Boris Johnson-Prime Minister (Vol 8)

[86]

The process looked clumsy with MP’s trying to sort their own mess. They didn’t really nail him on anything and allowed him to waffle. Wouldn’t stand up to a court of law. Think it would be better for the Tory party if they do find Johnson reckless and there is a by election. Politics better without people like Johnson, Corbyn and Sturgeon.







Apparhyiy

[fat80b]

robemcdonald said:

but anyone who listened to that and doesn’t think he is a massive c**t needs to seek help.

Please do explain what you think he said that was so clear to form that view, as having listened to nearly all of it, I don't think I heard anything that would actually do that? (even if we all agree that *nearly everything else he has done outside of this would lead you to that conclusion)

I *think I can separate my feelings on Boris (in that I think he's a shyster and a grifter) vs what he actually said as his defence.....and I would say that when listening to his actual arguments, he made some fair points against no real evidence?

I fail to see how they can find him guilty based on that.

[robemcdonald]

fat80b said:

robemcdonald said:

but anyone who listened to that and doesn’t think he is a massive c**t needs to seek help.

Please do explain what you think he said that was so clear to form that view, as having listened to nearly all of it, I don't think I heard anything that would actually do that? (even if we all agree that *nearly everything else he has done outside of this would lead you to that conclusion)

I *think I can separate my feelings on Boris (in that I think he's a shyster and a grifter) vs what he actually said as his defence.....and I would say that when listening to his actual arguments, he made some fair points against no real evidence?

I fail to see how they can find him guilty based on that.

Sure, no problem.

His singular failure to take any responsibility to take responsibility for anything that happened. Everything was someone else’s fault.

Also the way he was happy to throw his colleagues under the bus rather than admit any error on his part.

That makes him a bad leader and also a c**t

[princeperch]

I was listening to him today and whilst he put up a good fight it would have been manifestly better for him to eat a small slice of Humble pie and say "it was a fluid situation, it was stressful, we got a lot wrong and for that I'm sorry- I would have definitely have done things differently with the benefit of hindsight"

Simply trying to argue black is white is not going to fly. I mean the multiple champagne bottles on the table in the cabinet office for what was a small number of people present - it was very clearly a piss up.

He's toast and he knows it and rightly so.

Simon case is also a complete as well.

[frisbee]

Why does the fkwit need someone to tell him a party is breaking the rules? Does he also need someone to check he's wiped his arse properly?

[Ridgemont]

frisbee said:

Why does the fkwit need someone to tell him a party is breaking the rules? Does he also need someone to check he's wiped his arse properly?

Because he didn’t organise these events. It’s his most convincing point (bar the whole ‘I don’t believe I broke the rules’ where ‘where possible’ did an improbably large amount of heavy lifting) which is he is the leader of a large modern democracy. He has a jam packed diary which his secretariat and PPS manage. He just turns up to the next scheduled event assuming all is good.
It would be a bit bloody weird if we started hearing stories during lockdown about how the then PM turned up to events took one look and exited at speed while wrapping a panicky scarf around his face yelling ‘oh my god it’s not properly following guidance!’. Pay grade and all that…

[TwigtheWonderkid]

greygoose said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

He doesn't like women full stop. Sure, he likes fking women, but he's treated them abysmally over the years, with pressurised abortions, affairs, lies etc.

The man has, 5 times, got women pregnant whilst married to other women. That is not someone who likes or respects women.

Something he no doubt learned from his scumbag, wife beating father.

Oi......that's Sir wifebeating scumbag to you.

[Ridgemont]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

greygoose said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

He doesn't like women full stop. Sure, he likes fking women, but he's treated them abysmally over the years, with pressurised abortions, affairs, lies etc.

The man has, 5 times, got women pregnant whilst married to other women. That is not someone who likes or respects women.

Something he no doubt learned from his scumbag, wife beating father.

Oi......that's Sir wifebeating scumbag to you.

Interestingly I don’t think Johnson is his father re female behaviour and by all accounts he likes female company.

I do agree with a few observers who suspect he has a massive Don Juan complex probably caused by the behaviour of his father *towards* his mother and would certainly explain both him (king of the world!) and his awful relationship history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Juanism

[pghstochaj]

Ridgemont said:

frisbee said:

Why does the fkwit need someone to tell him a party is breaking the rules? Does he also need someone to check he's wiped his arse properly?

Because he didn’t organise these events. It’s his most convincing point (bar the whole ‘I don’t believe I broke the rules’ where ‘where possible’ did an improbably large amount of heavy lifting) which is he is the leader of a large modern democracy. He has a jam packed diary which his secretariat and PPS manage. He just turns up to the next scheduled event assuming all is good.
It would be a bit bloody weird if we started hearing stories during lockdown about how the then PM turned up to events took one look and exited at speed while wrapping a panicky scarf around his face yelling ‘oh my god it’s not properly following guidance!’. Pay grade and all that…

It’s not a question of whether he arranged the events, thats not remotely relevant.

What is relevant is:

when he told the house that all guidance had been followed in number 10; and
when he told the house that he has been reassured that all rules had been followed

Was it true, to the best of his knowledge and to a person with basic competence.

It’s hard for him to claim number 1 because he is pictured at events which do not appear to be work, during which time such events were not permitted. A leaving do was not essential. We had numerous leaving events cancelled during covid as it was not an essential work event. This is a question of his knowledge (he had seen at least some of the ents) and of ability to identify those events (and whether he was reckless).

Regarding number 2, where did he seek those reassurances and were Those reassurances sufficient for him to quote within the house?

[DeejRC]

Because it was theatre. For some reason some of you seem to think it was some kind of trial.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Ridgemont said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

greygoose said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

He doesn't like women full stop. Sure, he likes fking women, but he's treated them abysmally over the years, with pressurised abortions, affairs, lies etc.

The man has, 5 times, got women pregnant whilst married to other women. That is not someone who likes or respects women.

Something he no doubt learned from his scumbag, wife beating father.

Oi......that's Sir wifebeating scumbag to you.

Interestingly I don’t think Johnson is his father re female behaviour and by all accounts he likes female company.

You mean he likes to fk anything that moves. That's not the same thing as liking female company. Not at all.

I like female company. I have 2 sisters in law that I adore, several close friends of my wife who have become good friends of mine, plus 3 women I've known from growing up who are now my wife's friends too. I don't want to sleep with any of them (apart from my wife).

[Ridgemont]

DeejRC said:

Because it was theatre. For some reason some of you seem to think it was some kind of trial.

Indeed.

[Spare tyre]

God bless the tax payer, still no real work being done

[Ridgemont]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Ridgemont said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

greygoose said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

He doesn't like women full stop. Sure, he likes fking women, but he's treated them abysmally over the years, with pressurised abortions, affairs, lies etc.

The man has, 5 times, got women pregnant whilst married to other women. That is not someone who likes or respects women.

Something he no doubt learned from his scumbag, wife beating father.

Oi......that's Sir wifebeating scumbag to you.

Interestingly I don’t think Johnson is his father re female behaviour and by all accounts he likes female company.

You mean he likes to fk anything that moves. That's not the same thing as liking female company. Not at all.

I like female company. I have 2 sisters in law that I adore, several close friends of my wife who have become good friends of mine, plus 3 women I've known from growing up who are now my wife's friends too. I don't want to sleep with any of them (apart from my wife).

No he *really* likes female company

Don’t get me wrong I have no doubt he is a philandering unfaithful bd however as per Don Juan, unlike his father he has *no* history of battery. He does mistreat women, but not in the Sean Connery manner of his father.

[S600BSB]

Recall him and let the good people of Uxbridge kick his arse. He is a lying st and unfit to be an MP.

[Rumblestripe]

If a child of yours was hauled up before the Headmaster and his excuse was "someone told me it was OK not to do my homework, but I can't remember who told me it" would you support him/her?

Because that is the level of "excuse" that Johnson has proffered.

If anyone thinks this is a reasonable explanation and exonerates him of guilt I have some magic beans that you might be interested in.

Let me know below.

[DeejRC]

Once again…it is theatre, it is not a court or a trial. Or…anything really. It is pure, somewhat out of date, theatre. It’s a show.
There are no teeth, there is no bite, there is no “your nicked son” moment, there is nothing material. All that’s happened is that ppl who aren’t as good at the showbiz side of politics to demonstrate to a wider audience - once again - that they aren’t as good at showbiz politics as Boris is.
Parliament will/can do nothing about Boris, only his constituents can - and they probably will do so at their next chance.

[Leithen]

DeejRC said:

Once again…it is theatre, it is not a court or a trial. Or…anything really. It is pure, somewhat out of date, theatre. It’s a show.
There are no teeth, there is no bite, there is no “your nicked son” moment, there is nothing material. All that’s happened is that ppl who aren’t as good at the showbiz side of politics to demonstrate to a wider audience - once again - that they aren’t as good at showbiz politics as Boris is.
Parliament will/can do nothing about Boris, only his constituents can - and they probably will do so at their next chance.

Not entirely true. The PM could, and if he had any spine should, kick him out of the party. He’s afraid the consequences would bring an early election, but he ought to call the ERG’s bluff. He holds all the cards but doesn’t realise it.

[maz8062]

pghstochaj said:

It’s not a question of whether he arranged the events, thats not remotely relevant.

What is relevant is:

when he told the house that all guidance had been followed in number 10; and
when he told the house that he has been reassured that all rules had been followed

Was it true, to the best of his knowledge and to a person with basic competence.

It’s hard for him to claim number 1 because he is pictured at events which do not appear to be work, during which time such events were not permitted. A leaving do was not essential. We had numerous leaving events cancelled during covid as it was not an essential work event. This is a question of his knowledge (he had seen at least some of the ents) and of ability to identify those events (and whether he was reckless).

Regarding number 2, where did he seek those reassurances and were Those reassurances sufficient for him to quote within the house?

This is the nub of the issue at play here. He lied to parliament. It’s not good enough to say that someone reassured him, or told him, blah blah, he should have sought clarification from a lawyer or senior civil servant before standing before the house and making the claims that he made.

I think he’ll get away with it but I think he’s toast as regards to making a comeback as PM, and he’s forever tainted as a lying, loser PM. The rest is just theatre.

[eccles]

maz8062 said:

I think he’ll get away with it but I think he’s toast as regards to making a comeback as PM, and he’s forever tainted as a lying, loser PM. The rest is just theatre.

This is what is killing modern politics, the lack of accountability or consequences for breaking the rules.

Your average man in the street just sees them getting away with it again, where in any other job you'd be sacked.

What is equally mind boggling is that there are people and organisations out there that are willing to put the best part of £5 million his way to here him speak!