Boris Johnson-Prime Minister (Vol 8)
Discussion
Rumblestripe said:
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.
With the bonus that Johnson set the homework assignment.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 said:
? He DID get sacked! In the most public and conspicuous manner! You cannot get anymore sacked! Bags of potatoes come in less sacks!
No he resigned, he still gets paid as an MP and since stopping being PM has coined it in. Usally getting sacked doesn't allow you to make 5m on the sidemaz8062 said:
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. 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?
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.
There isn’t a due process where ‘investigators’ can pull from his answers a basic level of competency and say he failed to seek clarification from a civil servant or a senior lawyer.
Yes that may well be sensible.
But the metric here is simple:
‘Did you knowingly lie to the house?’
‘No and you have no evidence to suggest I did’
‘Er… ok’.
That bit about senior civil servants and lawyers is stuff you’ve inserted into a really simple question, and the only one the committee can ask: did you deliberately mislead?
And since he answers ‘no because I didn’t believe I did anything wrong’ it’s a bit open and shut. There is no Hercule Poirot moment.
Don’t get me wrong: it maybe that the committee may randomly suspend him for 10 days (or whatever the mark is) to cause a possible recall. And that may end up taking place, but the stuff of today was pretty much it. It’s not a court. There isn’t cross examinations. There is no final summary until the committee publishes its findings. And I would (and I may eat these words) be amazed if the Tory majority agrees to the suspension. They will excoriate but that is that. Because this is a political process not a judicial one.
eccles said:
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!
Why wouldn't they?. Do you think people are also paying large sums to May because they are genuinely interested in having such a boring individual deliver an after dinner speech?. For the most part he followed the agenda in office and so now the rewards will flow post office.
Gecko1978 said:
DeejRC said:
? He DID get sacked! In the most public and conspicuous manner! You cannot get anymore sacked! Bags of potatoes come in less sacks!
No he resigned, he still gets paid as an MP and since stopping being PM has coined it in. Usally getting sacked doesn't allow you to make 5m on the sideHe was v v v sacked. His “workforce” demanded him out of office (party). His board sacked him (cabinet). Neither of the above get to change his MP status, only his investors (constituents) and they will have a chance to render their opinion soon.
He didn’t make £5m “on the side”, he made £5m from other income streams. That’s basically how normal life works when you have multiple unconnected income streams. It’s no different from a plumber with multiple contracts - one has ended, therefore it frees up time for them to devote to heir other clients and contracts. Whether he gets paid as an MP or not is irrelevant to his earning £5m - elsewhere. Sorry, irrelevant to the other £4.9m, there you go, you can feel indignant over the £100k he has probably got in that time as an MP.
As I said to another poster, that it was £5m he could earn in that time is simply because he is more interesting than you or I. That’s the rate that the market seems he is “worth”. In his case, the notoriety of one “job” ( the PM tenure/sacking) quite possibly/probably INCREASES his market rate to those who wish to listen to him speak, or read him.
He will pay a decent wedge of tax on that thought and so contribute back to the economy. Given that he and Rishi put the increased taxes in places that I’m very much caught in myself, I’m only to happy to see him also caught in them. THAT is my kind of karma.
DeejRC said:
He will pay a decent wedge of tax on that thought and so contribute back to the economy. Given that he and Rishi put the increased taxes in places that I’m very much caught in myself, I’m only to happy to see him also caught in them. THAT is my kind of karma.
I don't know whether I think that's naivety or optimism but I admire it. I'd be surprised if he isn't finding a way to take his mp salary tax free mcdjl said:
DeejRC said:
He will pay a decent wedge of tax on that thought and so contribute back to the economy. Given that he and Rishi put the increased taxes in places that I’m very much caught in myself, I’m only to happy to see him also caught in them. THAT is my kind of karma.
I don't know whether I think that's naivety or optimism but I admire it. I'd be surprised if he isn't finding a way to take his mp salary tax free There is no magic bag of tax evading beans only accessible to politicians.
The MP salary is paid by a government body. It’s paid like any PAYE payroll. Of all the things to try and dodge tax on, this ain’t it.
And as for the outside earnings, Johnson would be even more foolish than he seems to publish them in the register of MPs interests (as he does), but then not come clean about them to HMRC (whose HNW unit will be all over him).
fat80b said:
Apart from Sir Kier’s special LTA statute for his pension of course. But apart from that one I think you’re right 
Fully get why people will play the hypocrisy angle about the look of his DPP pension but do people think he personally negotiated that or do people think he took a job and that was how the pension scheme was setup by his employer?Frik said:
He wasn't "sacked" for anything this committee has been looking at though. He was "sacked" for saying he didn't know about allegations against Chris Pincher when he did, and appointed him anyway.
The Pincher scandal so sums up BJ. Pinscher had been the subject of a complaint. He had apologised and no further action was taken. On that basis his appointment was not unreasonable. When he got handy when drunk BJ could have sacked him and said he knew of the previous complaint but wanted to give him a second chance. But BJ's first response was to lie that he had not been told about the complaint. Mrr T said:
Frik said:
He wasn't "sacked" for anything this committee has been looking at though. He was "sacked" for saying he didn't know about allegations against Chris Pincher when he did, and appointed him anyway.
The Pincher scandal so sums up BJ. Pinscher had been the subject of a complaint. He had apologised and no further action was taken. On that basis his appointment was not unreasonable. When he got handy when drunk BJ could have sacked him and said he knew of the previous complaint but wanted to give him a second chance. But BJ's first response was to lie that he had not been told about the complaint. JagLover said:
Mrr T said:
Frik said:
He wasn't "sacked" for anything this committee has been looking at though. He was "sacked" for saying he didn't know about allegations against Chris Pincher when he did, and appointed him anyway.
The Pincher scandal so sums up BJ. Pinscher had been the subject of a complaint. He had apologised and no further action was taken. On that basis his appointment was not unreasonable. When he got handy when drunk BJ could have sacked him and said he knew of the previous complaint but wanted to give him a second chance. But BJ's first response was to lie that he had not been told about the complaint. I was quite surprised by the number of people phoning in to talk-shows yesterday to support this clown.
"Something something, time to move on, something something, Labour is no better" etc.
You can show someone a lump of s
t. It looks and smells like a lump of st, but apparently they consider it to be a bunch of roses.
All very strange
"Something something, time to move on, something something, Labour is no better" etc.
You can show someone a lump of s
t. It looks and smells like a lump of st, but apparently they consider it to be a bunch of roses.All very strange
S600BSB said:
He's toast.
Sadly I don't think so.My guess 1 week suspension which frees him up to do more speaking arrangements make more cash etc. Then he is there till the GE a thorn in Rishi side (not a bad thing, then looses his seat retires with millions etc
He looses and he still wins and the tax payer had just made his legal team more cash.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
JagLover said:
Mrr T said:
Frik said:
He wasn't "sacked" for anything this committee has been looking at though. He was "sacked" for saying he didn't know about allegations against Chris Pincher when he did, and appointed him anyway.
The Pincher scandal so sums up BJ. Pinscher had been the subject of a complaint. He had apologised and no further action was taken. On that basis his appointment was not unreasonable. When he got handy when drunk BJ could have sacked him and said he knew of the previous complaint but wanted to give him a second chance. But BJ's first response was to lie that he had not been told about the complaint. I presume he was either caught on the hop or thought a flat rebuttal would see the moment off.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff