For cabinet ministers this could be a career-defining issue – politicalbetting.com

System

For cabinet ministers this could be a career-defining issue – politicalbetting.com

The big spreadsheet of Cabinet support making a comeback today. Currently looking a bit bare. Twitter alerts on – which minister will be first out of the blocks? https://t.co/lcKlUeu6A2 pic.twitter.com/XCseAOAV1o

Read the full story here

CD13

First?

Boris has finally jumped the shark. But things could have been worse than BoJo as PM. We could have had Corbyn as PM. Putin would now be giving a press conference in Kiev.

DavidL

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

ozymandias

CD13 said:

First?

Boris has finally jumped the shark. But things could have been worse than BoJo as PM. We could have had Corbyn as PM. Putin would now be giving a press conference in Kiev.

More likely a press conference in London.

ydoethur

The question is, are they (a) spineless cowards with no integrity or are they (b) decent and well-meaning public servants who will do the right thing regardless of cost?

Alas, I fear my money is on (a) for far too many of them...

Applicant

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

But the Met is infallible!

BartholomewRoberts

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

Legally speaking if a FPN is paid and not disputed then that's not legally accepting that wrongdoing as fact either, is it?

Politically speaking its a different matter.

CarlottaVance

The images suggest a civilian bloodbath in Bucha, a suburb of Kyiv. The Ukrainian government is holding Russian troops responsible. But Ukrianian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is also pointing the finger at former German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He invited her to Bucha, to see for herself "what the policy of 14 years of concessions to Russia has led to."

https://www.dw.com/en/war-in-ukraine-german-foreign-policy-under-fire/a-61436299

Carnyx

ydoethur said:

The question is, are they (a) spineless cowards with no integrity or are they (b) decent and well-meaning public servants who will do the right thing regardless of cost?

Alas, I fear my money is on (a) for far too many of them...

Just been looking at the Graun feed. Mr Blackford evoking the replacement of Chamberlain by Churchill, and Mr Ross doing his very best to whine about destabilising the government at this time.

I really am surprised Mr Ross can move on land, never mind run along a footie field. It's not as if he hadn't burnt his Johnsonian boats already, so he had nothing to lose by maintaining some vertebrae,

kle4

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

Well until it is reported they won't accept a fine, the reporting is not incorrect, at least insofar they are not choosing to dispute the view of the Met.

Stuartinromford

ydoethur said:

The question is, are they (a) spineless cowards with no integrity or are they (b) decent and well-meaning public servants who will do the right thing regardless of cost?

Alas, I fear my money is on (a) for far too many of them...

More widely, it's why Starmer surely has to call a VONC.

Not because he expects to win, but to tar the entire Parliamentary Conservative Party with this.

A bit rubbish for the decent ones who have called out the misbehaviour (Aaron Bell, say), but in that situation they would have to fall into line... wouldn't they?

CarlottaVance

No 10 confirms this FPN was issued for the June 19th PM birthday gathering. PM is also linked to up to another five events the Met is investigating. Sunak was only quizzed by the police over this single June 19 event

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1513906163384995842

kle4

Missed all this excitement today, but it was clear some time ago that everyone had already set out their stalls in the event a fine occurred. Indeed, some have retracted their position.

So the only interesting bit will be who makes the biggest prat of themselves proving loyalty.

My bet is on Cleverly - he has not been without wit on occasion, but when sucking up he can misstep wildly.

ydoethur

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

Theuniondivvie

A bald statement of the fucking facts.

Scott_xP

Boris Johnson’s Parliamentary aide, setting out No10 likely defence: https://twitter.com/jamesduddridge/status/1513905700589690888

Carnyx

Farooq said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

The question is, are they (a) spineless cowards with no integrity or are they (b) decent and well-meaning public servants who will do the right thing regardless of cost?

Alas, I fear my money is on (a) for far too many of them...

Just been looking at the Graun feed. Mr Blackford evoking the replacement of Chamberlain by Churchill, and Mr Ross doing his very best to whine about destabilising the government at this time.

I really am surprised Mr Ross can move on land, never mind run along a footie field. It's not as if he hadn't burnt his Johnsonian boats already, so he had nothing to lose by maintaining some vertebrae,

Ross is distressingly useless. It's actually quite amazing how he's managed to isolate himself from both the Boris and the anti-Boris camps.

Quite. I'm a bit stunned.

How's his standing in the Scons, do you think? Both the MSPs and MPs, and the party as a whole?

ydoethur

Scott_xP said:

Boris Johnson’s Parliamentary aide, setting out No10 likely defence: https://twitter.com/jamesduddridge/status/1513905700589690888

How is not resigning 'accepting responsibility?'

Gary_Burton

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

The question is, are they (a) spineless cowards with no integrity or are they (b) decent and well-meaning public servants who will do the right thing regardless of cost?

Alas, I fear my money is on (a) for far too many of them...

More widely, it's why Starmer surely has to call a VONC.

Not because he expects to win, but to tar the entire Parliamentary Conservative Party with this.

A bit rubbish for the decent ones who have called out the misbehaviour (Aaron Bell, say), but in that situation they would have to fall into line... wouldn't they?

Davey was calling for a VONC earlier on BBC news. I broadly agree, nothing to lose.

williamglenn

CarlottaVance said:

The images suggest a civilian bloodbath in Bucha, a suburb of Kyiv. The Ukrainian government is holding Russian troops responsible. But Ukrianian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is also pointing the finger at former German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He invited her to Bucha, to see for herself "what the policy of 14 years of concessions to Russia has led to."

https://www.dw.com/en/war-in-ukraine-german-foreign-policy-under-fire/a-61436299

@ronzheimer
BREAKING: German President Steinmeier was planning to come to Kyiv tomorrow, but Zelensky didn't want to meet him. Background: Steinmeier's close ties to Russia in the past years and his role with Nord Stream II and the so called „Steinmeier-Formel“.

https://twitter.com/ronzheimer/status/1513875012444475398

Carnyx

Theuniondivvie said:

A bald statement of the fucking facts.

You just know someone's going to try and feed him pineapple on pizza the next time he does a review.

(Technically, 'convicted' is wrong, but they've not said they'll not pay either.)

kle4

The Ross cowardice argument has been rightly dimissed many times before as a great many MPs are going to rely on it (to pretend they give a shit but that, oh no, their hands are tied), but it bears noting how stupid it is. The UK establishment is united in its support of Ukraine, swapping out PMs when the PM has been fined in this way would not hinder relations at all. Heck, keep Boris as a liaison to Ukraine if Zelensky would like to keep up the relationship if you really must.

northern_monkey

….

Applicant

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recorded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

Sunil_Prasannan

williamglenn said:

CarlottaVance said:

The images suggest a civilian bloodbath in Bucha, a suburb of Kyiv. The Ukrainian government is holding Russian troops responsible. But Ukrianian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is also pointing the finger at former German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He invited her to Bucha, to see for herself "what the policy of 14 years of concessions to Russia has led to."

https://www.dw.com/en/war-in-ukraine-german-foreign-policy-under-fire/a-61436299

@ronzheimer
BREAKING: German President Steinmeier was planning to come to Kyiv tomorrow, but Zelensky didn't want to meet him. Background: Steinmeier's close ties to Russia in the past years and his role with Nord Stream II and the so called „Steinmeier-Formel“.

https://twitter.com/ronzheimer/status/1513875012444475398

Das war ein Befehl! Der Angriff Steinmeiers war ein Befehl! Wer sind Sie, dass Sie es wagen, sich meinen Befehlen zu widersetzen? So weit ist es also gekommen!

SeaShantyIrish2

CarlottaVance said:

No 10 confirms this FPN was issued for the June 19th PM birthday gathering. PM is also linked to up to another five events the Met is investigating. Sunak was only quizzed by the police over this single June 19 event

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1513906163384995842

Doesn't "confirmation" by No. 10 generally mean that the OPPOSITE of what is stated is what's confirmed?

OR is this a rare exception to that hitherto iron rule?

SandyRentool

Covid Cluedo:

It was Bozo, in the Cabinet Room, with a Birthday Cake.

ydoethur

kle4 said:

The Ross cowardice argument has been rightly dimissed many times before as a great many MPs are going to rely on it (to pretend they give a shit but that, oh no, their hands are tied), but it bears noting how stupid it is. The UK establishment is united in its support of Ukraine, swapping out PMs when the PM has been fined in this way would not hinder relations at all. Heck, keep Boris as a liaison to Ukraine if Zelensky would like to keep up the relationship if you really must.

Boris Johnson would probably be happy to have liaisons with many Ukra...oh, sorry, not that sort of liaison?

ydoethur

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

kle4

ydoethur said:

Scott_xP said:

Boris Johnson’s Parliamentary aide, setting out No10 likely defence: https://twitter.com/jamesduddridge/status/1513905700589690888

How is not resigning 'accepting responsibility?'

The Gordon Brown approach. If you say you accept responsibility that is enough, you don't have to, you know, actually accept responsibility.

It's also a brazen lie - we know they don't think they did anything wrong because they told us so, so they don't accept responsibility they are just saying they are sorry for being, at best, incredibly dumb for believing none of it was wrong.

"I am incredibly stupid and cannot tell a party when I am literally attending one - this means I am definitely the person to lead the country".

ozymandias

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

You work in a brewery?

ydoethur

ozymandias said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

You work in a brewery?

Generally you wouldn't serve alcohol ina brewery. Drunk workers cause accidents.

ozymandias

Farooq said:

Gary_Burton said:

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

The question is, are they (a) spineless cowards with no integrity or are they (b) decent and well-meaning public servants who will do the right thing regardless of cost?

Alas, I fear my money is on (a) for far too many of them...

More widely, it's why Starmer surely has to call a VONC.

Not because he expects to win, but to tar the entire Parliamentary Conservative Party with this.

A bit rubbish for the decent ones who have called out the misbehaviour (Aaron Bell, say), but in that situation they would have to fall into line... wouldn't they?

Davey was calling for a VONC earlier on BBC news. I broadly agree, nothing to lose.

Yup, this certainly has to happen at the earliest opportunity. Over to you, Starmer.

Starmer won't do anything of the sort. He'll currently be very upset. He's not the sort of chap people invite to parties, "illegal" or not.

kle4

Gary_Burton said:

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

The question is, are they (a) spineless cowards with no integrity or are they (b) decent and well-meaning public servants who will do the right thing regardless of cost?

Alas, I fear my money is on (a) for far too many of them...

More widely, it's why Starmer surely has to call a VONC.

Not because he expects to win, but to tar the entire Parliamentary Conservative Party with this.

A bit rubbish for the decent ones who have called out the misbehaviour (Aaron Bell, say), but in that situation they would have to fall into line... wouldn't they?

Davey was calling for a VONC earlier on BBC news. I broadly agree, nothing to lose.

People tend to argue that since such will fail it is a tactical error to call for them, but I don't buy that. The PM has, at best, misled the House because he is very stupid, and he has no contrition about it (apologies extracted under duress do not count), and at worst he has lied to the House about breaching the rules. A vote would fail, but Tory MPs must be tested - even the 'good' ones will almost certainly not vote against their own party at that point, and everyone deserves to know that.

Applicant

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.

Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.

CorrectHorseBattery

ROFL, Johnson did nothing wrong! LOL!

Leon

Theuniondivvie said:

A bald statement of the fucking facts.

Why on earth should we care about the political opinion of some enormously fat guy who writes (rather well) about RESTAURANTS

Even more, why bother retweeting it?

Carnyx

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.

Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.

Mrs Johnson was fined too ... and she's neither elected nor a civil servant. So NOT WORK.

Benpointer

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A bald statement of the fucking facts.

Why on earth should we care about the political opinion of some enormously fat guy who writes (rather well) about RESTAURANTS

Even more, why bother retweeting it?

Because it's VERY FUNNY!

mwadams

kle4 said:

Gary_Burton said:

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

The question is, are they (a) spineless cowards with no integrity or are they (b) decent and well-meaning public servants who will do the right thing regardless of cost?

Alas, I fear my money is on (a) for far too many of them...

More widely, it's why Starmer surely has to call a VONC.

Not because he expects to win, but to tar the entire Parliamentary Conservative Party with this.

A bit rubbish for the decent ones who have called out the misbehaviour (Aaron Bell, say), but in that situation they would have to fall into line... wouldn't they?

Davey was calling for a VONC earlier on BBC news. I broadly agree, nothing to lose.

People tend to argue that since such will fail it is a tactical error to call for them, but I don't buy that. The PM has, at best, misled the House because he is very stupid, and he has no contrition about it (apologies extracted under duress do not count), and at worst he has lied to the House about breaching the rules. A vote would fail, but Tory MPs must be tested - even the 'good' ones will almost certainly not vote against their own party at that point, and everyone deserves to know that.

At the very least, it forces every Tory MP to explicitly support him in a Commons vote, and that can go on the Labour constituency leaflet in the run up to any elections.

Carnyx

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A bald statement of the fucking facts.

Why on earth should we care about the political opinion of some enormously fat guy who writes (rather well) about RESTAURANTS

Even more, why bother retweeting it?

I presume you're not fat, but try deleting the words 'enormously fat' and see how it looks ...

Theuniondivvie

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A bald statement of the fucking facts.

Why on earth should we care about the political opinion of some enormously fat guy who writes (rather well) about RESTAURANTS

Even more, why bother retweeting it?

You'd have to ask someone who has retweeted it.

How fat are you btw?

ydoethur

Carnyx said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.

Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.

Mrs Johnson was fined too ... and she's neither elected nor a civil servant. So NOT WORK.

That may well be what tipped the balance - that people who were not employed in that office were present.

Applicant

Carnyx said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.

Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.

Mrs Johnson was fined too ... and she's neither elected nor a civil servant. So NOT WORK.

I'm not disuputing that about this case - I would suspect most people's opinion would be that this gathering would be not reasonably necessary for work (based only on what has been reported, which may or may not be 100% reliable, of course).

I'm merely pointing out that it's still a question of opinion not fact, so the parallel with speeding fines fails.

algarkirk

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

No. There is no such thing as infallible technology, or human action without the possibility of error. It is exactly this sort of misunderstanding which led to the postmasters scandal.

Parties are a much more abstract concept than speeding. There is always wriggle room for an argument.

FPNs are designed to save courts from getting clogged up, and to prevent people who are not generally evilly intending to deal with things in a bureaucratic rather than criminal court way.

Loads of people pay the motoring fine on a FPN while being a bit unsure if they were actually guilty. It will be the same with FPNs for this. And indeed this fairly common human reaction may be how Boris tries to play it: "I accept their judgement, it isn't identical to my judgement but I am making no further fuss. It's an FPM. We'll get over it. No-one lied. Meanwhile there is a war to win."

I don't think this will be true, but it might do for now.

CarlottaVance

"Getting on with the job....."

I've just spoken to @POTUS and updated him on my meeting with President @ZelenskyyUa in Kyiv this weekend.

Our joint focus remains on supporting President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people in their fight for freedom.

Putin's barbaric venture cannot be allowed to succeed.

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1513904574934962181

Complete with Kyiv walkabout photo....

Nigelb

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A bald statement of the fucking facts.

Why on earth should we care about the political opinion of some enormously fat guy who writes (rather well) about RESTAURANTS

Even more, why bother retweeting it?

Shocking, I know.
Other than not being enormously fat, what's your excuse ?

Applicant

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A bald statement of the fucking facts.

Why on earth should we care about the political opinion of some enormously fat guy who writes (rather well) about RESTAURANTS

Even more, why bother retweeting it?

I presume you're not fat, but try deleting the words 'enormously fat' and see how it looks ...

I rather assumed that was the joke, tbh.

Carnyx

Applicant said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A bald statement of the fucking facts.

Why on earth should we care about the political opinion of some enormously fat guy who writes (rather well) about RESTAURANTS

Even more, why bother retweeting it?

I presume you're not fat, but try deleting the words 'enormously fat' and see how it looks ...

I rather assumed that was the joke, tbh.

I should have sughgested adding 'and hotels and places to visit' ...

SandyRentool

ydoethur said:

ozymandias said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

You work in a brewery?

Generally you wouldn't serve alcohol ina brewery. Drunk workers cause accidents.

I remember hearing of one brewery where the policy was:

Drink as much as you want for free, but if you are drunk, you get sacked.

SandyRentool

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.

Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.

Did someone's spouse turn up with a cake every Friday too?

kle4

'But Ukraine' is going to be the new 'But Vaccines' isn't it?

Leon

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A bald statement of the fucking facts.

Why on earth should we care about the political opinion of some enormously fat guy who writes (rather well) about RESTAURANTS

Even more, why bother retweeting it?

Shocking, I know.
Other than not being enormously fat, what's your excuse ?

Because I come on here and state my opinions directly, dumbkopf

Jay Rayner is annoying enough on Twitter, when he does politics, without having his entitled leftwing prattle relayed here for no reason

Are we gonna retweet Lineker next? Pff!

Applicant

SandyRentool said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.

Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.

Did someone's spouse turn up with a cake every Friday too?

When there was someone's brthday, there was cake. Reference to "someone's spouse" shows you haven't quite grasped the point I was making (see: this comment).

Carnyx

kle4 said:

'But Ukraine' is going to be the new 'But Vaccines' isn't it?

Then it'll be 'But Brexit' which is never going to be over given things like the mess at Dover etc.

RH1992

Think we might be getting a little clip from the PM soon enough according to the usually very accurate ITV News insider account.

"Prime Minister to provide a clip at 5.30pm after Downing Street revealed he and his Chancellor had been fined."

https://twitter.com/itvnewsinsider/status/1513903647255670785

Meanwhile I've just been watching Sky News and became quite annoyed at the member of the medical profession they got onto speak. They claimed that the fine means that Johnson's visit to Kyiv was "clearly designed as a distraction and photo opportunity".

I'm not Ukrainian, but I imagine it would feel pretty insulting that some prats continually seek to minimise the good work the UK has been doing because of a domestic scandal. The issues are separate and should remain so. Johnson should go because of the fine, but not all of his work deserves to be trashed as opportunistic.

Sunil_Prasannan

kle4 said:

'But Ukraine' is going to be the new 'But Vaccines' isn't it?

Hmmm.... conspiracy?

Carnyx

Applicant said:

SandyRentool said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.

Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.

Did someone's spouse turn up with a cake every Friday too?

When there was someone's brthday, there was cake. Reference to "someone's spouse" shows you haven't quite grasped the point I was making (see: this comment).

But your cakes were presumably sans spouse. Whether in, on, or holding them.

Applicant

RH1992 said:

Think we might be getting a little clip from the PM soon enough according to the usually very accurate ITV News insider account.

"Prime Minister to provide a clip at 5.30pm after Downing Street revealed he and his Chancellor had been fined."

https://twitter.com/itvnewsinsider/status/1513903647255670785

Meanwhile I've just been watching Sky News and became quite annoyed at the member of the medical profession they got onto speak. They claimed that the fine means that Johnson's visit to Kyiv was "clearly designed as a distraction and photo opportunity".

I'm not Ukrainian, but I imagine it would feel pretty insulting that some prats continually seek to minimise the good work the UK has been doing because of a domestic scandal. The issues are separate and should remain so.

When you say "member of the medical profession", I assume you mean "Labour activist"?

mwadams

RH1992 said:

Think we might be getting a little clip from the PM soon enough according to the usually very accurate ITV News insider account.

"Prime Minister to provide a clip at 5.30pm after Downing Street revealed he and his Chancellor had been fined."

https://twitter.com/itvnewsinsider/status/1513903647255670785

Meanwhile I've just been watching Sky News and became quite annoyed at the member of the medical profession they got onto speak. They claimed that the fine means that Johnson's visit to Kyiv was "clearly designed as a distraction and photo opportunity".

I'm not Ukrainian, but I imagine it would feel pretty insulting that some prats continually seek to minimise the good work the UK has been doing because of a domestic scandal. The issues are separate and should remain so.

How kind of him to supply a short PPB to save the interviewers the trouble of lobbing him softball questions.

ydoethur

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.

Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.

That was not the way the regulations were written. The gathering should only have been for work purposes and when that was completed, it should have ended. That clearly was not the case here where work obviously stopped to allow the celebrations to happen.

Yes, they were stupid regulations. But they were the regulations. Stultus lex, sed lex applies.

And while I might feel sympathy for people caught out by the fact that our government and civil service appear to consist entirely of smug barely literate idiots, I feel no sympathy at all for them getting hoist on their own petard.

Applicant

Carnyx said:

Applicant said:

SandyRentool said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.

Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.

Did someone's spouse turn up with a cake every Friday too?

When there was someone's brthday, there was cake. Reference to "someone's spouse" shows you haven't quite grasped the point I was making (see: this comment).

But your cakes were presumably sans spouse. Whether in, on, or holding them.

Yes... that's my point...

Scott_xP

It has been reported that Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak have received fines for breaching lockdown restrictions:

Do you think Boris Johnson should…
Resign: 57%
Remain in his role: 30%

Do you think Rishi Sunak should…
Resign: 57%
Remain in role: 29%

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/04/12/c5ce0/1 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1513912233524404244/photo/1

Scott_xP

Do you think Boris Johnson did or did not knowingly lie about whether or not he broke lockdown rules?

I think he did knowingly lie: 75%
I think he did not knowingly lie: 12%
Don’t know: 13%

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/04/12/c5ce0/3 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1513912239539032064/photo/1

williamglenn

IPSOS data on how the 2017 vote maps onto 2022:



https://twitter.com/mathieugallard/status/1513636287240196097

Sean_F

kle4 said:

Gary_Burton said:

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

The question is, are they (a) spineless cowards with no integrity or are they (b) decent and well-meaning public servants who will do the right thing regardless of cost?

Alas, I fear my money is on (a) for far too many of them...

More widely, it's why Starmer surely has to call a VONC.

Not because he expects to win, but to tar the entire Parliamentary Conservative Party with this.

A bit rubbish for the decent ones who have called out the misbehaviour (Aaron Bell, say), but in that situation they would have to fall into line... wouldn't they?

Davey was calling for a VONC earlier on BBC news. I broadly agree, nothing to lose.

People tend to argue that since such will fail it is a tactical error to call for them, but I don't buy that. The PM has, at best, misled the House because he is very stupid, and he has no contrition about it (apologies extracted under duress do not count), and at worst he has lied to the House about breaching the rules. A vote would fail, but Tory MPs must be tested - even the 'good' ones will almost certainly not vote against their own party at that point, and everyone deserves to know that.

I don't think it's so much stupidity as thinking there's nothing wrong with misleading the House.

Leon

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A bald statement of the fucking facts.

Why on earth should we care about the political opinion of some enormously fat guy who writes (rather well) about RESTAURANTS

Even more, why bother retweeting it?

You'd have to ask someone who has retweeted it.

How fat are you btw?

You're so tragic you re-posted the retweet

Next, to prove his point, Carnyx will repost a retweet of The Hairy Bikers' perspective on nuclear deterrence

Roger

Evan Davis hilarious! An absolute keeper.

No one's going to need Claude Rains again. For old times sake!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-PS_pr-t0

Carnyx

Applicant said:

Carnyx said:

Applicant said:

SandyRentool said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.

Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.

Did someone's spouse turn up with a cake every Friday too?

When there was someone's brthday, there was cake. Reference to "someone's spouse" shows you haven't quite grasped the point I was making (see: this comment).

But your cakes were presumably sans spouse. Whether in, on, or holding them.

Yes... that's my point...

And mine too. Spouse = not work. Cake = not in itself crucial, but importantly illuminating the nature of the event together with other things going on, such as spouses or folk from other depts/offices.

Alistair

ydoethur said:

Scott_xP said:

Boris Johnson’s Parliamentary aide, setting out No10 likely defence: https://twitter.com/jamesduddridge/status/1513905700589690888

How is not resigning 'accepting responsibility?'

In the same way Ronald Regan took full responsibility for Iran Contra.

Applicant

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.

Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.

That was not the way the regulations were written. The gathering should only have been for work purposes and when that was completed, it should have ended. That clearly was not the case here where work obviously stopped to allow the celebrations to happen.

Yes. But that's still a question of opinion - even if nearly everyone's opinion is the same! That's all I'm saying!

Carnyx

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A bald statement of the fucking facts.

Why on earth should we care about the political opinion of some enormously fat guy who writes (rather well) about RESTAURANTS

Even more, why bother retweeting it?

You'd have to ask someone who has retweeted it.

How fat are you btw?

You're so tragic you re-posted the retweet

Next, to prove his point, Carnyx will repost a retweet of The Hairy Bikers' perspective on nuclear deterrence

More interested in mackerel with creamy mustard sauce tbf.

mwadams

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A bald statement of the fucking facts.

Why on earth should we care about the political opinion of some enormously fat guy who writes (rather well) about RESTAURANTS

Even more, why bother retweeting it?

You'd have to ask someone who has retweeted it.

How fat are you btw?

You're so tragic you re-posted the retweet

Next, to prove his point, Carnyx will repost a retweet of The Hairy Bikers' perspective on nuclear deterrence

Who can forget the Two Fat Ladies vigorous support for the D'Hondt Method?

ydoethur

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.

Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.

That was not the way the regulations were written. The gathering should only have been for work purposes and when that was completed, it should have ended. That clearly was not the case here where work obviously stopped to allow the celebrations to happen.

Yes. But that's still a question of opinion - even if nearly everyone's opinion is the same! That's all I'm saying!

If toasts were being made, work had stopped.

I have to say I cannot see how that's an opinion rather than a fact.

kle4

Scott_xP said:

Do you think Boris Johnson did or did not knowingly lie about whether or not he broke lockdown rules?

I think he did knowingly lie: 75%
I think he did not knowingly lie: 12%
Don’t know: 13%

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/04/12/c5ce0/3 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1513912239539032064/photo/1

The reason I think he lied is I credit him with enough intelligence to know what the rules were.

Sean_F

Scott_xP said:

It has been reported that Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak have received fines for breaching lockdown restrictions:

Do you think Boris Johnson should…
Resign: 57%
Remain in his role: 30%

Do you think Rishi Sunak should…
Resign: 57%
Remain in role: 29%

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/04/12/c5ce0/1 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1513912233524404244/photo/1

Since Conservatives split 64/25% in the PM's favour, I suspect he's safe.

Applicant

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.

Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.

That was not the way the regulations were written. The gathering should only have been for work purposes and when that was completed, it should have ended. That clearly was not the case here where work obviously stopped to allow the celebrations to happen.

Yes. But that's still a question of opinion - even if nearly everyone's opinion is the same! That's all I'm saying!

If toasts were being made, work had stopped.

I have to say I cannot see how that's an opinion rather than a fact.

Again, you're focusing on the specific gathering and my point is more general.

Gary_Burton

Farooq said:

Carnyx said:

Farooq said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

The question is, are they (a) spineless cowards with no integrity or are they (b) decent and well-meaning public servants who will do the right thing regardless of cost?

Alas, I fear my money is on (a) for far too many of them...

Just been looking at the Graun feed. Mr Blackford evoking the replacement of Chamberlain by Churchill, and Mr Ross doing his very best to whine about destabilising the government at this time.

I really am surprised Mr Ross can move on land, never mind run along a footie field. It's not as if he hadn't burnt his Johnsonian boats already, so he had nothing to lose by maintaining some vertebrae,

Ross is distressingly useless. It's actually quite amazing how he's managed to isolate himself from both the Boris and the anti-Boris camps.

Quite. I'm a bit stunned.

How's his standing in the Scons, do you think? Both the MSPs and MPs, and the party as a whole?

I could see him moving on after May if things go badly.
But I really have no idea whether the votes are holding up for the Conservatives where it counts.
Transfers to the Tories in the council elections will be interesting. If Lib Dem and Labour tactical transfers dry up, then there could be trouble.

I think they will be in trouble in urban councils including Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh in particular where centrist voters will defect to the LDs and possibly squeezed out in other central belt SNP-Lab dominated wards where the are weak.

On the other hand I think they will be fine in rural councils such as Aberdeenshire, Dumfries and Galloway and Moray where there are fewer SNP and independent councillors standing than last time plus more Tory candidates and are still extremely likely/almost certain to gain seats in those places.

ydoethur

Alistair said:

ydoethur said:

Scott_xP said:

Boris Johnson’s Parliamentary aide, setting out No10 likely defence: https://twitter.com/jamesduddridge/status/1513905700589690888

How is not resigning 'accepting responsibility?'

In the same way Ronald Regan took full responsibility for Iran Contra.

One of the great examples of chutzpah.

'A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me this is true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.'

When I showed that to my Year 12s a few years back, one of them was so surprised she actually fell off her chair.

(It cured her of rocking on it, so it wasn't all bad news!)

kle4

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

Gary_Burton said:

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

The question is, are they (a) spineless cowards with no integrity or are they (b) decent and well-meaning public servants who will do the right thing regardless of cost?

Alas, I fear my money is on (a) for far too many of them...

More widely, it's why Starmer surely has to call a VONC.

Not because he expects to win, but to tar the entire Parliamentary Conservative Party with this.

A bit rubbish for the decent ones who have called out the misbehaviour (Aaron Bell, say), but in that situation they would have to fall into line... wouldn't they?

Davey was calling for a VONC earlier on BBC news. I broadly agree, nothing to lose.

People tend to argue that since such will fail it is a tactical error to call for them, but I don't buy that. The PM has, at best, misled the House because he is very stupid, and he has no contrition about it (apologies extracted under duress do not count), and at worst he has lied to the House about breaching the rules. A vote would fail, but Tory MPs must be tested - even the 'good' ones will almost certainly not vote against their own party at that point, and everyone deserves to know that.

I don't think it's so much stupidity as thinking there's nothing wrong with misleading the House.

To the Borises of the world there is nothing wrong with it because there will be no consequences for it.

ydoethur

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.

Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.

That was not the way the regulations were written. The gathering should only have been for work purposes and when that was completed, it should have ended. That clearly was not the case here where work obviously stopped to allow the celebrations to happen.

Yes. But that's still a question of opinion - even if nearly everyone's opinion is the same! That's all I'm saying!

If toasts were being made, work had stopped.

I have to say I cannot see how that's an opinion rather than a fact.

Again, you're focusing on the specific gathering and my point is more general.

You mean, like the police did?

Richard_Tyndall

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

Gary_Burton said:

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

The question is, are they (a) spineless cowards with no integrity or are they (b) decent and well-meaning public servants who will do the right thing regardless of cost?

Alas, I fear my money is on (a) for far too many of them...

More widely, it's why Starmer surely has to call a VONC.

Not because he expects to win, but to tar the entire Parliamentary Conservative Party with this.

A bit rubbish for the decent ones who have called out the misbehaviour (Aaron Bell, say), but in that situation they would have to fall into line... wouldn't they?

Davey was calling for a VONC earlier on BBC news. I broadly agree, nothing to lose.

People tend to argue that since such will fail it is a tactical error to call for them, but I don't buy that. The PM has, at best, misled the House because he is very stupid, and he has no contrition about it (apologies extracted under duress do not count), and at worst he has lied to the House about breaching the rules. A vote would fail, but Tory MPs must be tested - even the 'good' ones will almost certainly not vote against their own party at that point, and everyone deserves to know that.

I don't think it's so much stupidity as thinking there's nothing wrong with misleading the House.

You give them too much credit. They know misleading the House is wrong but they are willing to ignore it for the sake of their own careers. Anyone who doesn't vote for Johnson to fall when they get the chance is a self serving coward.

Applicant

Sean_F said:

Scott_xP said:

It has been reported that Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak have received fines for breaching lockdown restrictions:

Do you think Boris Johnson should…
Resign: 57%
Remain in his role: 30%

Do you think Rishi Sunak should…
Resign: 57%
Remain in role: 29%

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/04/12/c5ce0/1 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1513912233524404244/photo/1

Since Conservatives split 64/25% in the PM's favour, I suspect he's safe.

Yes, 57/30 isn't really that bad in the context of a question that will pretty much always get a "yes" response in any circumstances.

What's interesting is the bloc that think he lied but shouldn't resign.

CarlottaVance

Hilarious.

Nicola Sturgeon demands Boris resign after being found to have broke covid rules, whilst conveniently forgetting she brought pub drinking Green covid breakers into her own government.

What a Nipocrite.

https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/1513913848595636239

kle4

ydoethur said:

Alistair said:

ydoethur said:

Scott_xP said:

Boris Johnson’s Parliamentary aide, setting out No10 likely defence: https://twitter.com/jamesduddridge/status/1513905700589690888

How is not resigning 'accepting responsibility?'

In the same way Ronald Regan took full responsibility for Iran Contra.

One of the great examples of chutzpah.

'A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me this is true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.'

When I showed that to my Year 12s a few years back, one of them was so surprised she actually fell off her chair.

(It cured her of rocking on it, so it wasn't all bad news!)

Is that the actual quote?! Jesus, that's so far beyond chutzpah I cannot even think of a word to describe it.

Gardenwalker

Applicant said:

RH1992 said:

Think we might be getting a little clip from the PM soon enough according to the usually very accurate ITV News insider account.

"Prime Minister to provide a clip at 5.30pm after Downing Street revealed he and his Chancellor had been fined."

https://twitter.com/itvnewsinsider/status/1513903647255670785

Meanwhile I've just been watching Sky News and became quite annoyed at the member of the medical profession they got onto speak. They claimed that the fine means that Johnson's visit to Kyiv was "clearly designed as a distraction and photo opportunity".

I'm not Ukrainian, but I imagine it would feel pretty insulting that some prats continually seek to minimise the good work the UK has been doing because of a domestic scandal. The issues are separate and should remain so.

When you say "member of the medical profession", I assume you mean "Labour activist"?

Boris’s cloacal reign is turning the whole country into “Labour activists” or at least anti-Boris ones.

DavidL

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

Fixed penalties started for black and white situations like cameras but have gone well beyond that to situations where the prosecutor (in Scotland it is the PF not the police who decide to issue these). These involve far more issues of judgment. Here, for example a view has been reached as to whether this was a party or not; whether it was a business meeting or not, whether these notices are time barred or not. The Met might be right on all these points, there is a first tiime for everything, but it is an opinion.

Of course this is not a legal issue. It is a political thing. It depends on the views of his backbenchers. And they are as entitled to their views as the Met.

Heathener

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

Gary_Burton said:

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

The question is, are they (a) spineless cowards with no integrity or are they (b) decent and well-meaning public servants who will do the right thing regardless of cost?

Alas, I fear my money is on (a) for far too many of them...

More widely, it's why Starmer surely has to call a VONC.

Not because he expects to win, but to tar the entire Parliamentary Conservative Party with this.

A bit rubbish for the decent ones who have called out the misbehaviour (Aaron Bell, say), but in that situation they would have to fall into line... wouldn't they?

Davey was calling for a VONC earlier on BBC news. I broadly agree, nothing to lose.

People tend to argue that since such will fail it is a tactical error to call for them, but I don't buy that. The PM has, at best, misled the House because he is very stupid, and he has no contrition about it (apologies extracted under duress do not count), and at worst he has lied to the House about breaching the rules. A vote would fail, but Tory MPs must be tested - even the 'good' ones will almost certainly not vote against their own party at that point, and everyone deserves to know that.

I don't think it's so much stupidity as thinking there's nothing wrong with misleading the House.

You give them too much credit. They know misleading the House is wrong but they are willing to ignore it for the sake of their own careers. Anyone who doesn't vote for Johnson to fall when they get the chance is a self serving coward.

Indeed.

But I'm afraid that I think that will be the sum of it.

When this ship goes down, which it will, some of the same people will be wringing their hands and saying it was all terribly bad.

When they had the chance they did not stand up to be counted.

Applicant

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

Applicant said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.

You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?

If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?

Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?

Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.

What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!

I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.

If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.

If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.

Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.

That was not the way the regulations were written. The gathering should only have been for work purposes and when that was completed, it should have ended. That clearly was not the case here where work obviously stopped to allow the celebrations to happen.

Yes. But that's still a question of opinion - even if nearly everyone's opinion is the same! That's all I'm saying!

If toasts were being made, work had stopped.

I have to say I cannot see how that's an opinion rather than a fact.

Again, you're focusing on the specific gathering and my point is more general.

You mean, like the police did?

Yes, indeed. But by focusing on the specific gathering, you are missing my point, which is simply that by including the word "reasonably" in the regulation it makes the offence a question of opinion, unlike a strict liability offence like speeding or drunk driving - either you are over the limit or you aren't and opinion has nothing to do with it.

I really can't see how I can make this any clearer, so I'll stop now.

Leon

kle4 said:

'But Ukraine' is going to be the new 'But Vaccines' isn't it?

Boris is an arse and should go, and would go, if the world was behaving "normally"

HOWEVER there IS an argument for saying This is not the time

Boris clearly has a good relationship with Zelenskyy, and Ukraine is an almost overwhelmingly important issue, right now, an issue which might take us to the brink of nuclear war

Is this really the best juncture to be having leadership contests to replace the PM?

It's not. It will be deeply frustrating to Boris-haters, who must feel they have got their man, but I sense the Tory party has neither the energy nor appetite to defenestrate Boris in the middle of this enormous crisis

Big_G_NorthWales

Sam Coates has said politics are never static

I think those are wise words

Sunil_Prasannan

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A bald statement of the fucking facts.

Why on earth should we care about the political opinion of some enormously fat guy who writes (rather well) about RESTAURANTS

Even more, why bother retweeting it?

You'd have to ask someone who has retweeted it.

How fat are you btw?

You're so tragic you re-posted the retweet

Next, to prove his point, Carnyx will repost a retweet of The Hairy Bikers' perspective on nuclear deterrence

How's Crispin today BTW?

Fishing

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

Do you think Boris Johnson did or did not knowingly lie about whether or not he broke lockdown rules?

I think he did knowingly lie: 75%
I think he did not knowingly lie: 12%
Don’t know: 13%

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/04/12/c5ce0/3 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1513912239539032064/photo/1

The reason I think he lied is I credit him with enough intelligence to know what the rules were.

I think Boris has the intelligence, I just think he was probably too lazy and complacent to read and understand them and too arrogant to think they might someday trip him up.

Gary_Burton

williamglenn said:

IPSOS data on how the 2017 vote maps onto 2022:



https://twitter.com/mathieugallard/status/1513636287240196097

More switching to Melenchon from Hamon than Macron is interesting.

ydoethur

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

Alistair said:

ydoethur said:

Scott_xP said:

Boris Johnson’s Parliamentary aide, setting out No10 likely defence: https://twitter.com/jamesduddridge/status/1513905700589690888

How is not resigning 'accepting responsibility?'

In the same way Ronald Regan took full responsibility for Iran Contra.

One of the great examples of chutzpah.

'A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me this is true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.'

When I showed that to my Year 12s a few years back, one of them was so surprised she actually fell off her chair.

(It cured her of rocking on it, so it wasn't all bad news!)

Is that the actual quote?! Jesus, that's so far beyond chutzpah I cannot even think of a word to describe it.

https://youtu.be/R67CH-qhXJs

It's at 3.22 but I'd advise you to watch from about 2.45.

Pagan2

Absolutely no fan of Boris and the conservatives as some may have noticed. However really don't think the lying thing is going to have any cut through with the general public. Most people that are not as politically tuned in as those here assume if a politician of any political persuasion is moving their lips they are lying.

CarlottaVance

Met confirms what we already knew: the PM introduced liberty-curtailing rules for public health reasons. This caused huge hardship for those separated from ill or dying loved ones. He then broke the rules he imposed on the country & lost the moral authority to lead. He should go.

https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonPC/status/1513897295313620994

StillWaters

northern_monkey said:

….

Has Charlie Faulkner resigned yet?

Leon

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A bald statement of the fucking facts.

Why on earth should we care about the political opinion of some enormously fat guy who writes (rather well) about RESTAURANTS

Even more, why bother retweeting it?

You'd have to ask someone who has retweeted it.

How fat are you btw?

You're so tragic you re-posted the retweet

Next, to prove his point, Carnyx will repost a retweet of The Hairy Bikers' perspective on nuclear deterrence

How's Crispin today BTW?

He has personally let me down

Heathener

Applicant said:

RH1992 said:

Think we might be getting a little clip from the PM soon enough according to the usually very accurate ITV News insider account.

"Prime Minister to provide a clip at 5.30pm after Downing Street revealed he and his Chancellor had been fined."

https://twitter.com/itvnewsinsider/status/1513903647255670785

Meanwhile I've just been watching Sky News and became quite annoyed at the member of the medical profession they got onto speak. They claimed that the fine means that Johnson's visit to Kyiv was "clearly designed as a distraction and photo opportunity".

I'm not Ukrainian, but I imagine it would feel pretty insulting that some prats continually seek to minimise the good work the UK has been doing because of a domestic scandal. The issues are separate and should remain so.

When you say "member of the medical profession", I assume you mean "Labour activist"?

You accused me of trolling, which you did by way of completely altering my words in a quote, but as has so often been observed, those who are ready to dish out such opprobrium are often least able to defend themselves.

So the question is to be posed: are you sitting inside CCHQ? Do you work for Boris Johnson?

It's the only explanation for your sycophantic attempt to defend the indefensible.

Big_G_NorthWales

Pagan2 said:

Absolutely no fan of Boris and the conservatives as some may have noticed. However really don't think the lying thing is going to have any cut through with the general public. Most people that are not as politically tuned in as those here assume if a politician of any political persuasion is moving their lips they are lying.

Ed Davey seems to have forgotten the lib dems promise on tuition fees which was summarily ignored