motives, integrity, etc. is supported by the consensus of reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, disparate viewpoints in rs's would require coverage of both. Your idea of the history has gone astray. The Beergate political controversy developed in 2022, Partygate became a controversy in 2021 and formed the basis as well as the topic of the Beergate. Both referred to earlier events, the Durham event was the first that came to public attention with one report, then was ignored by media. What changed was the rolling Partygate scandal that pre-occupied Westminster through December and January.[7] If you've found sources that say otherwise, link them here for verification. . . dave souza, talk 14:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree about disparate viewpoints, but it isn't happening. And I'm well aware of the timelines, but don't agree that one was the basis of the other, and that brings us back to square one, or full circle if you prefer shapes without corners.

It is your interpretation of the relationship that is the problem, not my rejection of it, and so the onus is on you to to get a policy-based consensus to support the synthesis you keep trying to add, not on me to supply sources saying that it's an OR conclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

"That Starmer's holier than thou attitude". Well that kind of sums up months of argument here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. As I said though, in case you missed it, "the arguments I present are not necessarily my personal views, but it is my view that they are an entirely plausible interpretation of the events, from the reading of a broad selection of RS accounts and analyses". -- DeFacto (talk). 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

No need to thank me, I'm sure. (Disclaimer: I don't personally believe Keir Starmer is a no-good law-breaking shyster, but it says so in a broad selection of RS accounts and analyses, so it must be true.) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Martinevans123, good point about "Starmer's holier than thou attitude" which is, of course a WP:BLP attack which must be attributed inline, with a source, and not put in wiki voice. For NPOV the opposing view is also needed, regardless of whether or not it's DeFacto's personal view. . . dave souza, talk 14:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, of course, that if that opinion was added to the article (and I'm not sure why it hasn't been added to balance some of the current heavily biased content) that it should be robustly attributed and sourced. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, you've been asked for a source for this BLP attack, but have failed to provide one. WP:BLPTALK policy is that such attacks on talk pages should be should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate, so I've redacted the phrase. In searches for possible citations, deprecated sources are prominent, but no reliable sources show up. If you find a reliable secondary source, please link to it here for discussion. Martinevans123, I've also redacted the phrase from our replies. . . dave souza, talk 09:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I do hope no-one accuses you of being "Wiki-holier than thou." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems my hopes were misplaced. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted your heavy-handed and over-dramatic 'redacting', that is not a "BLP attack", it's a widely expressed opinion about his attitude, and is legitimately used in a talkpage discussion related to making content choices.

You'll see the same phrase used is RS articles, including in: i, The Times, GBN, The Telegraph, and The Spectator. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

At least we now can see the sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you think that each opinion about the character/attitude/disposition of a living person expressed on a talkpage actually needs sourcing though? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it might depend on how defamatory it is. We might want to attribute any claim that Starmer was a cannibalising paedophile? But then I guess that's not just "character/attitude/disposition". I don't think exact sources need to be cited every time, but opinion should not be presented as fact. So it would be better to say e.g. "The view that Starmer has a "holier than thou" attitude..." etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest the involved parties go to WP:DRN to help find a consensus on this dispute. It's clear to me we are all arguing in good faith and trying to find an encyclopedic way of describing the relation between the two controversies. As a DRN volunteer I'd recuse myself as I'm involved with the Partygate topic, but there are a number of great people that'll help steer the discussion so instead of getting nowhere we can find a productive consensus. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ixtal, thanks for drawing attention to that possibility. It sounds like a good idea to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@ Ixtal, thanks for the suggestion. At this stage, I think we first need to make some progress on getting verification to overcome OR issues. . dave souza, talk 14:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we've come to a dead-end with that, remembering that the problem here is we cannot reach an agreement to include the content you have been pushing for a while, and which I am challenging as OR. I think now is the time to follow Ixtal's advice. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Section break: context, link to Partygate

Beergate emerged in the context of Partygate, as RS attest, so I think that could be clearer in the lead. A link to the Partygate article is appropriate. On the other hand, the long subsection recounting Partygate details in the article seems like overkill to me. The protests of a single editor should not stand in the way of consensus. Bondegezou (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Think the heading may give the wrong impression, so worth shifting the emphasis to Controversy, or it could be Emergence of controversy, covering development of the Beergate controversy up to the point where police began investigations. Have tried to shift the focus accordingly. . dave souza, talk 16:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@ Bondegezou and Martinevans123, thanks for these comments. Having given it some thought, have come round to putting it simply in the lead:
The Beergate political controversy developed in 2022 in the context of Partygate, following allegations that an event in Durham in April 2021, attended by Labour Party leader Keir Starmer, had been a social rather than a work event, implying that it could have been in breach of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions.
There's also a need to clarify the topic of discussion in the third paragraph:
In January 2022, during discussion of Partygate, Prime Minister Boris Johnson apologised at PMQs for briefly attending a "socially distanced drinks" gathering, saying he had believed it was a work event, and Starmer asked him to resign.
Agree that the protests of a single editor should not stand in the way of consensus, particularly where they have yet to produce specific sources supporting these protests. I'll therefore boldly implement the change. . . dave souza, talk 15:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with that all, except the first two sentences, for now. The first is the subject of an ongoing dispute, and, as no consensus has been achieved, it might be going to DRN, as suggested by Ixtal above. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It will be helpful to get other opinions on the OR dispute, so I've raised it at WP:NORN#Input requested at Beergate – Relationship to Partygate . . dave souza, talk 17:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@ DeFacto, you'll note that the above wording is much more modest than the disputed wording set out at the start of the discussion. Remember that Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote; BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes, and is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle. If you wish to claim it's OR, please provide sources and make your case in detail on this talk page first. . . . dave souza, talk 15:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It's okay by me now, without the OR. I think we can say we have a consensus for the first sentence. Let's see if we can do the same for a few more now. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Article structure

In a series of edits, DeFacto drastically restructured the article out of date sequence to promote DeFacto's unsourced POV that this article should be about Durham police investigation rather than the controversy, and also removed well sourced significant information about how that investigation related to the Met investigation. The result clearly contravenes Article structure policy, moving the initial stages of controversy to after Starmer's and Rayner's statements, and is contrary both to article consensus and recent talk page discussions. It's also disruptive. I'll restore the consensus version to allow work to proceed, discussion and new consensus is needed here if any of these changes are to be implemented. . . dave souza, talk 09:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The changes are not huge either way. I can see some sense to DeFacto's structure, but let's all respect BRD. DeFacto made a bold change, it's been reverted, we can discuss. I think, sometimes, Dave souza, that your approach to the article, in trying to give the political context, ends up putting too much emphasis on unsubstantiated political attacks. It's almost a Streisand effect. Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's a political controversy, centred on political attacks on all sides, so that comes out in the sources. Especially where political attacks are unsubstantiated, they need to be shown in context. On the structure, there's no merit in putting causal events out to time sequence and distant from what they caused, so that fails NPOV. . . dave souza, talk 11:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The structure needs to be logical, regardless of either of our POV's whether they be sourced, or not.

The article is about a controversy, yes, the one about whether Labour Party members broke the Covid regulations at their event in Durham, or not - nothing more. Sure that controversy has many aspects, but they need to be laid out logically, neutrally, and in a way readers can consume. The aspects include the background (what the allegations are, what the defence against them is, what the rules were at the time), the police actions, the political mud slinging (both ways), the pledges to resign, the consequences of the controversy (political, etc.).

The structure needs to help the readers understand the whole picture, and not try to apply an unsupported bias to any of the aspects of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The structure you tried to impose was illogical, contrary to reliable sources, and it's your own unsupported bias trying to exclude the clearly close interaction with Partygate. That doesn't help readers to understand the whole picture . . dave souza, talk 11:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Structure design

Following from the discussion above, I hope we can design a structure that we we can cement in an agreement, so save the time lost, and frustration caused by, its continual re-jigging. He's my initial suggestion:

Lead

1. Event summary (who, when, where)
2. Background
   1. Allegations and defence (who, how, when)
   2. COVID-19 regulations (what was allowed and what was prohibited at the time)
   3. ...
3. Police interest
   1. Reviews (the times they chose not to pursue it)
   2. Investigation
4. Consequences
   1. Resignation pledges
   2. Political disputes (comparisons with Partygate, etc.)
   3. ...

Thoughts? Ideas? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a very bad idea, deviating from date sequence and giving undue primacy to the rather sporadic police review / investigation currently in progress. Background is essentially the introduction of COVID-19 regulations, which could be condensed and merged into the Durham event section. The following would allow clarity, with a proper time sequence. . .dave souza, talk 12:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead

1. Durham event
   1. Video footage
   2. First publication
2. Emergence of controversy
   1. Police review
   2. Calls for further investigation
3. Police investigation [announced]
4. Resignation pledges
   1. Responses to pledges
5. Consequences
   1. Police questionnaires
6. ...

Think that's self-explanatory, can add notes on request. Soon we should be able to add #Outcome of Police investigation. . . . dave souza, talk 12:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Shifting paragraphs to fit DeFacto's heading resulted in out-of-sequence confusion, in particular Police investigation continued after the equally significant pledges. Makes sense to head the section Police investigation announced, to include reactions and commentary up to the pledges, and under Consequences we can have a sub-section for Police questionnaires for that particular consequence. . . dave souza, talk 11:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with that. I'm not sure why you have a section called "Controversy" when the whole article is about the controversy. In what way do do think it's only 'Police review' and 'Calls for further investigation' that are the controversial bits - surely they're the least controversial - that's what the police are for? And why don't you think a summary of the event should be given up front to set the context for what follows? And where would you put all the predictable political mud slinging and name calling that, typically, accompanies this controversy? And aren't the resignation pledges a 'consequence'? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@ DeFacto, bit daft proposing a layout where half the article is Background, then. As suggested previously, I'll change that to Emergence of controversy, which covers first actual public controversy to police announcing their review result. . dave souza, talk 12:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dave souza, are you talking about a sub-controversy? I didn't see the proposal for half the article to be background. Whose was that? Mine was to put all the ancillaries to the actual event in a separate section, to allow for the established facts (my first section) to be separated from the allegations and conflicting interpretations of documents and videos, etc. (my second section). Surely all stuff related to the police interest belongs in one suitably named section - why not? And the consequences (resignation pledges, police findings, etc.) in another. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should have events in the order when they happened because most Wikipedia articles do that. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, I'm not sure how that would work, presumably you don't just mean a timeline, with each section heading being a date. Please give us a rough outline of what you think the section headings would be in your scenario. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, agree that date order is appropriate . . dave souza, talk 09:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dave souza, can you explain your understanding of it then please, Proxima didn't answer my question. Are the sub-section titles all dates - or what? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@ DeFacto, there's clearly no consensus for your changes which are against Article structure NPOV policy. . dave souza, talk 09:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Nor for yours, it seems. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

And certainly not for moving items out of time sequence, as your edits demonstrate. I've restored your previous sequence which is less confusing for readers, please dicuss repositioning first. . dave souza, talk 10:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The current structure isn't time-based though, it's topic-based, and you've put discussion of one topic back into the sub-section of another topic. How is that less confusing? For instance, you reverted this edit, thus moving a paragraph about one of the apparent consequences of Beergate, out of the 'Consequences' sub-section back into the 'Calls for further investigation' section. How can it be useful to have that unrelated paragraph in that section? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It was part of the sequence of public discussion prior to the police investigation being announced in early May, putting it after the pledges and consequences into June makes no sense. Maybe review the heading as "consequences" may be too specific . . dave souza, talk 11:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It was Labour worrying about the consequences, and nothing to do with the police investigation. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The aim is to explain a sequence of events, not fragment it into rigid categories. . .dave souza, talk 00:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Time based?

It seems like we have two editors favouring a time-based or date-based structure, but neither of them have described what they mean by that. Is this what you mean:

1. March 2020

(Covid regs, etc.)

2. April 2021

(Rules eased, Durham event, video taken, etc.)

3. May 2021

(Allegations appear in the press, etc)

4. January 2022

(appears in the press again)

5. February 2022

(police review)

6. April 2022

(more info supplied to police)

7. May 2022

(police investigation starts)

8. June 2022

(Starmer and Rayner return questionnaires)

9. Etcetera

Or what? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The structure I've shown above can work pretty well with a time sequence, the headings indicate the main developments rather than excluding items. . . dave souza, talk 11:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that time can be overlaid onto a topic structure. How can your headings work with a time sequence any more than mine? Especially where the only difference is in level of indent with some.

Taking your headings as an example then, under which heading would you put the details about the return of the questionnaires - they were returned in June 2022, more than five weeks after the resignation pledges were made. In time sequence order they would go after the 'Resignation pledges' section, in topic sequence they would go into the 'Police investigation' section as they are directly related to it.

It's either topic related (in chronological order within the topic section) or it time-ordered - it cannot be both as I see it. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It's normal for an article about a linked series of developments and events to show them in time sequence, the headings are there to subdivide the article reasonably naturally, not to impose rigid topics the way you're proposing. The headings can be modified to clarify that, the broad structure remains good. The police interventions are significant points, but only part of the controversy. It's obvious that the start of police investigation led on to the pledges, which were the subject of discussion before questionnaires came up, showing all these aspects in sequence provides necessary context. . . . dave souza, talk 15:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

So which section would you put the bit about the returning of the questionnaires in, in your scheme of titles? I'm guessing not the one relating to the police investigation of which they formed a part, given they weren't returned until after the section about the pledges. What about the police findings, whenever they are published - not in the section about the investigation either? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

As set out above. "Police investigation announced" covers the period up to the pledges, and "Consequences" has a subsection for "Police questionnaires". As also stated, "Soon we should be able to add #Outcome of Police investigation". While I'm sure the wording can be improved, and I'll think about it, the basic structure works for showing developments in sequence and context. . . dave souza, talk 21:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm warming to this idea now after you've clarified it slightly. I think, as you say, the wording of the section titles could be better - to help make more sense. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I started moving stuff about to try and align more closely with this time-based notion. There's still plenty more to do though. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

At least some of your "moving stuff about" is disruptive, making the article incoherent rather than explaining the sequence of events. Gives us more to do, but think we're getting there. . . dave souza, talk 00:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Durham event

With additional sources, the context of the event gets clearer. Starmer spent the previous night and most of 30 April in Hull (with aides, MPs and local candidates), then his team went to the Durham office where they were Rayner, who had been campaigning in Hartlepool, arrived shortly before 7 pm, and did various work. At some stage Foy joined them, with about four members of her team, the Times puts the number present as 15, one of the Grauniad articles says at least 15. Starmer's account that takeaways were "brought in and at various points people went through to the kitchen, got a plate and had something to eat" makes it clear this wasn't formal dining together, the documentation seen by the Grauniad allows an outline of what Labour says they did next. Worth being clear that the regs had eased as Covid numbers had fallen, and restrictions on dining out influenced the choice of getting a takeaway delivered. . dave souza, talk 01:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Initial police review

Added intro briefly noting the context that this followed on from the Met's change of mind; instead of not investigating the allegations, as they'd said in December, they'd announced investigation after the Sue Gray report had uncovered evidence meeting their criteria. . .dave souza, talk 01:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You imply a relationship rather than a coincidence though, and that is not supported by the source. So, pending discussio, I've reverted that change. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It's implicit in the sources, which relate it to Beergate, but on review it's explanatory to extend the second part of the paragraph:
Starmer contrasted the Durham statement with the Metropolitan Police (Met) announcement on 25 January it was investigating alleged Partygate events, only where there was evidence of a "serious and flagrant breach" of regulations, and "little ambiguity around the absence of any reasonable defence". Sue Gray’s interim report released on 31 January had shown the Met, at that time, was investigating twelve Partygate events, up to six of which might have been attended by Johnson. Starmer described these as cases the police had found "serious enough and flagrant enough to put aside their usual rule that they won’t investigate 12 months after the event."
That last point was why the Met refused to investigate initial allegations, don't know if the Durham police have a similar rule for FPNs. . dave souza, talk 10:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Response to Partygate allegations

Edited this to be clear that multiple sources show this as the point where media stopped ignoring the Durham event, not just "In the view of political correspondent Andrew Sparrow at The Guardian", which is a good news source, but I accept it's fair to attribute to him the points that it suited Conservatives defending Johnson to suggest that the single Durham event showed that "all politicians broke the rules", and they made the story a minor line of attack. . . dave souza, talk 01:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit by DeFacto misconstrues one source and ignores others, particularly the BBC which notes that Starmer called on Johnson to resign on 12 and 14 January, before the Met announced on 25 January it would be investigating, reversing its previous decision not to investigate. So, I've undone that misplaced claim that Starmer "called for his resignation when police started their investigation". . . . dave souza, talk 10:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dave souza, the first source cited against that sentence (The Guardian) says: "Starmer took a strong stance on Johnson’s rule-breaking, calling for the prime minister to resign when he was put under police investigation". Is the Guardian wrong? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like they are wrong. Or do you dispute "Starmer called on Johnson to resign on 12 and 14 January, before the Met announced on 25 January it would be investigating"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't dispute that, all I did was add a bit from the cited source. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

So why did you not add "and called for his resignation again when police started their investigation"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It didn't already say it in that sentence - why would I need to add it? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

We've all agreed that "Starmer called on Johnson to resign on 12 and 14 January, before the Met announced on 25 January it would be investigating." That's what the text should say. Then you could add "again" to your new bit. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, but I'd have to make sure the cited sources supported that too, and by then it would probably have been all moved and/or changed again. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You poor thing. Perhaps dave souza will be able to help you. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Or you could divert some of your energy to improving the neutrality and accuracy of the article, perhaps? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that those are necessarily alternatives. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@ DeFacto, sorry you seem to be missing things, hope it's not memory problems like Boris. The Guardian reference is cited at this point for:
"Even fellow rightwing newspapers ignored it and the clip languished in relative obscurity for the rest of the year.
What changed was the rolling Partygate scandal that pre-occupied Westminster through December and January."
Its later paragraph rightly says "Starmer took a strong stance on Johnson’s rule-breaking, calling for the prime minister to resign when he was put under police investigation", which the BBC says was announced on 25 January, after the scope of this section, so your pointy point is irrelevant. Please divert some of your energy to providing well sourced specific proposals here for improving the neutrality and accuracy of the article. . . dave souza, talk 15:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Gosh, you don't think, do you? (Boris, I mean.) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)