Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 7)
Discussion
Boringvolvodriver said:
Bill said:
272BHP said:
How on earth do we go forward and function as a country if we kick out a sitting prime minister for having some socially distanced cheese and wine?
We could start by not electing another weak, lying s
tbag. I do despair at times
272BHP said:
How on earth do we go forward and function as a country if we kick out a sitting prime minister for having some socially distanced cheese and wine?
As in how do we find anyone virtuous enough to do the job without some minor event occurring in 3 months time and we need to start looking for a new one.
Putin must be currently dismantling entire departments in the FSB - "No need for you anymore guys, we have discovered that if you just leave them to it they will destabilise themselves"
I think many feel how can we continue with an integrity and honesty vacuum in the top job? This sAs in how do we find anyone virtuous enough to do the job without some minor event occurring in 3 months time and we need to start looking for a new one.
Putin must be currently dismantling entire departments in the FSB - "No need for you anymore guys, we have discovered that if you just leave them to it they will destabilise themselves"
tshow is doing huge and mounting damage to the country. The sooner we get someone trustworthy in place, the better it has to be. And not a complete lightweight like Truss. Sunak or Hunt would be an immense improvement - and then start to flush out the cling-on failures like Patel. Mogg and others. Time to turn the quality of govt around - I don't mind baby steps as long as the direction is positive, and "being a lying s
t" or "morally vacant" or "plainly incompetent/lightweight" starts to be seen as a bar to bring in senior roles, like it seems it used to be.Bill said:
272BHP said:
How on earth do we go forward and function as a country if we kick out a sitting prime minister for having some socially distanced cheese and wine?
We could start by not electing another weak, lying stbag. My feeling is that if had anyone else in charge we would still be having lockdowns and serious vaccine mandates.
He's a cock but he's not gone full retard like those in charge of AUS or many EU countries.
Boringvolvodriver said:
And again what would be your definition of a non tribal event?
Maybe one will come out in the next few days, this is clearly a well planned attack and the pièce de résistance is undoubtedly being held in reserve.I am waiting for the Mortal Kombat style fatality move to be executed.
Ivan stewart said:
MC Bodge said:
And what a glittering prize it was that Johnson gave them too...
I think he did ok ish l blame May , Oily Robbins and remoaners for the
enabling the EU to annex the Northern Ireland.
I am thoroughly confused by some opinions on this thread.
There are those that demand that Boris be brought to justice for his misdemeanours, that he is not above the law and should be treated no differently than anyone else. Fair enough and I agree with that. Now the Met have stated that they are not into retrospective investigations on pandemic misdemeanours for the general public so the same should apply to Boris in that case should it not? Even if they do investigate and find transgressions what is the punishment - slap on the wrist and a fine so the same should apply to Boris should it not? I’m not aware that the police were enforcing job losses on those they ‘prosecuted’. Therefore the same should apply to Boris should it not?
However, at this point many of those self same people then want to deviate from Boris being treated the same and want him to lose his job over it. They then claim that, indeed, because of the job he does he is different and should be treated differently. Bit inconsistent isn’t it?
There are also those who vehemently disagree that a working meeting cannot have food and drink. This is complete rubbish and during my career I have held and attended many meetings with colleagues over lunch and dinner with wine. There is no law against it. This includes meetings with senior government representatives and civil service. It is in no way unusual. However, let’s go with this for the sake of argument, then all such gatherings are parties and poor old Keir Starmer is up to his neck in it. It matters not that the video evidence is not of sufficient length or quality for some it clearly shows him have a drink and people scoffing grub in the background. Is Starmer and Labour to be held to the same standards or is that somehow different?
We then have those who say it’s not about this, it’s about rule makers breaking the law and should be held to higher standards. OK, I get that but does that stand up in law?
We surely get to the nub of the matter that this isn’t really about breaking the law it’s about emotional responses. On this I agree, but once emotion comes into it then the consequences will be ill defined and everyone is entitled to their view, even O&T who, despite the emotional and subjective pile on against him, does make some valid points. I struggle amongst all those I know well to identify a single one who has met the laws and ‘rules’ in their entirety. They all made judgements about what was OK, some clearly minor and some not so much and they all made judgements that protecting the elderly and those in care homes were more important that meeting friends etc. In other words, let him without sin cast the first stone . . .
I also detect some Remainers who see this as nothing more than an opportunity to get Boris who delivered Brexit against their undemocratic wishes. These are very disingenuous people who can hardly hold Boris to account for his misdemeanours without be hypocritical in the extreme.
To me this is about a politician who has morally stepped well over the line and should be held to account by the public and his peers. Parliament, and Parliament alone should deal with this. People should rightly give their views to their MPs and those MPs should rock up to the HoC and take the necessary actions to ‘force’ the government and Conservatives to do the right thing. It is the court of (highly subjective) public opinion that will ultimately deliver an outcome. So for those who are frothing uncontrollably, cease blathering inconsistently on a car forum and get down to Westminster and protest vigorously but legally after writing to your MP in the strongest possible terms.
There are those that demand that Boris be brought to justice for his misdemeanours, that he is not above the law and should be treated no differently than anyone else. Fair enough and I agree with that. Now the Met have stated that they are not into retrospective investigations on pandemic misdemeanours for the general public so the same should apply to Boris in that case should it not? Even if they do investigate and find transgressions what is the punishment - slap on the wrist and a fine so the same should apply to Boris should it not? I’m not aware that the police were enforcing job losses on those they ‘prosecuted’. Therefore the same should apply to Boris should it not?
However, at this point many of those self same people then want to deviate from Boris being treated the same and want him to lose his job over it. They then claim that, indeed, because of the job he does he is different and should be treated differently. Bit inconsistent isn’t it?
There are also those who vehemently disagree that a working meeting cannot have food and drink. This is complete rubbish and during my career I have held and attended many meetings with colleagues over lunch and dinner with wine. There is no law against it. This includes meetings with senior government representatives and civil service. It is in no way unusual. However, let’s go with this for the sake of argument, then all such gatherings are parties and poor old Keir Starmer is up to his neck in it. It matters not that the video evidence is not of sufficient length or quality for some it clearly shows him have a drink and people scoffing grub in the background. Is Starmer and Labour to be held to the same standards or is that somehow different?
We then have those who say it’s not about this, it’s about rule makers breaking the law and should be held to higher standards. OK, I get that but does that stand up in law?
We surely get to the nub of the matter that this isn’t really about breaking the law it’s about emotional responses. On this I agree, but once emotion comes into it then the consequences will be ill defined and everyone is entitled to their view, even O&T who, despite the emotional and subjective pile on against him, does make some valid points. I struggle amongst all those I know well to identify a single one who has met the laws and ‘rules’ in their entirety. They all made judgements about what was OK, some clearly minor and some not so much and they all made judgements that protecting the elderly and those in care homes were more important that meeting friends etc. In other words, let him without sin cast the first stone . . .
I also detect some Remainers who see this as nothing more than an opportunity to get Boris who delivered Brexit against their undemocratic wishes. These are very disingenuous people who can hardly hold Boris to account for his misdemeanours without be hypocritical in the extreme.
To me this is about a politician who has morally stepped well over the line and should be held to account by the public and his peers. Parliament, and Parliament alone should deal with this. People should rightly give their views to their MPs and those MPs should rock up to the HoC and take the necessary actions to ‘force’ the government and Conservatives to do the right thing. It is the court of (highly subjective) public opinion that will ultimately deliver an outcome. So for those who are frothing uncontrollably, cease blathering inconsistently on a car forum and get down to Westminster and protest vigorously but legally after writing to your MP in the strongest possible terms.
Ivan stewart said:
MC Bodge said:
And what a glittering prize it was that Johnson gave them too...
I think he did ok ish l blame May , Oily Robbins and remoaners for
enabling the EU to annex the Northern Ireland.
OK'ish is hardly wonderful
Boringvolvodriver said:
Ivan stewart said:
MC Bodge said:
And what a glittering prize it was that Johnson gave them too...
I think he did ok ish l blame May , Oily Robbins and remoaners for the
enabling the EU to annex the Northern Ireland.
Anyway Brexit and the minor bump in the road is nothing when compared with net zero economic suicide that the tories are wedded to !
272BHP said:
How on earth do we go forward and function as a country if we kick out a sitting prime minister for having some socially distanced cheese and wine?
Because that's not the reason (in my view):- It's not the parties themselves, in reality they are an entirely normal thing.
- Arguably, it's not even the fact that the rules themselves shouldn't have been there, Boris could deflect that by claiming he was against them and it was what everyone else wanted (it might even be true, who knows)
- The real kicker is that he has lied to parliament multiple times about the parties, saying he hasn't been to any and wasn't aware of any - this can now be clearly proven to be false, by his own admission.
In my own view of course, there was nothing wrong with the parties in a covid risk sense, as after all they were outside etc.
But what gets me is of course that the very people who were still insisting that such "dangerous" and "risky" things as being outside without actively exercising, or having a picnic should still be illegal (and encouraging police forces to take a hard line on it!) while doing those things themselves.
It would be wonderful for the very people who criminalised normal life to be prosecuted for breaking those same bad laws though!
And just to add - weren't some of the parties in the period where the insane £10k fines for organising an illegal "gathering"?
Surely that would be easy to prove - whoever sent the emails!
Edited by Plymo on Saturday 15th January 09:55
Plymo said:
- Arguably, it's not even the fact that the rules themselves shouldn't have been there, Boris could deflect that by claiming he was against them and it was what everyone else wanted (it might even be true, who knows)
Not really as he was the guy in charge and with great authority over his party, at that time at any rate.If he had taken a more nuanced approach he would certainly have taken a hit to his popularity, but a recoverable one IMO if his position was based on minimising economic and social damage and based on good governance.
As it is he had some short term popularity and now it is all falling apart as his team couldn't suspend normal social relations for 18 months while telling everyone else they should.
Boringvolvodriver said:
IIRC Sue Gray is a very senior Civil Servant in the Cabinet Office.
The Cabinet Office is based next to Downing Street and I wonder if there is an adjoining door?
Whilst it is fiction (although sometimes very close to the truth) Yes Minister has one being in place!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZENuNPMow
Was she at any of the parties one wonders?
The footage will emerge next week of Sue Gray.The Cabinet Office is based next to Downing Street and I wonder if there is an adjoining door?
Whilst it is fiction (although sometimes very close to the truth) Yes Minister has one being in place!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZENuNPMow
Was she at any of the parties one wonders?
Drunk as a skunk, snogging anyone and everyone, lap dancing for Boris whilst the others cheered her on.
Cummings has the video. I suspect this one will go viral
Garvin said:
I am thoroughly confused by some opinions on this thread.
There are those that demand that Boris be brought to justice for his misdemeanours, that he is not above the law and should be treated no differently than anyone else. Fair enough and I agree with that. Now the Met have stated that they are not into retrospective investigations on pandemic misdemeanours for the general public so the same should apply to Boris in that case should it not? Even if they do investigate and find transgressions what is the punishment - slap on the wrist and a fine so the same should apply to Boris should it not? I’m not aware that the police were enforcing job losses on those they ‘prosecuted’. Therefore the same should apply to Boris should it not?
However, at this point many of those self same people then want to deviate from Boris being treated the same and want him to lose his job over it. They then claim that, indeed, because of the job he does he is different and should be treated differently. Bit inconsistent isn’t it?
There are also those who vehemently disagree that a working meeting cannot have food and drink. This is complete rubbish and during my career I have held and attended many meetings with colleagues over lunch and dinner with wine. There is no law against it. This includes meetings with senior government representatives and civil service. It is in no way unusual. However, let’s go with this for the sake of argument, then all such gatherings are parties and poor old Keir Starmer is up to his neck in it. It matters not that the video evidence is not of sufficient length or quality for some it clearly shows him have a drink and people scoffing grub in the background. Is Starmer and Labour to be held to the same standards or is that somehow different?
We then have those who say it’s not about this, it’s about rule makers breaking the law and should be held to higher standards. OK, I get that but does that stand up in law?
We surely get to the nub of the matter that this isn’t really about breaking the law it’s about emotional responses. On this I agree, but once emotion comes into it then the consequences will be ill defined and everyone is entitled to their view, even O&T who, despite the emotional and subjective pile on against him, does make some valid points. I struggle amongst all those I know well to identify a single one who has met the laws and ‘rules’ in their entirety. They all made judgements about what was OK, some clearly minor and some not so much and they all made judgements that protecting the elderly and those in care homes were more important that meeting friends etc. In other words, let him without sin cast the first stone . . .
I also detect some Remainers who see this as nothing more than an opportunity to get Boris who delivered Brexit against their undemocratic wishes. These are very disingenuous people who can hardly hold Boris to account for his misdemeanours without be hypocritical in the extreme.
To me this is about a politician who has morally stepped well over the line and should be held to account by the public and his peers. Parliament, and Parliament alone should deal with this. People should rightly give their views to their MPs and those MPs should rock up to the HoC and take the necessary actions to ‘force’ the government and Conservatives to do the right thing. It is the court of (highly subjective) public opinion that will ultimately deliver an outcome. So for those who are frothing uncontrollably, cease blathering inconsistently on a car forum and get down to Westminster and protest vigorously but legally after writing to your MP in the strongest possible terms.
That’s some impressive mental gymnastics there. Make sure you don’t strain anything.There are those that demand that Boris be brought to justice for his misdemeanours, that he is not above the law and should be treated no differently than anyone else. Fair enough and I agree with that. Now the Met have stated that they are not into retrospective investigations on pandemic misdemeanours for the general public so the same should apply to Boris in that case should it not? Even if they do investigate and find transgressions what is the punishment - slap on the wrist and a fine so the same should apply to Boris should it not? I’m not aware that the police were enforcing job losses on those they ‘prosecuted’. Therefore the same should apply to Boris should it not?
However, at this point many of those self same people then want to deviate from Boris being treated the same and want him to lose his job over it. They then claim that, indeed, because of the job he does he is different and should be treated differently. Bit inconsistent isn’t it?
There are also those who vehemently disagree that a working meeting cannot have food and drink. This is complete rubbish and during my career I have held and attended many meetings with colleagues over lunch and dinner with wine. There is no law against it. This includes meetings with senior government representatives and civil service. It is in no way unusual. However, let’s go with this for the sake of argument, then all such gatherings are parties and poor old Keir Starmer is up to his neck in it. It matters not that the video evidence is not of sufficient length or quality for some it clearly shows him have a drink and people scoffing grub in the background. Is Starmer and Labour to be held to the same standards or is that somehow different?
We then have those who say it’s not about this, it’s about rule makers breaking the law and should be held to higher standards. OK, I get that but does that stand up in law?
We surely get to the nub of the matter that this isn’t really about breaking the law it’s about emotional responses. On this I agree, but once emotion comes into it then the consequences will be ill defined and everyone is entitled to their view, even O&T who, despite the emotional and subjective pile on against him, does make some valid points. I struggle amongst all those I know well to identify a single one who has met the laws and ‘rules’ in their entirety. They all made judgements about what was OK, some clearly minor and some not so much and they all made judgements that protecting the elderly and those in care homes were more important that meeting friends etc. In other words, let him without sin cast the first stone . . .
I also detect some Remainers who see this as nothing more than an opportunity to get Boris who delivered Brexit against their undemocratic wishes. These are very disingenuous people who can hardly hold Boris to account for his misdemeanours without be hypocritical in the extreme.
To me this is about a politician who has morally stepped well over the line and should be held to account by the public and his peers. Parliament, and Parliament alone should deal with this. People should rightly give their views to their MPs and those MPs should rock up to the HoC and take the necessary actions to ‘force’ the government and Conservatives to do the right thing. It is the court of (highly subjective) public opinion that will ultimately deliver an outcome. So for those who are frothing uncontrollably, cease blathering inconsistently on a car forum and get down to Westminster and protest vigorously but legally after writing to your MP in the strongest possible terms.
Boringvolvodriver said:
IIRC Sue Gray is a very senior Civil Servant in the Cabinet Office.
The Cabinet Office is based next to Downing Street and I wonder if there is an adjoining door?
Whilst it is fiction (although sometimes very close to the truth) Yes Minister has one being in place!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZENuNPMow
Was she at any of the parties one wonders?
There is a door. When Clegg was deputy PM his office was in 70 Whitehall, before Cummings had his own crisis he was there too. They weren't running about outside past the semi-permanent protestors and tourists to get into number 10 by the front door. It's how you only see a selection of MPs arrive and some not leave at reshuffle time too. And the doors go beyond that building to others.The Cabinet Office is based next to Downing Street and I wonder if there is an adjoining door?
Whilst it is fiction (although sometimes very close to the truth) Yes Minister has one being in place!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZENuNPMow
Was she at any of the parties one wonders?
It's a very large office complex, not the two up, two down terrace some people seem to think must have given Boris PTSD from hearing all the corks popping. I suspect after Simon Case they were a bit more diligent in checking she hadn't been involved in any
272BHP said:
How on earth do we go forward and function as a country if we kick out a sitting prime minister for having some socially distanced cheese and wine?
As in how do we find anyone virtuous enough to do the job without some minor event occurring in 3 months time and we need to start looking for a new one.
Putin must be currently dismantling entire departments in the FSB - "No need for you anymore guys, we have discovered that if you just leave them to it they will destabilise themselves"
We find someone who doesn't break the laws they themselves impose on the rest of us. Boris was happy to lock us in our homes, send businesses to the wall and seperate dying relatives, but that was just for us plebs. As in how do we find anyone virtuous enough to do the job without some minor event occurring in 3 months time and we need to start looking for a new one.
Putin must be currently dismantling entire departments in the FSB - "No need for you anymore guys, we have discovered that if you just leave them to it they will destabilise themselves"
The laws he introduced were extreme, unprecedented and affected every Briton from the Queen to council tennants and even the homeless. But they didn't apply to Boris.
f
k him & the entire cabinet that defended this. They are all corrupt brown-nosing spineless parasites and can find a job with Putin if that's their attitude to the rule of law.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff