It’s evens that there’ll be by-election in Johnson’s seat – politicalbetting.com
The story at Westminster today and no doubt tomorrow will be Boris Johnson’s appearance before the Commomns Privileges committee which is looking at whether he broke the lockdown rules.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've just been caught for speeding in the M25 variable zone. Mrs P. never told me that when it said '60' that was a compulsory speed limit. I think I have a cast iron case to avoid the fine.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
Tomorrow is going to be the biggest show trial of an innocent man since Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin.
I've just been caught for speeding in the M25 variable zone. Mrs P. never told me that when it said '60' that was a compulsory speed limit. I think I have a cast iron case to avoid the fine.
Remember to ask when they last calibrated their speed camera system.
Yes, you have a cast iron case - "Ultimate Management Team didn't raise an objection, so..."
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
Tomorrow is going to be the biggest show trial of an innocent man since Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin.
I've just been caught for speeding in the M25 variable zone. Mrs P. never told me that when it said '60' that was a compulsory speed limit. I think I have a cast iron case to avoid the fine.
Yes I had a similar issue with a "slow down" sign thought my 1MPH speed reduction was sufficient. The barrier disagreed
I've just been caught for speeding in the M25 variable zone. Mrs P. never told me that when it said '60' that was a compulsory speed limit. I think I have a cast iron case to avoid the fine.
Are those red signs on the overhead gantries actually the law. Not guidance like the black and orange ones?
I've just been caught for speeding in the M25 variable zone. Mrs P. never told me that when it said '60' that was a compulsory speed limit. I think I have a cast iron case to avoid the fine.
You're still screwed as an MP though....
And you shouldn't have been eating cake while driving.
Boris Johnson is like one of those brave Soviet-era dissidents. Wronged by the metropolitan liberal elite, even though he used to share coffee and their confidences with some of them in Islington, forced to hide out among and live among friendly brexit-voters in Red Wall garages, exhausted and living in train stations to avoid the gulag, but he came through , and escaped to Western Battersea.
On Wednesday the Trolley will answer questions about parties and covid.
I’m in the middle of writing my own statement to the official inquiry and therefore reading a lot about covid again.
So I’ll watch and post thoughts on how he tries to lie his way to safety. (If you’re one of those on top of the details and part of the network that pushed him out, text and I’ll post.)
Generally I think SW1 is overrating the chances of him returning this year even if he manages to escape this inquiry.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
The main theme is 'no one else (credible) thought there was an issue, and nor did i', the slightly novel 'we were all idiots' defence, rather than I'm an idiot.
He undermines himself as he just cannot accept fault, by whinging that he was fined unfairly.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
Did you write the rules, talk about them endlessly on television, deny knowledge of them, then throw regular piss ups to end up in charge of the property with the most fines in the country, then lie repeatedly about everything too?
The silly thing is he could have done all the above apart from the lie at the end and still have been PM but sorry is the hardest word for him.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
The crucial difference is that you didn't personally sign off the law that (possibly) criminalised what you were doing. Probably* you didn't repeatedly go on national TV urging everyone else to follow said rules, too.
*Well, you might be Matt Hancock, but you seem generally nice and sensible.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
I used the "support bubble" rules to see my mum at Christmas 2020. Probably not within the spirit of the rules, but it was within the letter of them.
The difference is, I wasn't the one telling the rest of the country that they had to put their lives on hold in a doomed attempt to control a virus.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
Tomorrow is going to be the biggest show trial of an innocent man since Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin.
Remember that letter about Schoolboy Boris that went viral a while back?
[He] sometimes seems affronted when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility (and surprised at the same time that he was not appointed Captain of the school for the next half).
I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else.
The reason it was so potent was that BoJo hasn't grown up a jot since.
@AdamBienkov Boris Johnson's claim that a party taking place in Downing Street during lockdown was not in fact a party, would be somewhat more believable had he not admitted personally referring to it as a party.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
We are all Boris. We all made the regulations and then broke them, laughing in their face.
We all fled the forces of the liberal conspiracy till we were finally trapped in a hen coop in Kidderminster. The brave farmers there supported Brexit, and they still believed in a better future. The dark forces will never win, and must not be allowed to ; together we will pray for this man, and follow his example, in all areas of our lives and loves.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this...
No, he didn't. He won a vote of confidence, and then was Pinched.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
Tomorrow is going to be the biggest show trial of an innocent man since Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin.
So, his defence is, in effect, "I was too stupid to be Prime Minister?"
He over and over again tries to set the context of the times they were working in, and how hard they were working.
This does deserve consideration and leeway. A lot of things were not done perfectly in extreme situations and thats understandable. But 'follow covid rules properly when working for those setting the rules' is not one which gets leeway.
That he is trying to have his cake and est it too does not help. He 'accepts' rules not followed now, but he also says lack of fines means it was not clear rules were broken.
Its notva wholly unpersuasive document, but any submission should be plausible - like a test match it's the response that matters. His previous legal submission fell apart that way.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
I used the "support bubble" rules to see my mum at Christmas 2020. Probably not within the spirit of the rules, but it was within the letter of them.
The difference is, I wasn't the one telling the rest of the country that they had to put their lives on hold in a doomed attempt to control a virus.
Yes, it was the hypocrisy that offended. There was a conscious blurring by the government of the regulations (law) and guidelines (not law). I thought at the time that people were vey good at being socially compliant even though not actually required to be so - especially people out walking dogs or meeting for walks with coffee and being made examples of by Derbyshire police. I wonder how many fixed penalty notices should be rescinded?
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
The crucial difference is that you didn't personally sign off the law that (possibly) criminalised what you were doing. Probably* you didn't repeatedly go on national TV urging everyone else to follow said rules, too.
*Well, you might be Matt Hancock, but you seem generally nice and sensible.
It seems that the defence for one of the parties is that the number 10 team were exhausted and stressed drawing up plans for the next lockdown...
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this...
No, he didn't. He won a vote of confidence, and then was Pinched.
It was the first chip in his armour. The vote of confidence weakened him because it got the conversation going on getting rid of a PM with a large majority - nobody thought that the fact he won that vote had settled the matter. Every subsequent misstep - or attempting to jolly on through a misstep - just made things worse.
So, his defence is, in effect, "I was too stupid to be Prime Minister?"
He over and over again tries to set the context of the times they were working in, and how hard they were working.
This does deserve consideration and leeway. A lot of things were not done perfectly in extreme situations and thats understandable. But 'follow covid rules properly when working for those setting the rules' is not one which gets leeway.
That he is trying to have his cake and est it too does not help. He 'accepts' rules not followed now, but he also says lack of fines means it was not clear rules were broken.
It’s notva wholly unpersuasive document, but any submission should be plausible - like a test match it's the response that matters. His previous legal submission fell apart that way.
In my view the case has been made to let him stay on as an MP (should be wish to) for the reasons he gives. However the case has also been made that he shouldn’t regain high office any time soon (and therefore ever) on the basis of a complete lack of judgment.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
I think we all bent the rules to varying degrees for a number of reasons. Firstly, the rules were as clear as mud. Secondly, just in case we understood them they changed frequently. Thirdly, most of us felt that some common sense could be applied.
So, when out for a walk in the countryside, well away from everyone I would sometimes go further than I should from my house. So what?
The line between work events and “parties “ was as clear as mud too. If Boris had said, with hindsight I got this wrong and I’m sorry I would have had a lot of sympathy. But he didn’t. He lied and lied. And that is what the committee are considering.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
Fucking hell.
For anyone who thought lockdown was a good idea just read this and ponder the state of democracy and government powers.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
I think we all bent the rules to varying degrees for a number of reasons. Firstly, the rules were as clear as mud. Secondly, just in case we understood them they changed frequently. Thirdly, most of us felt that some common sense could be applied.
So, when out for a walk in the countryside, well away from everyone I would sometimes go further than I should from my house. So what?
The line between work events and “parties “ was as clear as mud too. If Boris had said, with hindsight I got this wrong and I’m sorry I would have had a lot of sympathy. But he didn’t. He lied and lied. And that is what the committee are considering.
Very difficult to say that, though, when you think that people are out to get you and will just use that admission as a stick to beat you with.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
I think we all bent the rules to varying degrees for a number of reasons. Firstly, the rules were as clear as mud. Secondly, just in case we understood them they changed frequently. Thirdly, most of us felt that some common sense could be applied.
So, when out for a walk in the countryside, well away from everyone I would sometimes go further than I should from my house. So what?
The line between work events and “parties “ was as clear as mud too. If Boris had said, with hindsight I got this wrong and I’m sorry I would have had a lot of sympathy. But he didn’t. He lied and lied. And that is what the committee are considering.
Very difficult to say that, though, when you think that people are out to get you and will just use that admission as a stick to beat you with.
True. But if anyone could have gotten away with it, it was Boris.
Dear fellow comrades and compatriots of both the masculine and feminine persuasion, I must declare, with uttermost sincerity, that your prodigious and unrelenting efforts have not gone unnoticed! Indeed, I am well aware that the customary libations which punctuate the cessation of your weekly toils have, lamentably, been thwarted.
However, let us consider the possibility that, in light of our shared experiences with the dastardly COVID, a modest quantity of liquid refreshment were to, perchance, extricate itself from the tumultuous fray – well then, my dear chums, I assure you that no inquiries shall be made on my part, nor shall I expect any elucidation from you. Onwards and upwards, to victory and merriment, huzzah!
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
Fucking hell.
For anyone who thought lockdown was a good idea just read this and ponder the state of democracy and government powers.
The one good thing to come out of the entire political and economic mess we've found ourselves in over the past 2-3 years is that hopefully no PM/Government will ever try and implement a national lockdown/curfew again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
I think we all bent the rules to varying degrees for a number of reasons. Firstly, the rules were as clear as mud. Secondly, just in case we understood them they changed frequently. Thirdly, most of us felt that some common sense could be applied.
So, when out for a walk in the countryside, well away from everyone I would sometimes go further than I should from my house. So what?
The line between work events and “parties “ was as clear as mud too. If Boris had said, with hindsight I got this wrong and I’m sorry I would have had a lot of sympathy. But he didn’t. He lied and lied. And that is what the committee are considering.
Is there not a reasonable expectation that the person who headed the government that was making the rules would have a clear understanding of those rules?
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
I think we all bent the rules to varying degrees for a number of reasons. Firstly, the rules were as clear as mud. Secondly, just in case we understood them they changed frequently. Thirdly, most of us felt that some common sense could be applied.
So, when out for a walk in the countryside, well away from everyone I would sometimes go further than I should from my house. So what?
The line between work events and “parties “ was as clear as mud too. If Boris had said, with hindsight I got this wrong and I’m sorry I would have had a lot of sympathy. But he didn’t. He lied and lied. And that is what the committee are considering.
Very difficult to say that, though, when you think that people are out to get you and will just use that admission as a stick to beat you with.
So he had the balls to illegally prorogue parliament and kick out the likes of Ken Clarke and Philip Hammond from the Tory party but found it too tough to take some flak from his opponents over him being sorry over some parties. Give me a break, he did not want to say sorry because he thinks it beneath him, not because he was worried about opponents using it against him.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
It's only unhelpful in the sense that she probably can't spell it.
Regardless of your politics, we really do have the absolute dregs in government right now.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
Tomorrow is going to be the biggest show trial of an innocent man since Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
I think it was first used in the Stephen Lawrence report, and has since become the go-to phrase for all reports. So I have some sympathy for Braverman here. See also: "not fit-for-purpose". Is it too much to ask for some thought to be put in to the wording?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
It's not ambiguous. It's only contested because she is contesting it. And it's only politically charged because of her confected war on woke. The problems at the Met are institutional - claims to the contrary are why nothing ever changes. She has become an obstacle to reform and needs to go.
Read the headlines/stories about Boris's report. I don't say this lightly. He really is a disgrace.
That he is happy to drag his own party into civil war at a time when they were finally seeing tiny glimpses of recovery just shows how narcissistic he is.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
Fucking hell.
For anyone who thought lockdown was a good idea just read this and ponder the state of democracy and government powers.
The one good thing to come out of the entire political and economic mess we've found ourselves in over the past 2-3 years is that hopefully no PM/Government will ever try and implement a national lockdown/curfew again.
That's optimistic. I get the strong impression that the meekness with which the population complied will make lockdown the first option not the last resort next time.
I've just been caught for speeding in the M25 variable zone. Mrs P. never told me that when it said '60' that was a compulsory speed limit. I think I have a cast iron case to avoid the fine.
To be fair that analogy is pretty crap. But you know that.
Read the headlines/stories about Boris's report. I don't say this lightly. He really is a disgrace.
That he is happy to drag his own party into civil war at a time when they were finally seeing tiny glimpses of recovery just shows how narcissistic he is.
Well, I've just ploughed through the 52 pages of the tedious and rather repetitive Johnsonian defence. A brief summary would have sufficed:
Honestly guv, although I did mislead Parliament a bit, I didn't mean to, and that's obvious. And if you want to apportion blame, point the finger at absolutely everybody at No.10 except yours truly, an innocent bystander. Particularly that Cummings bloke - Christ knows who appointed that lying toad. And excuse my language, but nobody really knew what the fucking rules that we kept announcing on TV were anyway. Really confusing - not my fault. And finally, the parties were rubbish anyway, even though they weren't parties and I wasn't there. End.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this...
No, he didn't. He won a vote of confidence, and then was Pinched.
Correct - he'd just about weathered Partygate. TBH the prorogation was probably the worst thing he did, imvho. But Pincher was the final straw.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
I think we all bent the rules to varying degrees for a number of reasons. Firstly, the rules were as clear as mud. Secondly, just in case we understood them they changed frequently. Thirdly, most of us felt that some common sense could be applied.
So, when out for a walk in the countryside, well away from everyone I would sometimes go further than I should from my house. So what?
The line between work events and “parties “ was as clear as mud too. If Boris had said, with hindsight I got this wrong and I’m sorry I would have had a lot of sympathy. But he didn’t. He lied and lied. And that is what the committee are considering.
Yep. And as icing on the cake he pretended - up on his feet in the Commons - to be incredibly angry and upset about what he'd now 'discovered' had been going on. That's probably not a Committee thing but for me it absolutely took the biscuit (off the cake). If this were a criminal matter and I was the sentencing Judge I'd make that particular performance of his an aggravating factor and add on 5 years.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
Fucking hell.
For anyone who thought lockdown was a good idea just read this and ponder the state of democracy and government powers.
The one good thing to come out of the entire political and economic mess we've found ourselves in over the past 2-3 years is that hopefully no PM/Government will ever try and implement a national lockdown/curfew again.
Um, that's impossible - the logic behind the initial lockdown when it seemed the NHS would be overwhelmed hasn't changed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
Defenders of the establishment are complete snowflakes about the word institutional, and it is that snowflakery that is unhelpful.
Keen to conflate it with everyone working in the organisation must be a bad apple then, when it reality it is de-personalising the issue, and pointing out it is often system and processes that lead to bad outcomes not typically bad apples (people).
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
Fucking hell.
For anyone who thought lockdown was a good idea just read this and ponder the state of democracy and government powers.
I think there's pretty good agreement that the (apparently deliberate on the part of the government) confusion between the legal restrictions and guidance should not have happened and should never be repeated. Particularly the police harassing and even arresting people for doing things that were not against the law (albeit possibly outside the guidance).
Well, I've just ploughed through the 52 pages of the tedious and rather repetitive Johnsonian defence. A brief summary would have sufficed:
Honestly guv, although I did mislead Parliament a bit, I didn't mean to, and that's obvious. And if you want to apportion blame, point the finger at absolutely everybody at No.10 except yours truly, an innocent bystander. Particularly that Cummings bloke - Christ knows who appointed that lying toad. And excuse my language, but nobody really knew what the fucking rules that we kept announcing on TV were anyway. Really confusing - not my fault. And finally, the parties were rubbish anyway. End.
It always seems to come down to buses with Boris Johnson. The "Boris Bus", the lies on the side of the bus, the painting model buses hobby, and now the latest iteration - throwing everybody else at Number 10 under the bus in an effort to save his own skin.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
Defenders of the establishment are complete snowflakes about the word institutional, and it is that snowflakery that is unhelpful.
Keen to conflate it with everyone working in the organisation must be a bad apple then, when it reality it is de-personalising the issue, and pointing out it is often system and processes that lead to bad outcomes not typically bad apples (people).
Given that "institutional racism" is often used to mean "when nobody is actually racist but outcomes are different for different racial groups" then I can understand why there's pushback against the term.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
Fucking hell.
For anyone who thought lockdown was a good idea just read this and ponder the state of democracy and government powers.
Thinking 'lockdown' was the right approach doesn't mean agreeing with all aspects of it.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
I think we all bent the rules to varying degrees for a number of reasons. Firstly, the rules were as clear as mud. Secondly, just in case we understood them they changed frequently. Thirdly, most of us felt that some common sense could be applied.
So, when out for a walk in the countryside, well away from everyone I would sometimes go further than I should from my house. So what?
The line between work events and “parties “ was as clear as mud too. If Boris had said, with hindsight I got this wrong and I’m sorry I would have had a lot of sympathy. But he didn’t. He lied and lied. And that is what the committee are considering.
Yep. And as icing on the cake he pretended - up on his feet in the Commons - to be incredibly angry and upset about what he'd now 'discovered' had been going on. That's probably not a Committee thing but for me it absolutely took the biscuit (off the cake). If this were a criminal matter and I was the sentencing Judge I'd make that particular performance of his an aggravating factor and add on 5 years.
The Captain Renault routine seems very un-astute now. Quite shocking to look back on, actually.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
The crucial difference is that you didn't personally sign off the law that (possibly) criminalised what you were doing. Probably* you didn't repeatedly go on national TV urging everyone else to follow said rules, too.
*Well, you might be Matt Hancock, but you seem generally nice and sensible.
It seems that the defence for one of the parties is that the number 10 team were exhausted and stressed drawing up plans for the next lockdown...
Excellent epidemiological defence. "We were thinking about rules going forward, so wanted to test the level of infection risk associated with a partygathering like this one"
I've just been caught for speeding in the M25 variable zone. Mrs P. never told me that when it said '60' that was a compulsory speed limit. I think I have a cast iron case to avoid the fine.
To be fair that analogy is pretty crap. But you know that.
Old orange signs - guidance.
Modern ones in red circles it's the law (even if the red circle is broken).
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
Fucking hell.
For anyone who thought lockdown was a good idea just read this and ponder the state of democracy and government powers.
I think there's pretty good agreement that the (apparently deliberate on the part of the government) confusion between the legal restrictions and guidance should not have happened and should never be repeated. Particularly the police harassing and even arresting people for doing things that were not against the law (albeit possibly outside the guidance).
And to scare us. Don't forget they wanted to scare us.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
I'm not particularly hung up on adverbs. If Met Police and Braverman object to "institutional", I am happy to substitute "from top to bottom" "at every level" or "through and through"
The one thing in the Boris self-exculpation which I have some sympathy with is his point about the curious incident of the cake. It does seem really odd, verging on completely bonkers, that the Met decided to issue a fine to Boris in relation to this particular occasion, which seems just about the least egregious of all the incidents. Even weirder that they also fined Rishi, who seems to have behaved perfectly correctly, arriving in the room purely for a meeting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
I think it was first used in the Stephen Lawrence report, and has since become the go-to phrase for all reports. So I have some sympathy for Braverman here. See also: "not fit-for-purpose". Is it too much to ask for some thought to be put in to the wording?
Both terms are meaningless and tend to be followed by a plethora of nonsensical tick boxing exercises. Indeed the fact that little has changed since the Lawrence report confirms this.
The one thing in the Boris self-exculpation which I have some sympathy with is his point about the curious incident of the cake. It does seem really odd, verging on completely bonkers, that the Met decided to issue a fine to Boris in relation to this particular occasion, which seems just about the least egregious of all the incidents. Even weirder that they also fined Rishi, who seems to have behaved perfectly correctly, arriving in the room purely for a meeting.
It shows that the law and its application were capricious, not that BoZo didn't break it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
It's only unhelpful in the sense that she probably can't spell it.
Regardless of your politics, we really do have the absolute dregs in government right now.
It self-evidently didn't help the Met to stop being institutionally racist to be labelled as such more than two decades ago if the same label still applies.
So perhaps there is a more helpful way to think about the problem. I certainly hope so. Not that I think Braverman would know what that would be.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
Fucking hell.
For anyone who thought lockdown was a good idea just read this and ponder the state of democracy and government powers.
I think there's pretty good agreement that the (apparently deliberate on the part of the government) confusion between the legal restrictions and guidance should not have happened and should never be repeated. Particularly the police harassing and even arresting people for doing things that were not against the law (albeit possibly outside the guidance).
And to scare us. Don't forget they wanted to scare us.
The one thing in the Boris self-exculpation which I have some sympathy with is his point about the curious incident of the cake. It does seem really odd, verging on completely bonkers, that the Met decided to issue a fine to Boris in relation to this particular occasion, which seems just about the least egregious of all the incidents. Even weirder that they also fined Rishi, who seems to have behaved perfectly correctly, arriving in the room purely for a meeting.
Of all the many rule breaking, that incident seems on par with Starmer beer / curry incident. Particular Sunak, in the photos you can see his 2m away from Boris, there is no "partying" going on.
And of course, they will have had near daily meetings like that over the course of COVID. I am sure SAGE didn't meet without some refreshments on hand.
The one thing in the Boris self-exculpation which I have some sympathy with is his point about the curious incident of the cake. It does seem really odd, verging on completely bonkers, that the Met decided to issue a fine to Boris in relation to this particular occasion, which seems just about the least egregious of all the incidents. Even weirder that they also fined Rishi, who seems to have behaved perfectly correctly, arriving in the room purely for a meeting.
It shows that the law and its application were capricious, not that BoZo didn't break it.
My suspicion is that they went for that one specifically because they could also fine Rishi, and thereby avoid the accusation that they had it in for Boris personally.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
I think it was first used in the Stephen Lawrence report, and has since become the go-to phrase for all reports. So I have some sympathy for Braverman here. See also: "not fit-for-purpose". Is it too much to ask for some thought to be put in to the wording?
Both terms are meaningless and tend to be followed by a plethora of nonsensical tick boxing exercises. Indeed the fact that little has changed since the Lawrence report confirms this.
I have a theory that John Reid invented the phrase 'not fit for purpose' in his description of the Home Office. I'd never heard it before. It's now everywhere.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
I think we all bent the rules to varying degrees for a number of reasons. Firstly, the rules were as clear as mud. Secondly, just in case we understood them they changed frequently. Thirdly, most of us felt that some common sense could be applied.
So, when out for a walk in the countryside, well away from everyone I would sometimes go further than I should from my house. So what?
The line between work events and “parties “ was as clear as mud too. If Boris had said, with hindsight I got this wrong and I’m sorry I would have had a lot of sympathy. But he didn’t. He lied and lied. And that is what the committee are considering.
Yep. And as icing on the cake he pretended - up on his feet in the Commons - to be incredibly angry and upset about what he'd now 'discovered' had been going on. That's probably not a Committee thing but for me it absolutely took the biscuit (off the cake). If this were a criminal matter and I was the sentencing Judge I'd make that particular performance of his an aggravating factor and add on 5 years.
We musn't forget that for many years, Boris Johnson lived the live of a hero, a partisan, for his beliefs. When the evil liberal dictatorship in London tried to impose their rotten E.U five-year-plans and collectivisation projects on the farms of Cheshire and the the Red Gap, General Johnson went and lived amongst the people, raised the standard of rebellion from inside, and eventually raised an army to bring to London, in a garlanded offering of thanks to his cultural ancestor and hero, Wat Tyler.
The moral of Boris Johnson's career is an important one, for this great country we live in ; always do what you say, sometimes even in the face of what is popular and easy always live like those who support you, and maybe most of all, always tell the truth.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
I think it was first used in the Stephen Lawrence report, and has since become the go-to phrase for all reports. So I have some sympathy for Braverman here. See also: "not fit-for-purpose". Is it too much to ask for some thought to be put in to the wording?
Both terms are meaningless and tend to be followed by a plethora of nonsensical tick boxing exercises. Indeed the fact that little has changed since the Lawrence report confirms this.
I have a theory that John Reid invented the phrase 'not fit for purpose' in his description of the Home Office. I'd never heard it before. It's now everywhere.
It comes from the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (if not earlier), but I believe Reid was the first one to transfer it to the political/bureaucratic organisation sphere.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
There is no ghost in the machine. An organisation consists of individuals and what they do. There is nothing else.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
There is no ghost in the machine. An organisation consists of individuals and what they do. There is nothing else.
The one thing in the Boris self-exculpation which I have some sympathy with is his point about the curious incident of the cake. It does seem really odd, verging on completely bonkers, that the Met decided to issue a fine to Boris in relation to this particular occasion, which seems just about the least egregious of all the incidents. Even weirder that they also fined Rishi, who seems to have behaved perfectly correctly, arriving in the room purely for a meeting.
If I didn't know better, I'd start to suspect the Metropolitan Police might be an utterly incompetent sh1tshow from top to bottom.
The one thing in the Boris self-exculpation which I have some sympathy with is his point about the curious incident of the cake. It does seem really odd, verging on completely bonkers, that the Met decided to issue a fine to Boris in relation to this particular occasion, which seems just about the least egregious of all the incidents. Even weirder that they also fined Rishi, who seems to have behaved perfectly correctly, arriving in the room purely for a meeting.
Perhaps the fine for the innocent Sunak is another example of the Met's institutional racism in action!
The one thing in the Boris self-exculpation which I have some sympathy with is his point about the curious incident of the cake. It does seem really odd, verging on completely bonkers, that the Met decided to issue a fine to Boris in relation to this particular occasion, which seems just about the least egregious of all the incidents. Even weirder that they also fined Rishi, who seems to have behaved perfectly correctly, arriving in the room purely for a meeting.
Of all the many rule breaking, that incident seems on par with Starmer beer / curry incident. Particular Sunak, in the photos you can see his 2m away from Boris, there is no "partying" going on.
And of course, they will have had near daily meetings like that over the course of COVID. I am sure SAGE didn't meet without some refreshments on hand.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
There is no ghost in the machine. An organisation consists of individuals and what they do. There is nothing else.
I really don't think this is right, Andy.
Organisations often fail despite the individuals involved. You just need to look at underperforming football teams. And those are much less complex than large institutions with complex incentives and decision making structures.
I agree individuals matter, but they aren't the only thing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
There is no ghost in the machine. An organisation consists of individuals and what they do. There is nothing else.
Reminds me of a certain, much misunderstood, line from a politician in a magazine interview.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
Tomorrow is going to be the biggest show trial of an innocent man since Jesus was taken before the Sanhedrin.
The one thing in the Boris self-exculpation which I have some sympathy with is his point about the curious incident of the cake. It does seem really odd, verging on completely bonkers, that the Met decided to issue a fine to Boris in relation to this particular occasion, which seems just about the least egregious of all the incidents. Even weirder that they also fined Rishi, who seems to have behaved perfectly correctly, arriving in the room purely for a meeting.
It shows that the law and its application were capricious, not that BoZo didn't break it.
My suspicion is that they went for that one specifically because they could also fine Rishi, and thereby avoid the accusation that they had it in for Boris personally.
If they'd given Johnson half a dozen fines, as was probably warranted, it would have made it a lot harder for him to survive as PM, and I presume the police really didn't want to be seen as responsible for defenestrating a PM.
Conservative MPs failed the country by not forcing him to resign earlier.
Put the two together and Britain looks to be a country vulnerable to a culture of corruption and impunity taking hold among its politicians and state bodies. I think there's ample evidence that the process is well-advanced and that the country is remarkably complacent/fatalistic about it.
This is why it is still vitally important that Johnson is nailed for lying to Parliament, and is ejected from Parliament as a result.
The one thing in the Boris self-exculpation which I have some sympathy with is his point about the curious incident of the cake. It does seem really odd, verging on completely bonkers, that the Met decided to issue a fine to Boris in relation to this particular occasion, which seems just about the least egregious of all the incidents. Even weirder that they also fined Rishi, who seems to have behaved perfectly correctly, arriving in the room purely for a meeting.
It shows that the law and its application were capricious, not that BoZo didn't break it.
My suspicion is that they went for that one specifically because they could also fine Rishi, and thereby avoid the accusation that they had it in for Boris personally.
If they'd given Johnson half a dozen fines, as was probably warranted, it would have made it a lot harder for him to survive as PM, and I presume the police really didn't want to be seen as responsible for defenestrating a PM.
Conservative MPs failed the country by not forcing him to resign earlier.
Put the two together and Britain looks to be a country vulnerable to a culture of corruption and impunity taking hold among its politicians and state bodies. I think there's ample evidence that the process is well-advanced and that the country is remarkably complacent/fatalistic about it.
This is why it is still vitally important that Johnson is nailed for lying to Parliament, and is ejected from Parliament as a result.
Indeed. The ink on his corrupt honours lists for his father and brother, in all its lovingly antique lettering and finery, is barely dry.
The Lords has to go, I think, and just for beginning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
I think it was first used in the Stephen Lawrence report, and has since become the go-to phrase for all reports. So I have some sympathy for Braverman here. See also: "not fit-for-purpose". Is it too much to ask for some thought to be put in to the wording?
The problem with it is that it becomes a diversion
“I’m not racist, the system is. Now excuse me while I beat a confession out of the chap I arrested for wearing a loud shirt in built up area”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
It's only unhelpful in the sense that she probably can't spell it.
Regardless of your politics, we really do have the absolute dregs in government right now.
It self-evidently didn't help the Met to stop being institutionally racist to be labelled as such more than two decades ago if the same label still applies.
So perhaps there is a more helpful way to think about the problem. I certainly hope so. Not that I think Braverman would know what that would be.
I dunno. Calling a racist a racist twenty years ago, and finding that the fact that they were identified as a racist didn't stop them being racist, doesn't mean it's not right to say they're racist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
It's only unhelpful in the sense that she probably can't spell it.
Regardless of your politics, we really do have the absolute dregs in government right now.
It self-evidently didn't help the Met to stop being institutionally racist to be labelled as such more than two decades ago if the same label still applies.
So perhaps there is a more helpful way to think about the problem. I certainly hope so. Not that I think Braverman would know what that would be.
I dunno. Calling a racist a racist twenty years ago, and finding that the fact that they were identified as a racist didn't stop them being racist, doesn't mean it's not right to say they're racist.
It's not the word racist that's a problem. It's the word institutional.
I understand from reading the Boris document that he has been terribly wronged, and inasmuch as the kangaroo court has any evidence against him at all, that evidence in fact shows that it's all Jack Doyle's fault.
I've read it and admit that I have some sympathy for Boris. I do think that the committee are being very liberal in interpreting their mandate and the evidence received. He effectively lost his job as PM over this, which is a pretty major fall from grace. I'm glad that he did, but still...
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
Fucking hell.
For anyone who thought lockdown was a good idea just read this and ponder the state of democracy and government powers.
I think there's pretty good agreement that the (apparently deliberate on the part of the government) confusion between the legal restrictions and guidance should not have happened and should never be repeated. Particularly the police harassing and even arresting people for doing things that were not against the law (albeit possibly outside the guidance).
And to scare us. Don't forget they wanted to scare us.
[Puffs out chest] I wasn't scared.
I was scared. Not of the disease, but by the sudden totalitarian dystopia into which we had suddenly been thrust, in which police, who apparently had no clearer an idea of the rules than anyone else, were suddenly acting arbitrarily to impose arbitrary rules. No using playgrounds. No sitting on benches. Don't go to, or leave, Leicester. Having to have a story to explain your presence. It was horrible. I remember late July/early August 2020. There had been some small concessions. After four months of doing nothing, an outdoor holiday club for the kids. Den building, etc. Except on day 2, one of my daughters coughed - once - and we had to collect them all and bring them home and get them covid tested. Said daughter in floods of tears that she'd ruined it for everyone, and that we wouldn't be able to go on holiday the next week. Of course it wasn't bloody covid - and we got the results back 26 hours later, and they did another two and a half days. But then, a sudden announcement of reimposition of rules on Greater Manchester. This was Thursday evening; we were due to go on holiday to Devon on Sunday. We took Friday off, packed in a day, and - I kid you not - fled Greater Manchester in the dusk by minor roads to my mother-in-law's house in Cheshire. Of course, there weren't road blocks. (Though there had been at various points that year). But that was the climate of fear the government actively tried to create. We did get away on holiday. Miraculously, the hotel where we spent the first week was still allowing you to walk around unmasked providing you had passed a temperature test to enter (that was stressful - the thought of a disconsolate drive back to Manchester should any of us be a bit hot. We basically rubbed ourselves with a cold pack before we got there). And then the looming threat that the government was about to close all beaches. It's no wonder I ended up on pills by the end of the year. It's no wonder there's been a big uptick in mental health conditions in the under 9s. I don't begrudge Boris a little light levity in the workplace garden. Doesn't seem out of order at all. But I am fucking angry about the misery he and Hancock - deliberately, it turns out - put the country through.
The one thing in the Boris self-exculpation which I have some sympathy with is his point about the curious incident of the cake. It does seem really odd, verging on completely bonkers, that the Met decided to issue a fine to Boris in relation to this particular occasion, which seems just about the least egregious of all the incidents. Even weirder that they also fined Rishi, who seems to have behaved perfectly correctly, arriving in the room purely for a meeting.
Of all the many rule breaking, that incident seems on par with Starmer beer / curry incident. Particular Sunak, in the photos you can see his 2m away from Boris, there is no "partying" going on.
And of course, they will have had near daily meetings like that over the course of COVID. I am sure SAGE didn't meet without some refreshments on hand.
After lockdown, SAGE meetings were on Zoom.
That doesn't surprise me, for obvious reasons (and the shear number of people involved and physical spread). At one point, SAGE meetings were in person, because Big Dom attended and couldn't help tell everybody how he was right and they were wrong.
Were the dissemination of SAGE latest findings from Whitty / Valance to the likes of PM / Hancock etc not in person? I thought they were, along with meetings prior to the big press conferences to decide big changes in policy?
The one thing in the Boris self-exculpation which I have some sympathy with is his point about the curious incident of the cake. It does seem really odd, verging on completely bonkers, that the Met decided to issue a fine to Boris in relation to this particular occasion, which seems just about the least egregious of all the incidents. Even weirder that they also fined Rishi, who seems to have behaved perfectly correctly, arriving in the room purely for a meeting.
It shows that the law and its application were capricious, not that BoZo didn't break it.
My suspicion is that they went for that one specifically because they could also fine Rishi, and thereby avoid the accusation that they had it in for Boris personally.
If they'd given Johnson half a dozen fines, as was probably warranted, it would have made it a lot harder for him to survive as PM, and I presume the police really didn't want to be seen as responsible for defenestrating a PM.
I'm not sure that's true, since the multiple fines would all have been for the same thing. The defence/bluster of "I didn't think I was doing anything wrong" isn't really hurt by having done the same thing on multiple occasions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583 ...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
It's only unhelpful in the sense that she probably can't spell it.
Regardless of your politics, we really do have the absolute dregs in government right now.
It self-evidently didn't help the Met to stop being institutionally racist to be labelled as such more than two decades ago if the same label still applies.
So perhaps there is a more helpful way to think about the problem. I certainly hope so. Not that I think Braverman would know what that would be.
I dunno. Calling a racist a racist twenty years ago, and finding that the fact that they were identified as a racist didn't stop them being racist, doesn't mean it's not right to say they're racist.
It's not the word racist that's a problem. It's the word institutional.
But the instiution *is* the problem. I have no doubt that some people I work with are probably racist, but there is no way they would find an outlet for that in their work - it'd wouldn't be tolerated and it's clear that racism is unacceptable. The institutional culture at the Met is clearly, conclusively different.
Seeing the lying clown chucked out of office, despite being the fate he deserves and the one he’d get if life ran the same way as the movies, I am not holding my breath. He’s got away with his abject dishonesty for a lifetime, and probably isn’t done with his crookedness yet.
Comments
However only 25% want him to be Conservative leader and PM again
https://conservativehome.com/2023/03/20/our-special-survey-a-majority-of-party-activists-support-johnson-in-all-respects-save-perhaps-the-most-important/
He'll be off.
Yes, you have a cast iron case - "Ultimate Management Team didn't raise an objection, so..."
And you shouldn't have been eating cake while driving.
What a man, what a Christ, what an entertainer.
He squandered it all. Now he whines and wants a second go. Diddums.
On Wednesday the Trolley will answer questions about parties and covid.
I’m in the middle of writing my own statement to the official inquiry and therefore reading a lot about covid again.
So I’ll watch and post thoughts on how he tries to lie his way to safety. (If you’re one of those on top of the details and part of the network that pushed him out, text and I’ll post.)
Generally I think SW1 is overrating the chances of him returning this year even if he manages to escape this inquiry.
Why?
Unless Sunak gets fed up and walks away, he can use the vast trove of material in PET (the part of the Cabinet Office that deals with scandals) to smash the Trolley up. Much remains unpublished.
https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/snippets-10-trolleycovid-aipolitics (c
I was reminded of what I did at the start of the first lockdown. My son was a student at Dundee University and he and his flatmates decided to all go home, giving up their accommodation lease. I read the Scottish legislation and saw that people were allowed to move home - so I relied on the regulations to allow me to drive up and collect my son and all his belongings, ignoring the guidelines that suggested that I should stay at home. I must admit that I was bricking it when followed home for a few miles by a police car on the M90 back to Edinburgh. I think what I did was allowed and would have said so if questioned. I might have been wrong, but it was an honestly held view. So, in a way, I am Boris.
He undermines himself as he just cannot accept fault, by whinging that he was fined unfairly.
The silly thing is he could have done all the above apart from the lie at the end and still have been PM but sorry is the hardest word for him.
*Well, you might be Matt Hancock, but you seem generally nice and sensible.
The difference is, I wasn't the one telling the rest of the country that they had to put their lives on hold in a doomed attempt to control a virus.
[He] sometimes seems affronted when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility (and surprised at the same time that he was not appointed Captain of the school for the next half).
I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else.
The reason it was so potent was that BoJo hasn't grown up a jot since.
As we're now seeing.
Boris Johnson's claim that a party taking place in Downing Street during lockdown was not in fact a party, would be somewhat more believable had he not admitted personally referring to it as a party.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1638157736159461376
We all fled the forces of the liberal conspiracy till we were finally trapped in a hen coop in Kidderminster. The brave farmers there supported Brexit, and they still believed in a better future. The dark forces will never win, and must not be allowed to ; together we will pray for this man, and follow his example, in all areas of our lives and loves.
He won a vote of confidence, and then was Pinched.
This does deserve consideration and leeway. A lot of things were not done perfectly in extreme situations and thats understandable. But 'follow covid rules properly when working for those setting the rules' is not one which gets leeway.
That he is trying to have his cake and est it too does not help. He 'accepts' rules not followed now, but he also says lack of fines means it was not clear rules were broken.
Its notva wholly unpersuasive document, but any submission should be plausible - like a test match it's the response that matters. His previous legal submission fell apart that way.
Especially as he was the one signing them off.
So, when out for a walk in the countryside, well away from everyone I would sometimes go further than I should from my house. So what?
The line between work events and “parties “ was as clear as mud too. If Boris had said, with hindsight I got this wrong and I’m sorry I would have had a lot of sympathy. But he didn’t. He lied and lied. And that is what the committee are considering.
For anyone who thought lockdown was a good idea just read this and ponder the state of democracy and government powers.
Dear fellow comrades and compatriots of both the masculine and feminine persuasion, I must declare, with uttermost sincerity, that your prodigious and unrelenting efforts have not gone unnoticed! Indeed, I am well aware that the customary libations which punctuate the cessation of your weekly toils have, lamentably, been thwarted.
However, let us consider the possibility that, in light of our shared experiences with the dastardly COVID, a modest quantity of liquid refreshment were to, perchance, extricate itself from the tumultuous fray – well then, my dear chums, I assure you that no inquiries shall be made on my part, nor shall I expect any elucidation from you. Onwards and upwards, to victory and merriment, huzzah!
String him up.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65011583
...Casey's report found "institutional" racism, misogyny and homophobia at the heart of the Met - but that word "institutional" has been a sticking point for some.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says she agrees with the head of the Met Police that it's "not a helpful term to use".
"It's an ambiguous, contested, and politically-charged term that is much-misused, and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities," Braverman argues.
She says what's important is how the police respond to the issues, not whether they accept a label...
If she can't accept there are massive problems with the institution and its management, which go way beyond the behaviour of individual officers, then she's part of the problem.
Regardless of your politics, we really do have the absolute dregs in government right now.
How is Trump's arrest going today - any news yet?
Honestly guv, although I did mislead Parliament a bit, I didn't mean to, and that's obvious. And if you want to apportion blame, point the finger at absolutely everybody at No.10 except yours truly, an innocent bystander. Particularly that Cummings bloke - Christ knows who appointed that lying toad. And excuse my language, but nobody really knew what the fucking rules that we kept announcing on TV were anyway. Really confusing - not my fault. And finally, the parties were rubbish anyway, even though they weren't parties and I wasn't there.
End.
Latter ones however...
Keen to conflate it with everyone working in the organisation must be a bad apple then, when it reality it is de-personalising the issue, and pointing out it is often system and processes that lead to bad outcomes not typically bad apples (people).
Modern ones in red circles it's the law (even if the red circle is broken).
So perhaps there is a more helpful way to think about the problem. I certainly hope so. Not that I think Braverman would know what that would be.
And of course, they will have had near daily meetings like that over the course of COVID. I am sure SAGE didn't meet without some refreshments on hand.
The moral of Boris Johnson's career is an important one, for this great country we live in ; always do what you say, sometimes even in the face of what is popular and easy always live like those who support you, and maybe most of all, always tell the truth.
The US government joins the blob...
Organisations often fail despite the individuals involved. You just need to look at underperforming football teams. And those are much less complex than large institutions with complex incentives and decision making structures.
I agree individuals matter, but they aren't the only thing.
Conservative MPs failed the country by not forcing him to resign earlier.
Put the two together and Britain looks to be a country vulnerable to a culture of corruption and impunity taking hold among its politicians and state bodies. I think there's ample evidence that the process is well-advanced and that the country is remarkably complacent/fatalistic about it.
This is why it is still vitally important that Johnson is nailed for lying to Parliament, and is ejected from Parliament as a result.
The Lords has to go, I think, and just for beginning.
“I’m not racist, the system is. Now excuse me while I beat a confession out of the chap I arrested for wearing a loud shirt in built up area”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/21/president-joe-biden-orders-release-of-us-intelligence-on-potential-links-between-covid-and-wuhan-lab
The amount of lives they ruin is extraordinary.
Not of the disease, but by the sudden totalitarian dystopia into which we had suddenly been thrust, in which police, who apparently had no clearer an idea of the rules than anyone else, were suddenly acting arbitrarily to impose arbitrary rules. No using playgrounds. No sitting on benches. Don't go to, or leave, Leicester. Having to have a story to explain your presence. It was horrible.
I remember late July/early August 2020. There had been some small concessions. After four months of doing nothing, an outdoor holiday club for the kids. Den building, etc. Except on day 2, one of my daughters coughed - once - and we had to collect them all and bring them home and get them covid tested. Said daughter in floods of tears that she'd ruined it for everyone, and that we wouldn't be able to go on holiday the next week. Of course it wasn't bloody covid - and we got the results back 26 hours later, and they did another two and a half days. But then, a sudden announcement of reimposition of rules on Greater Manchester. This was Thursday evening; we were due to go on holiday to Devon on Sunday. We took Friday off, packed in a day, and - I kid you not - fled Greater Manchester in the dusk by minor roads to my mother-in-law's house in Cheshire.
Of course, there weren't road blocks. (Though there had been at various points that year). But that was the climate of fear the government actively tried to create.
We did get away on holiday. Miraculously, the hotel where we spent the first week was still allowing you to walk around unmasked providing you had passed a temperature test to enter (that was stressful - the thought of a disconsolate drive back to Manchester should any of us be a bit hot. We basically rubbed ourselves with a cold pack before we got there). And then the looming threat that the government was about to close all beaches.
It's no wonder I ended up on pills by the end of the year.
It's no wonder there's been a big uptick in mental health conditions in the under 9s.
I don't begrudge Boris a little light levity in the workplace garden. Doesn't seem out of order at all. But I am fucking angry about the misery he and Hancock - deliberately, it turns out - put the country through.
Were the dissemination of SAGE latest findings from Whitty / Valance to the likes of PM / Hancock etc not in person? I thought they were, along with meetings prior to the big press conferences to decide big changes in policy?