Boris Johnson-Prime Minister (Vol 8)

[Garvin]

sugerbear said:

Garvin said:

Escort3500 said:

Exactly. We all know that most politicians of all hues and at all levels lie; to varying degrees it’s a default setting.

However, the frequency and seriousness of self-serving Johnson’s lies take it to a much higher level than most in Parliament

A “much higher level”? Really? You consider Boris’ porky pies a higher level that Blair’s 45minute deployment of WMDs and off to war we go!

this is laughable, the tories would have done exactly the same, they wouldn't have sided with the French, they would have even more accommodating of the Americans demands than Blair was.

A pure subjective response based on no evidence whatsoever. Be that as it may it’s irrelevant to the discussion. The subject is about the seriousness of Boris’ lies being at a “much higher level”. History proves this not to be the case unless you consider dragging the UK into an illegal war by fabricating evidence to Parliament less severe than quaffing a bit of cake and a bit of fizz.

[blueg33]

Garvin said:

Escort3500 said:

Exactly. We all know that most politicians of all hues and at all levels lie; to varying degrees it’s a default setting.

However, the frequency and seriousness of self-serving Johnson’s lies take it to a much higher level than most in Parliament

A “much higher level”? Really? You consider Boris’ porky pies a higher level that Blair’s 45minute deployment of WMDs and off to war we go!

Look a squirrel !

[Garvin]

blueg33 said:

Garvin said:

Escort3500 said:

Exactly. We all know that most politicians of all hues and at all levels lie; to varying degrees it’s a default setting.

However, the frequency and seriousness of self-serving Johnson’s lies take it to a much higher level than most in Parliament

A “much higher level”? Really? You consider Boris’ porky pies a higher level that Blair’s 45minute deployment of WMDs and off to war we go!

Look a squirrel !

As they say, the truth hurts.

[Riff Raff]

Garvin said:

blueg33 said:

Garvin said:

Escort3500 said:

Exactly. We all know that most politicians of all hues and at all levels lie; to varying degrees it’s a default setting.

However, the frequency and seriousness of self-serving Johnson’s lies take it to a much higher level than most in Parliament

A “much higher level”? Really? You consider Boris’ porky pies a higher level that Blair’s 45minute deployment of WMDs and off to war we go!

Look a squirrel !

As they say, the truth hurts.

There’s a series on radio 4 at the moment about the Iraq war. ‘Shock and War’. It’s worth a listen. As always the real story is a bit more complicated than just the 45 minute Dodgy Dossier sound bite.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001k83m

[Frik]

Garvin said:

A pure subjective response based on no evidence whatsoever. Be that as it may it’s irrelevant to the discussion. The subject is about the seriousness of Boris’ lies being at a “much higher level”. History proves this not to be the case unless you consider dragging the UK into an illegal war by fabricating evidence to Parliament less severe than quaffing a bit of cake and a bit of fizz.

That covers the seriousness part. What about the frequency?

[Garvin]

Riff Raff said:

Garvin said:

blueg33 said:

Garvin said:

Escort3500 said:

Exactly. We all know that most politicians of all hues and at all levels lie; to varying degrees it’s a default setting.

However, the frequency and seriousness of self-serving Johnson’s lies take it to a much higher level than most in Parliament

A “much higher level”? Really? You consider Boris’ porky pies a higher level that Blair’s 45minute deployment of WMDs and off to war we go!

Look a squirrel !

As they say, the truth hurts.

There’s a series on radio 4 at the moment about the Iraq war. ‘Shock and War’. It’s worth a listen. As always the real story is a bit more complicated than just the 45 minute Dodgy Dossier sound bite.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001k83m

Of course. But that doesn’t detract from the Blair getting Campbell to ‘sex up’ the report to Parliament and using it as a lever to get the UK to war. It was a heinous misleading of Parliament with extremely serious consequences.

[Garvin]

Frik said:

That covers the seriousness part. What about the frequency?

OK, but I’ll trade the frequency for the utter seriousness of it. BTW, what was the frequency of Boris’ porky pies to Parliament?

[Bannock]

Garvin said:

sugerbear said:

Garvin said:

Escort3500 said:

Exactly. We all know that most politicians of all hues and at all levels lie; to varying degrees it’s a default setting.

However, the frequency and seriousness of self-serving Johnson’s lies take it to a much higher level than most in Parliament

A “much higher level”? Really? You consider Boris’ porky pies a higher level that Blair’s 45minute deployment of WMDs and off to war we go!

this is laughable, the tories would have done exactly the same, they wouldn't have sided with the French, they would have even more accommodating of the Americans demands than Blair was.

A pure subjective response based on no evidence whatsoever. Be that as it may it’s irrelevant to the discussion. The subject is about the seriousness of Boris’ lies being at a “much higher level”. History proves this not to be the case unless you consider dragging the UK into an illegal war by fabricating evidence to Parliament less severe than quaffing a bit of cake and a bit of fizz.

How far back does "what about" have legal effect? How does Blair's despicable behaviour serve to exonerate Boris Johnson's despicable behaviour? Can we "what about" Anthony Eden and Suez? Thatcher and the Poll Tax? Pitt the Younger and Prince George's disappearing socks?

Oh that's right, it has no legal effect. Because it's irrelevant.

It's all subjective, though, despite your appeals to "history proves this". For someone who watched their Mum die through a care home window, and then couldn't hold a funeral for her, maybe they would be put out by Johnson quaffing champagne and eating cake in a manner contrary to the law at the same time more than by Blair's manipulations.

[Rivenink]

Garvin said:

Riff Raff said:

Garvin said:

blueg33 said:

Garvin said:

Escort3500 said:

Exactly. We all know that most politicians of all hues and at all levels lie; to varying degrees it’s a default setting.

However, the frequency and seriousness of self-serving Johnson’s lies take it to a much higher level than most in Parliament

A “much higher level”? Really? You consider Boris’ porky pies a higher level that Blair’s 45minute deployment of WMDs and off to war we go!

Look a squirrel !

As they say, the truth hurts.

There’s a series on radio 4 at the moment about the Iraq war. ‘Shock and War’. It’s worth a listen. As always the real story is a bit more complicated than just the 45 minute Dodgy Dossier sound bite.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001k83m

Of course. But that doesn’t detract from the Blair getting Campbell to ‘sex up’ the report to Parliament and using it as a lever to get the UK to war. It was a heinous misleading of Parliament with extremely serious consequences.

So is your point that Johnson shouldn't be facing censure for misleading Parliament because Blair did so 20 years ago, and wasn't censured?

[JagLover]

Bannock said:

How far back does "what about" have legal effect? How does Blair's despicable behaviour serve to exonerate Boris Johnson's despicable behaviour? Can we "what about" Anthony Eden and Suez? Thatcher and the Poll Tax? Pitt the Younger and Prince George's disappearing socks?

We are talking of lying and misleading parliament. The poll tax was misguided but not as far as I am aware based upon a lie.

Eden and Suez was the exact same scenario, he lied about what he had prearranged with the Israelis and French. He resigned due to both this and the failure of the policy.

[S600BSB]

Garvin said:

Frik said:

That covers the seriousness part. What about the frequency?

OK, but I’ll trade the frequency for the utter seriousness of it. BTW, what was the frequency of Boris’ porky pies to Parliament?

Daily? Certainly every PMQs?

[Bannock]

JagLover said:

Bannock said:

How far back does "what about" have legal effect? How does Blair's despicable behaviour serve to exonerate Boris Johnson's despicable behaviour? Can we "what about" Anthony Eden and Suez? Thatcher and the Poll Tax? Pitt the Younger and Prince George's disappearing socks?

We are talking of lying and misleading parliament. The poll tax was misguided but not as far as I am aware based upon a lie.

Eden and Suez was the exact same scenario, he lied about what he had prearranged with the Israelis and French. He resigned due to both this and the failure of the policy.

We're talking of Boris Johnson lying and misleading Parliament, in a thread entitled "Boris Johnson - Prime Minister". The point I'm making is that whatever Blair, Eden, or whoever your favourite bogeyman ex-Prime Minister is, did, is irrelevant. Whataboutery has no bearing on the matter. I await the judgement of this week's questioning of Johnson, and whatever sanction he receives, if any, will have been arrived at only on the basis of the evidence of this specific case, with no regard to Blair, or Eden, or anyone else.

Johnson fans screaming "BLAIR" like the pouty-lipped toddlers and snowflakes they are, can be ignored.

[Garvin]

Bannock said:

Garvin said:

sugerbear said:

Garvin said:

Escort3500 said:

Exactly. We all know that most politicians of all hues and at all levels lie; to varying degrees it’s a default setting.

However, the frequency and seriousness of self-serving Johnson’s lies take it to a much higher level than most in Parliament

A “much higher level”? Really? You consider Boris’ porky pies a higher level that Blair’s 45minute deployment of WMDs and off to war we go!

this is laughable, the tories would have done exactly the same, they wouldn't have sided with the French, they would have even more accommodating of the Americans demands than Blair was.

A pure subjective response based on no evidence whatsoever. Be that as it may it’s irrelevant to the discussion. The subject is about the seriousness of Boris’ lies being at a “much higher level”. History proves this not to be the case unless you consider dragging the UK into an illegal war by fabricating evidence to Parliament less severe than quaffing a bit of cake and a bit of fizz.

How far back does "what about" have legal effect? How does Blair's despicable behaviour serve to exonerate Boris Johnson's despicable behaviour? Can we "what about" Anthony Eden and Suez? Thatcher and the Poll Tax? Pitt the Younger and Prince George's disappearing socks?

Oh that's right, it has no legal effect. Because it's irrelevant.

It's all subjective, though, despite your appeals to "history proves this". For someone who watched their Mum die through a care home window, and then couldn't hold a funeral for her, maybe they would be put out by Johnson quaffing champagne and eating cake in a manner contrary to the law at the same time more than by Blair's manipulations.

It doesn’t exonerate Boris’ behaviour. I never stated that it did. I just took issue with the statement that his misdemeanours were “a much higher level” than others. I see the discussion is now being narrowed down to current MPs. On that basis of goalpost moving why not limit it to current PMs? Boris is an ex PM so, by your logic, it’s irrelevant.

Then we move on to the crux of the matter. It’s not about him fibbing to Parliament for you, it’s about your hatred of the man and his overall behaviour. I wasn’t commenting on that.

[minimoog]

Garvin said:

It doesn’t exonerate Boris’ behaviour. I never stated that it did. I just took issue with the statement that his misdemeanours were “a much higher level” than others.

The statement was 'much higher level than most'.

You're not very good at this.

[bitchstewie]

Garvin said:

quaffing a bit of cake and a bit of fizz.

Dear oh dear.

[Escort3500]

minimoog said:

Garvin said:

It doesn’t exonerate Boris’ behaviour. I never stated that it did. I just took issue with the statement that his misdemeanours were “a much higher level” than others.

The statement was 'much higher level than most'.

You're not very good at this.

Indeed. But an accurate quote would spoil his rant.

Edited by Escort3500 on Friday 24th March 15:20

[Blue62]

minimoog said:

The statement was 'much higher level than most'.

You're not very good at this.

It's straight out of the Paul Staines playbook, along with belittling the whole issue by suggesting it's about a 'bit of cake.'

I am not about to defend Blair, it's irrelevant in the context of Boris and what Boris has and continues, to do. He has lied his way through life, cheated loved ones and others, knowingly aided a henchman, hidden in a fridge, grabbed a journalists phone, the list is endless. Those who would prefer to deflect have simply signed up to the cult, in the same way that supporters of Trump continue to, but it does look as though they are running out of road.

You won't convince anyone who is so inclined, so there's little point, just be pleased that their numbers are diminishing now and that finally some semblance of competence, decency and honesty is slowly (very slowly) returning to British politics.

[Garvin]

Blue62 said:

It's straight out of the Paul Staines playbook, along with belittling the whole issue by suggesting it's about a 'bit of cake.'

I am not about to defend Blair, it's irrelevant in the context of Boris and what Boris has and continues, to do. He has lied his way through life, cheated loved ones and others, knowingly aided a henchman, hidden in a fridge, grabbed a journalists phone, the list is endless. Those who would prefer to deflect have simply signed up to the cult, in the same way that supporters of Trump continue to, but it does look as though they are running out of road.

You won't convince anyone who is so inclined, so there's little point, just be pleased that their numbers are diminishing now and that finally some semblance of competence, decency and honesty is slowly (very slowly) returning to British politics.

It’s posts like this that remind me of a quote by Thomas Sowell - “It is usually futile to try and talk facts and analysis with people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance”.

Edited by Garvin on Saturday 25th March 12:43

[Riff Raff]

Garvin said:

It’s posts like this that remind me of a quote by Thomas Sewell - “It is usually futile to try and talk facts and analysis with people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance”.

The irony is strong in this one.

[Blue62]

Garvin said:

It’s posts like this that remind me of a quote by Thomas Sewell - “It is usually futile to try and talk facts and analysis with people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance”.

You are quoting Thomas Sewell? So accusing me of a sense moral superiority in a thread about Bozza, while relying on the Neo Nazi Tommy Sewell to shore up your point is all you've got? The Sewell quote is intellectually flawed on every level, it's meaningless drivel but seemingly resonates with you, how sad.

Edited by Blue62 on Friday 24th March 21:19