Thread by @AdamWagner1

Obviously this is an attempt to move attention away from the PM but fair to ask whether Keir Starmer's reason stacks up

It was in Spring 2021 and apparently Step 2...

legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/364/…

(thread)

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1482842484002721793

There was the "reasonably necessary for work exception which you have heard a lot about because of the No.10 parties ....

But there was also another relevant exception:

"reasonably necessary for the purposes of campaigning in an election"

All that you can see from the photo is that he is having a beer - it's important to point out that the mere fact of having an alcoholic drink doesn't invalidate a reasonable excuse - the question is whether the activity is reasonably necessary for work or in this case campaigning

The issue with the No.10 gatherings is that they appear to be pre-arranged social events - leaving do’s, Christmas parties, "bring your own booze/let's celebrate the good weather" events. Given no work was taking place, it's hard to see how they were reasonably necessary

It is also important to point out "reasonably necessary for work" and "reasonably necessary for campaigning" are not the same thing. Different activities will be reasonable in the different contexts. Campaigning is probably more "social" than work, but that's a matter of context

Taking Keir Starmer's explanation at face value - people who are campaigning (which they appear to have been) are entitled to have something to eat and drink, and even a beer. If this was a purely social gathering not necesssary for campaigning purposes, then it wouldn't be legal

It's difficult to tell from a photograph alone what the answer is, and perhaps people in the room could say - but on its face this isn't "bring your own booze", wild drunken leaving do's or a Christmas party - which are far more obviously unlawful.

Here is a video. Doesn’t take things further. People eating and drinking

https://twitter.com/politicsforuk/status/1482028534340194306