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.
A one off mistake is an oversight, and forgivable (if you ask for forgiveness). Multiple breaches is a pattern of behaviour.
It's definitely several notches higher on the taking the piss meter.
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"
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 thing which to me was truly scary is that the majority of the population not only wanted all this shit, but wanted even more of it. That being the case, only a truly great politician could have stood up for doing what was right.
That story about your daughter being sent home for one cough really illustrates to me why I say that much of the country went mad - that was never in the rules, guidance or anything else.
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.
Jesus was innocent? Theology aside . . . AND it WAS Caesar (quasi-indirectly) who rendered the verdict.
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 irony is that the original intent of the term “institional racism” is to give the individuals in question a get out. It says: “look, we don’t think /you/ personally are racist, but the institution you are part of is acting in racist ways & that has to change.”
That those involved are so wrapped up in denial that they can’t even manage to accept this as a possibility speaks volumes frankly.
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.
A one off mistake is an oversight, and forgivable (if you ask for forgiveness). Multiple breaches is a pattern of behaviour.
It's definitely several notches higher on the taking the piss meter.
A pattern of behaviour, sure, but that doesn't mean a pattern of knowingly-wrong behaviour.
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?
I’m not certain which meetings Cummings attended, but I presumed media coverage just meant he attended online. I’m not aware of any evidence that Cummings was obstructive or unhelpful in the meetings attended. As far as I can make out from the reporting, he was largely listening.
Whitty/Vallance would have been in the SAGE Zoom calls, I presume. The dissemination of SAGE conclusions was done through documents, reports and minutes. Whitty/Vallance appear to have communicated with ministers sometimes electronically (as we see in Hancock’s WhatsApp messages), but there were also times when people were in a room together.
Decisions on policy were taken by politicians and civil servants, sometimes together, sometimes in things like WhatsApp.
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.
I'm not saying that the description isn't logically correct. I'm saying that it isn't helpful as it doesn't lead to obvious corrective measures as we have experience to demonstrate.
If the institution is the problem then it absolves individuals of their responsibility to fix the problem. What the Met needs is for leadership to take responsibility for fixing the problem and for them to win the support of the better rank and file officers in making the changes that will create that change.
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.
Often 'systems' and 'structures' do get overstressed at the expense of the behaviour of individuals as regards what's causing a problem. However it's not just about what the people in an organization do but WHY they do it. This is where the culture comes in. Where the organization can have a life and identity of its own.
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”
If an institution has no desire to change, and there is no external power that can impose it on them, then it won't change. It doesn't matter what you call the problem. That is the issue with the Met - they don't actually want to change. But in general I think if you want to recognise a problem it is helpful to describe it accurately, and "institutional" racism etc is I think an accurate way of describing a problem that is deep rooted within the culture and practice of an institution, going beyond the behaviour of a few rogue operators. Even the idiotic Braverman acknowledges "systemic problems." No doubt the PB anti woke syntax police are on hand to explain why "systemic" is apt but "institutional" is verboten.
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.
I'm not saying that the description isn't logically correct. I'm saying that it isn't helpful as it doesn't lead to obvious corrective measures as we have experience to demonstrate.
If the institution is the problem then it absolves individuals of their responsibility to fix the problem. What the Met needs is for leadership to take responsibility for fixing the problem and for them to win the support of the better rank and file officers in making the changes that will create that change.
What the Met needs is to adopt the same sort of standards and procedures you find in most organisations. Employees who behave badly are sacked. Pay and conditions in the Police are good. Finding replacements shouldn't be difficult.
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.
“ He lied and lied.”
But not being a legal investigation, it can’t boil down to a simple yes or no question. I have seen some comment that if it was more strictly legal procedure he would have more chance of getting off on technicality. I think it’s the other way. Not being legal won’t boil down to misled yes or no - it will bring into it degrees.
As much as he did mislead the commons. Did he intentionally and recklessly mislead? That clearly the canny angle he is playing here, putting idea’s in their head as to the reckless, or otherwise, nature of his actions. I think the committee will fall for it. Slap him. Though not as hard as he can’t come back from.
Bing Image Creator is rolling out to the new Bing and Edge preview today. Now you can create an image by simply using your own words to describe the picture you want to see.
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.
Often 'systems' and 'structures' do get overstressed at the expense of the behaviour of individuals as regards what's causing a problem. However it's not just about what the people in an organization do but WHY they do it. This is where the culture comes in. Where the organization can have a life and identity of its own.
True. But the individuals within an organisation should have the moral compass to make their own minds up.
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.
“ He lied and lied.”
But not being a legal investigation, it can’t boil down to a simple yes or no question. I have seen some comment that if it was more strictly legal procedure he would have more chance of getting off on technicality. I think it’s the other way. Not being legal won’t boil down to misled yes or no - it will bring into it degrees.
As much as he did mislead the commons. Did he intentionally and recklessly mislead? That clearly the canny angle he is playing here, putting idea’s in their head as to the reckless, or otherwise, nature of his actions. I think the committee will fall for it. Slap him. Though not as hard as he can’t come back from.
I expect the opposite. Nearly half the committee are opposition MPs, they'll find against him based on the party label. And most Tory MPs hate him and it doesn't take many of them on the committee to recognise the end of his career.
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.
I'm not saying that the description isn't logically correct. I'm saying that it isn't helpful as it doesn't lead to obvious corrective measures as we have experience to demonstrate.
If the institution is the problem then it absolves individuals of their responsibility to fix the problem. What the Met needs is for leadership to take responsibility for fixing the problem and for them to win the support of the better rank and file officers in making the changes that will create that change.
What the Met needs is to adopt the same sort of standards and procedures you find in most organisations. Employees who behave badly are sacked. Pay and conditions in the Police are good. Finding replacements shouldn't be difficult.
I think you just called a police officer a "Pleb".....
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.
And it's the institution that needs sorting out. We've had twenty years or more of the 'just a few rotten apples' nonsense.
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?
I’m not certain which meetings Cummings attended, but I presumed media coverage just meant he attended online. I’m not aware of any evidence that Cummings was obstructive or unhelpful in the meetings attended. As far as I can make out from the reporting, he was largely listening.
Whitty/Vallance would have been in the SAGE Zoom calls, I presume. The dissemination of SAGE conclusions was done through documents, reports and minutes. Whitty/Vallance appear to have communicated with ministers sometimes electronically (as we see in Hancock’s WhatsApp messages), but there were also times when people were in a room together.
Decisions on policy were taken by politicians and civil servants, sometimes together, sometimes in things like WhatsApp.
The media reports when it was revealed Big Dom was "on SAGE committee", they described that he was "in the room". I guess they could have meant Zoom room or this only referred to prior to lockdown.
Obviously, I was using a bit of hyperbole about Cummings behaviour, although some members (I think one in particular who leaked everything and had an agenda) described him as inappropriately intervening to influence the process.
Below is the FIRST paragraph from statement by Boris Johnson MP
" As I made clear to the House of Commons on 25 May 2022, I take full responsibility for everything that took place on my watch at No. 10. The revelations in Sue Gray’s report shocked the public, and they shocked me. I therefore begin by renewing my apologies to the British people for what happened on my watch. It is now clear that over a number of days, there were gatherings at No. 10 that, however they began, went past the point where they could be said to have been reasonably necessary for work purposes. That should never have happened, and it fills me with sadness and regret that it did."
SSI - question: many lies does BJ utter above? My own count = 6.
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 difference being that you didn't write the guidelines or regulations
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.
I'm not saying that the description isn't logically correct. I'm saying that it isn't helpful as it doesn't lead to obvious corrective measures as we have experience to demonstrate.
If the institution is the problem then it absolves individuals of their responsibility to fix the problem. What the Met needs is for leadership to take responsibility for fixing the problem and for them to win the support of the better rank and file officers in making the changes that will create that change.
What the Met needs is to adopt the same sort of standards and procedures you find in most organisations. Employees who behave badly are sacked. Pay and conditions in the Police are good. Finding replacements shouldn't be difficult.
"There's no such thing as standards and procedures; it's all just individuals..."
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.
“ He lied and lied.”
But not being a legal investigation, it can’t boil down to a simple yes or no question. I have seen some comment that if it was more strictly legal procedure he would have more chance of getting off on technicality. I think it’s the other way. Not being legal won’t boil down to misled yes or no - it will bring into it degrees.
As much as he did mislead the commons. Did he intentionally and recklessly mislead? That clearly the canny angle he is playing here, putting idea’s in their head as to the reckless, or otherwise, nature of his actions. I think the committee will fall for it. Slap him. Though not as hard as he can’t come back from.
I expect the opposite. Nearly half the committee are opposition MPs, they'll find against him based on the party label. And most Tory MPs hate him and it doesn't take many of them on the committee to recognise the end of his career.
😃 “Nearly half the committee” you mean the minority?
We all agree he doesn’t get off completely. But if you expecting, as you clearly are, or merely hoping for end of his career, I have read enough political biographies to know political careers are more durable than you think. Remember you read it here first, if you disbelieve me.
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.
Like Saruman after Isengard, he is still capable of mischief in a small way; indeed it's his nature to do so even though his power is much diminished.
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 thing which to me was truly scary is that the majority of the population not only wanted all this shit, but wanted even more of it. That being the case, only a truly great politician could have stood up for doing what was right.
That story about your daughter being sent home for one cough really illustrates to me why I say that much of the country went mad - that was never in the rules, guidance or anything else.
Yes, agreed. While Hancock is something of a pantomime villain in all this - with, it must be said, SKS baying for more all the time - it must be conceded that these are democratic politicians responding to democratic pressures.
I remember seeing a story on facebook about parking at Dovestones reservoir. (Too many people, too few spaces.) The ire that this provoked below the line - including from people whom I had hitherto thought to be reasonable - that people had the nerve to go for a walk in the countryside with their families. This wasn't even against guidance.
There was this belief that the whole thing would go away if only we would sacrifice enough. It was almost medieval.
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.
“ He lied and lied.”
But not being a legal investigation, it can’t boil down to a simple yes or no question. I have seen some comment that if it was more strictly legal procedure he would have more chance of getting off on technicality. I think it’s the other way. Not being legal won’t boil down to misled yes or no - it will bring into it degrees.
As much as he did mislead the commons. Did he intentionally and recklessly mislead? That clearly the canny angle he is playing here, putting idea’s in their head as to the reckless, or otherwise, nature of his actions. I think the committee will fall for it. Slap him. Though not as hard as he can’t come back from.
I expect the opposite. Nearly half the committee are opposition MPs, they'll find against him based on the party label. And most Tory MPs hate him and it doesn't take many of them on the committee to recognise the end of his career.
😃 “Nearly half the committee” you mean the minority?
We all agree he doesn’t get off completely. But if you expecting, as you clearly are, or merely hoping for end of his career, I have read enough political biographies to know political careers are more durable than you think. Remember you read it here first, if you disbelieve me.
His career is over anyway. I thought that he was the only person who didn't realise that, but perhaps not.
There is no ghost in the machine. An organisation consists of individuals and what they do. There is nothing else.
Often 'systems' and 'structures' do get overstressed at the expense of the behaviour of individuals as regards what's causing a problem. However it's not just about what the people in an organization do but WHY they do it. This is where the culture comes in. Where the organization can have a life and identity of its own.
True. But the individuals within an organisation should have the moral compass to make their own minds up.
They should, and some (perhaps many) do. But we also know from history that when an organisation is set up in a way that creates a niche where people can behave badly, that some people will exploit that (along a spectrum from actively seeking out such niches through to weak mindedly drifting into grey areas because "everybody else is doing it"). So if we want better organisations we should focus on making systemic improvements, not on pointing out individuals with dodgy moral compasses.
"My friends, as I have discovered myself, there are never disasters, only opportunities. And, indeed, opportunities for fresh disasters!" - Boris, 2004.
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 thing which to me was truly scary is that the majority of the population not only wanted all this shit, but wanted even more of it. That being the case, only a truly great politician could have stood up for doing what was right.
That story about your daughter being sent home for one cough really illustrates to me why I say that much of the country went mad - that was never in the rules, guidance or anything else.
Yes, agreed. While Hancock is something of a pantomime villain in all this - with, it must be said, SKS baying for more all the time - it must be conceded that these are democratic politicians responding to democratic pressures.
I remember seeing a story on facebook about parking at Dovestones reservoir. (Too many people, too few spaces.) The ire that this provoked below the line - including from people whom I had hitherto thought to be reasonable - that people had the nerve to go for a walk in the countryside with their families. This wasn't even against guidance.
There was this belief that the whole thing would go away if only we would sacrifice enough. It was almost medieval.
The biggest problem with the first lockdown is that it normalised general restrictions, and apparently made it impossible for the government to change tack once their assumptions - notably, that the virus affected all age groups equally - were shown to be false.
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.
“ He lied and lied.”
But not being a legal investigation, it can’t boil down to a simple yes or no question. I have seen some comment that if it was more strictly legal procedure he would have more chance of getting off on technicality. I think it’s the other way. Not being legal won’t boil down to misled yes or no - it will bring into it degrees.
As much as he did mislead the commons. Did he intentionally and recklessly mislead? That clearly the canny angle he is playing here, putting idea’s in their head as to the reckless, or otherwise, nature of his actions. I think the committee will fall for it. Slap him. Though not as hard as he can’t come back from.
I expect the opposite. Nearly half the committee are opposition MPs, they'll find against him based on the party label. And most Tory MPs hate him and it doesn't take many of them on the committee to recognise the end of his career.
😃 “Nearly half the committee” you mean the minority?
We all agree he doesn’t get off completely. But if you expecting, as you clearly are, or merely hoping for end of his career, I have read enough political biographies to know political careers are more durable than you think. Remember you read it here first, if you disbelieve me.
Not ALL political careers. Just ask Joe McCarthy. Or Al Franken. Or Owen Patterson. Or Lembit Öpik.
Or (dare I say) NPxMP? Jury still out on him! Personally hope he makes a comeback someday: the New Nick?
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.
“ He lied and lied.”
But not being a legal investigation, it can’t boil down to a simple yes or no question. I have seen some comment that if it was more strictly legal procedure he would have more chance of getting off on technicality. I think it’s the other way. Not being legal won’t boil down to misled yes or no - it will bring into it degrees.
As much as he did mislead the commons. Did he intentionally and recklessly mislead? That clearly the canny angle he is playing here, putting idea’s in their head as to the reckless, or otherwise, nature of his actions. I think the committee will fall for it. Slap him. Though not as hard as he can’t come back from.
I expect the opposite. Nearly half the committee are opposition MPs, they'll find against him based on the party label. And most Tory MPs hate him and it doesn't take many of them on the committee to recognise the end of his career.
😃 “Nearly half the committee” you mean the minority?
We all agree he doesn’t get off completely. But if you expecting, as you clearly are, or merely hoping for end of his career, I have read enough political biographies to know political careers are more durable than you think. Remember you read it here first, if you disbelieve me.
His career is over anyway. I thought that he was the only person who didn't realise that, but perhaps not.
Like you, I’d like to think so. Like to think that about Trump as well. But UNLIKE YOU the history books are saying to me, wait a moment. You come in and out and in fashion in politics so rather quickly, despite the low points.
In the courtroom action that I have personally observed - for example, via "Perry Mason" and "Judge Judy" - a witness whose testimony is proven, or has been proven in the past, to be a tissue of bullshit, is NOT considered credible.
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.
“ He lied and lied.”
But not being a legal investigation, it can’t boil down to a simple yes or no question. I have seen some comment that if it was more strictly legal procedure he would have more chance of getting off on technicality. I think it’s the other way. Not being legal won’t boil down to misled yes or no - it will bring into it degrees.
As much as he did mislead the commons. Did he intentionally and recklessly mislead? That clearly the canny angle he is playing here, putting idea’s in their head as to the reckless, or otherwise, nature of his actions. I think the committee will fall for it. Slap him. Though not as hard as he can’t come back from.
I expect the opposite. Nearly half the committee are opposition MPs, they'll find against him based on the party label. And most Tory MPs hate him and it doesn't take many of them on the committee to recognise the end of his career.
😃 “Nearly half the committee” you mean the minority?
We all agree he doesn’t get off completely. But if you expecting, as you clearly are, or merely hoping for end of his career, I have read enough political biographies to know political careers are more durable than you think. Remember you read it here first, if you disbelieve me.
His career is over anyway. I thought that he was the only person who didn't realise that, but perhaps not.
Like you, I’d like to think so. Like to think that about Trump as well. But UNLIKE YOU the history books are saying to me, wait a moment. You come in and out and in fashion in politics so rather quickly, despite the low points.
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.
“ He lied and lied.”
But not being a legal investigation, it can’t boil down to a simple yes or no question. I have seen some comment that if it was more strictly legal procedure he would have more chance of getting off on technicality. I think it’s the other way. Not being legal won’t boil down to misled yes or no - it will bring into it degrees.
As much as he did mislead the commons. Did he intentionally and recklessly mislead? That clearly the canny angle he is playing here, putting idea’s in their head as to the reckless, or otherwise, nature of his actions. I think the committee will fall for it. Slap him. Though not as hard as he can’t come back from.
I expect the opposite. Nearly half the committee are opposition MPs, they'll find against him based on the party label. And most Tory MPs hate him and it doesn't take many of them on the committee to recognise the end of his career.
😃 “Nearly half the committee” you mean the minority?
We all agree he doesn’t get off completely. But if you expecting, as you clearly are, or merely hoping for end of his career, I have read enough political biographies to know political careers are more durable than you think. Remember you read it here first, if you disbelieve me.
His career is over anyway. I thought that he was the only person who didn't realise that, but perhaps not.
Like you, I’d like to think so. Like to think that about Trump as well. But UNLIKE YOU the history books are saying to me, wait a moment. You come in and out and in fashion in politics so rather quickly, despite the low points.
If you put Boris and Rishi to the Tory members today, who do you think would win?
Probably Boris, but it's an absurd counterfactual. There is no way in heck that Boris is getting past the MPs again. He didn't in 2016. He didn't in 2022. And he only did in 2019 because they were desperate and there was no other option.
In the courtroom action that I have personally observed - for example, via "Perry Mason" and "Judge Judy" - a witness whose testimony is proven, or has been proven in the past, to be a tissue of bullshit, is NOT considered credible.
Just sayin'.
That’s nothing to do with this Boris thing then, because what I’m pointing out is it’s not at any stage going to be a court room.
Alexander Horne, ex-parliamentary lawyer, doesn't think the Committee will recommend a suspension long enough to trigger a by-election, which is also my view. He says:
Even if the committee finds that Johnson has committed a contempt, the type of sanctions that it can recommend include anything from requiring him to apologise to the house, to proposing a suspension of ten days or more which could, in theory, lead to a recall petition and a possible by-election in his constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Given that its recommendation must be approved by the House of Commons, I would be surprised if the committee opted for the nuclear option unless it had very cogent evidence that Johnson had deliberately misled the House on these matters.
(Article in the Spectator, summarised in Guardian live blog at 14:40)
In the courtroom action that I have personally observed - for example, via "Perry Mason" and "Judge Judy" - a witness whose testimony is proven, or has been proven in the past, to be a tissue of bullshit, is NOT considered credible.
Just sayin'.
That’s nothing to do with this Boris thing then, because what I’m pointing out is it’s not at any stage going to be a court room.
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.
“ He lied and lied.”
But not being a legal investigation, it can’t boil down to a simple yes or no question. I have seen some comment that if it was more strictly legal procedure he would have more chance of getting off on technicality. I think it’s the other way. Not being legal won’t boil down to misled yes or no - it will bring into it degrees.
As much as he did mislead the commons. Did he intentionally and recklessly mislead? That clearly the canny angle he is playing here, putting idea’s in their head as to the reckless, or otherwise, nature of his actions. I think the committee will fall for it. Slap him. Though not as hard as he can’t come back from.
I expect the opposite. Nearly half the committee are opposition MPs, they'll find against him based on the party label. And most Tory MPs hate him and it doesn't take many of them on the committee to recognise the end of his career.
😃 “Nearly half the committee” you mean the minority?
We all agree he doesn’t get off completely. But if you expecting, as you clearly are, or merely hoping for end of his career, I have read enough political biographies to know political careers are more durable than you think. Remember you read it here first, if you disbelieve me.
Not ALL political careers. Just ask Joe McCarthy. Or Al Franken. Or Owen Patterson. Or Lembit Öpik.
Or (dare I say) NPxMP? Jury still out on him! Personally hope he makes a comeback someday: the New Nick?
Franken is a good example of people coming on record of regretting forcing him out quite so quickly. And relates here as in, once Boris career is destroyed do people then ask, on what basis was he destroyed? A lawyer opposition leader tied him in knots at PMQs and a whip couldn’t stop getting handsy when drunk. Was that really enough?
I’m finished then. You should see how hands on and kissy kissy I get when drunk. And Barry Zuckerkorn could probably tie me in knots,
Alexander Horne, ex-parliamentary lawyer, doesn't think the Committee will recommend a suspension long enough to trigger a by-election, which is also my view. He says:
Even if the committee finds that Johnson has committed a contempt, the type of sanctions that it can recommend include anything from requiring him to apologise to the house, to proposing a suspension of ten days or more which could, in theory, lead to a recall petition and a possible by-election in his constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Given that its recommendation must be approved by the House of Commons, I would be surprised if the committee opted for the nuclear option unless it had very cogent evidence that Johnson had deliberately misled the House on these matters.
(Article in the Spectator, summarised in Guardian live blog at 14:40)
Yes, seems most likely. Johnson will be sanctioned but not severely enough to trigger a recall petition.
Labour won't be too upset, keeping Johnson as Uxbridge MP gives them a good chance of a Tory seat they would otherwise expect to take at the next GE.
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 does show how he will attempt to confuse the issue though. With the passage of time people will forget what actually happened and he is relying on that.
In the courtroom action that I have personally observed - for example, via "Perry Mason" and "Judge Judy" - a witness whose testimony is proven, or has been proven in the past, to be a tissue of bullshit, is NOT considered credible.
Just sayin'.
That’s nothing to do with this Boris thing then, because what I’m pointing out is it’s not at any stage going to be a court room.
High Court of Parliament.
Nope. This process isn’t strictly legal. That’s the point. This means The committee can bottle delivering the killer blow. The commons bottle administering the killer blow too - which is not a scenario you would get if this was in fact a court room drama.
And even if they do, recall, by election etc, if Boris is determined on a Churchillian comeback there’s still all sorts of options available to him. Not contesting the by election but popping up in a safe seat instead for example.
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.
Exactly. He should be held to a higher standard than you or I. Thats not hypocrisy, its acknowledgement that he was in a position of power over us.
a) None of the incidences the committee is looking into look that bad to me, and that one fine never should have been issued; but
b) A PM with good judgment would have insisted on a puritan culture in Number 10, given the context; and
c) therefore I sympathise with his defence in terms of remaining an MP but not in terms of ever again holding high office.
In any event I think he knows his time has come and gone, and if he stays as an MP it’ll just be a platform for him to sell books and Telegraph columns.
EDIT - Also b) part 2: I am sure there were egregious breaches up in the flat, as suggested, that haven’t come out.
In the courtroom action that I have personally observed - for example, via "Perry Mason" and "Judge Judy" - a witness whose testimony is proven, or has been proven in the past, to be a tissue of bullshit, is NOT considered credible.
Just sayin'.
That’s nothing to do with this Boris thing then, because what I’m pointing out is it’s not at any stage going to be a court room.
High Court of Parliament.
Officially that jurisdiction was transferred to the new Supreme Court in 2007. Parliament can still impose sanctions for breach of its own rules however.
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.
“ He lied and lied.”
But not being a legal investigation, it can’t boil down to a simple yes or no question. I have seen some comment that if it was more strictly legal procedure he would have more chance of getting off on technicality. I think it’s the other way. Not being legal won’t boil down to misled yes or no - it will bring into it degrees.
As much as he did mislead the commons. Did he intentionally and recklessly mislead? That clearly the canny angle he is playing here, putting idea’s in their head as to the reckless, or otherwise, nature of his actions. I think the committee will fall for it. Slap him. Though not as hard as he can’t come back from.
I expect the opposite. Nearly half the committee are opposition MPs, they'll find against him based on the party label. And most Tory MPs hate him and it doesn't take many of them on the committee to recognise the end of his career.
😃 “Nearly half the committee” you mean the minority?
We all agree he doesn’t get off completely. But if you expecting, as you clearly are, or merely hoping for end of his career, I have read enough political biographies to know political careers are more durable than you think. Remember you read it here first, if you disbelieve me.
Not ALL political careers. Just ask Joe McCarthy. Or Al Franken. Or Owen Patterson. Or Lembit Öpik.
Or (dare I say) NPxMP? Jury still out on him! Personally hope he makes a comeback someday: the New Nick?
Franken is a good example of people coming on record of regretting forcing him out quite so quickly. And relates here as in, once Boris career is destroyed do people then ask, on what basis was he destroyed? A lawyer opposition leader tied him in knots at PMQs and a whip couldn’t stop getting handsy when drunk. Was that really enough?
I’m finished then. You should see how hands on and kissy kissy I get when drunk. And Barry Zuckerkorn could probably tie me in knots,
Regret over Al Franken's defenestration was quite short-lived. Mostly from Democratic hacks who feared losing his seat to a Republican.
When THAT didn't happen, this faux regret evaporated.
And AF remains in history's dumpster, except when his comic SNL and movie roles get replayed on TV or YouTube.
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.
Often 'systems' and 'structures' do get overstressed at the expense of the behaviour of individuals as regards what's causing a problem. However it's not just about what the people in an organization do but WHY they do it. This is where the culture comes in. Where the organization can have a life and identity of its own.
True. But the individuals within an organisation should have the moral compass to make their own minds up.
Too many clearly don't. Or alternatively they're making their mind up that it's all fine.
Alexander Horne, ex-parliamentary lawyer, doesn't think the Committee will recommend a suspension long enough to trigger a by-election, which is also my view. He says:
Even if the committee finds that Johnson has committed a contempt, the type of sanctions that it can recommend include anything from requiring him to apologise to the house, to proposing a suspension of ten days or more which could, in theory, lead to a recall petition and a possible by-election in his constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Given that its recommendation must be approved by the House of Commons, I would be surprised if the committee opted for the nuclear option unless it had very cogent evidence that Johnson had deliberately misled the House on these matters.
(Article in the Spectator, summarised in Guardian live blog at 14:40)
There's fucking pictures, 20+ witnesses and a fucking fine. How much more 'cogent' would the Spectator prefer their evidence?
In the courtroom action that I have personally observed - for example, via "Perry Mason" and "Judge Judy" - a witness whose testimony is proven, or has been proven in the past, to be a tissue of bullshit, is NOT considered credible.
Just sayin'.
That’s nothing to do with this Boris thing then, because what I’m pointing out is it’s not at any stage going to be a court room.
High Court of Parliament.
Officially that jurisdiction was transferred to the new Supreme Court in 2007. Parliament can still impose sanctions for breach of its own rules however.
However, the name HCoP still endures? Along with role as judge AND jury of its own membership?
Alexander Horne, ex-parliamentary lawyer, doesn't think the Committee will recommend a suspension long enough to trigger a by-election, which is also my view. He says:
Even if the committee finds that Johnson has committed a contempt, the type of sanctions that it can recommend include anything from requiring him to apologise to the house, to proposing a suspension of ten days or more which could, in theory, lead to a recall petition and a possible by-election in his constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Given that its recommendation must be approved by the House of Commons, I would be surprised if the committee opted for the nuclear option unless it had very cogent evidence that Johnson had deliberately misled the House on these matters.
(Article in the Spectator, summarised in Guardian live blog at 14:40)
Yes, seems most likely. Johnson will be sanctioned but not severely enough to trigger a recall petition.
Labour won't be too upset, keeping Johnson as Uxbridge MP gives them a good chance of a Tory seat they would otherwise expect to take at the next GE.
I can't see how Labour loses out in any scenario. If the recommendation is for a suspension long enough to trigger a by-election, then either the House approves it (splitting the Conservative Party even more, and keeping Boris front-and-centre of the news for weeks), or it bottles it (again splitting the Conservative Party, and allowing the opposition to spread the blame from Boris personally to the whole party).
Alternatively, if Boris survives with a lesser sanction, there will still be divisions amongst the Tories, Boris remains as an irritant in Rishi's side and a focus for dissent, and hopefully he gets ditched at the GE anyway.
In the courtroom action that I have personally observed - for example, via "Perry Mason" and "Judge Judy" - a witness whose testimony is proven, or has been proven in the past, to be a tissue of bullshit, is NOT considered credible.
Just sayin'.
That’s nothing to do with this Boris thing then, because what I’m pointing out is it’s not at any stage going to be a court room.
High Court of Parliament.
Officially that jurisdiction was transferred to the new Supreme Court in 2007. Parliament can still impose sanctions for breach of its own rules however.
However, the name HCoP still endures? Along with role as judge AND jury of its own membership?
Wikipedia says "High Court of Parliament" is "the formal name for Parliament".
Possibly, in terms of documents that are still half written in Norman French. Nobody ever actually calls it that.
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.
A one off mistake is an oversight, and forgivable (if you ask for forgiveness). Multiple breaches is a pattern of behaviour.
It's definitely several notches higher on the taking the piss meter.
A pattern of behaviour, sure, but that doesn't mean a pattern of knowingly-wrong behaviour.
It does make it more likely it was knowingly as many more opportunity to understand things
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.
“ He lied and lied.”
But not being a legal investigation, it can’t boil down to a simple yes or no question. I have seen some comment that if it was more strictly legal procedure he would have more chance of getting off on technicality. I think it’s the other way. Not being legal won’t boil down to misled yes or no - it will bring into it degrees.
As much as he did mislead the commons. Did he intentionally and recklessly mislead? That clearly the canny angle he is playing here, putting idea’s in their head as to the reckless, or otherwise, nature of his actions. I think the committee will fall for it. Slap him. Though not as hard as he can’t come back from.
I expect the opposite. Nearly half the committee are opposition MPs, they'll find against him based on the party label. And most Tory MPs hate him and it doesn't take many of them on the committee to recognise the end of his career.
😃 “Nearly half the committee” you mean the minority?
We all agree he doesn’t get off completely. But if you expecting, as you clearly are, or merely hoping for end of his career, I have read enough political biographies to know political careers are more durable than you think. Remember you read it here first, if you disbelieve me.
His career is over anyway. I thought that he was the only person who didn't realise that, but perhaps not.
Like you, I’d like to think so. Like to think that about Trump as well. But UNLIKE YOU the history books are saying to me, wait a moment. You come in and out and in fashion in politics so rather quickly, despite the low points.
If you put Boris and Rishi to the Tory members today, who do you think would win?
Probably Boris, but it's an absurd counterfactual. There is no way in heck that Boris is getting past the MPs again. He didn't in 2016. He didn't in 2022. And he only did in 2019 because they were desperate and there was no other option.
So when there’s a vacancy for a Tory leader after the next election, and Boris is advertising himself from his new safe seat thanks to a recall election he didn’t contest, as the oven ready attack dog to take Starmer on and get the Tories back in power asap to finish unfinished work on levelling up etc, which other candidate you saying beats him in that scenario?
What doesn’t kill Boris this week draws the poison and leaves him stronger. That’s how politics works.
The insanity of a “fuck-mule” and then a medal from everyone for surviving the “fuck-mule”.
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.
A one off mistake is an oversight, and forgivable (if you ask for forgiveness). Multiple breaches is a pattern of behaviour.
It's definitely several notches higher on the taking the piss meter.
A pattern of behaviour, sure, but that doesn't mean a pattern of knowingly-wrong behaviour.
It does make it more likely it was knowingly as many more opportunity to understand things
No, that doesn't follow. The first time anyone actually thought that was a breach of the rules was when police issued the FPN.
Alexander Horne, ex-parliamentary lawyer, doesn't think the Committee will recommend a suspension long enough to trigger a by-election, which is also my view. He says:
Even if the committee finds that Johnson has committed a contempt, the type of sanctions that it can recommend include anything from requiring him to apologise to the house, to proposing a suspension of ten days or more which could, in theory, lead to a recall petition and a possible by-election in his constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Given that its recommendation must be approved by the House of Commons, I would be surprised if the committee opted for the nuclear option unless it had very cogent evidence that Johnson had deliberately misled the House on these matters.
(Article in the Spectator, summarised in Guardian live blog at 14:40)
Yes, seems most likely. Johnson will be sanctioned but not severely enough to trigger a recall petition.
Labour won't be too upset, keeping Johnson as Uxbridge MP gives them a good chance of a Tory seat they would otherwise expect to take at the next GE.
I agree. No ousting imo. I'd love to be surprised but I really don't see it. He'll Gloria Gaynor this one.
In the courtroom action that I have personally observed - for example, via "Perry Mason" and "Judge Judy" - a witness whose testimony is proven, or has been proven in the past, to be a tissue of bullshit, is NOT considered credible.
Just sayin'.
That’s nothing to do with this Boris thing then, because what I’m pointing out is it’s not at any stage going to be a court room.
High Court of Parliament.
Nope. This process isn’t strictly legal. That’s the point. This means The committee can bottle delivering the killer blow. The commons bottle administering the killer blow too - which is not a scenario you would get if this was in fact a court room drama.
And even if they do, recall, by election etc, if Boris is determined on a Churchillian comeback there’s still all sorts of options available to him. Not contesting the by election but popping up in a safe seat instead for example.
Still not convinced that Boris Johnson's continued lying to (ok) quasi-judicial forum, is NOT like some miscreant trying to weasel-word themselves out from Judy Judy's gavel.
As for "safe seat" do you reckon that any normally safe seat for a semi-normal Tory candidate, would ipso facto be safe for BJ?
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.
“ He lied and lied.”
But not being a legal investigation, it can’t boil down to a simple yes or no question. I have seen some comment that if it was more strictly legal procedure he would have more chance of getting off on technicality. I think it’s the other way. Not being legal won’t boil down to misled yes or no - it will bring into it degrees.
As much as he did mislead the commons. Did he intentionally and recklessly mislead? That clearly the canny angle he is playing here, putting idea’s in their head as to the reckless, or otherwise, nature of his actions. I think the committee will fall for it. Slap him. Though not as hard as he can’t come back from.
I expect the opposite. Nearly half the committee are opposition MPs, they'll find against him based on the party label. And most Tory MPs hate him and it doesn't take many of them on the committee to recognise the end of his career.
😃 “Nearly half the committee” you mean the minority?
We all agree he doesn’t get off completely. But if you expecting, as you clearly are, or merely hoping for end of his career, I have read enough political biographies to know political careers are more durable than you think. Remember you read it here first, if you disbelieve me.
His career is over anyway. I thought that he was the only person who didn't realise that, but perhaps not.
Like you, I’d like to think so. Like to think that about Trump as well. But UNLIKE YOU the history books are saying to me, wait a moment. You come in and out and in fashion in politics so rather quickly, despite the low points.
If you put Boris and Rishi to the Tory members today, who do you think would win?
Probably Boris, but it's an absurd counterfactual. There is no way in heck that Boris is getting past the MPs again. He didn't in 2016. He didn't in 2022. And he only did in 2019 because they were desperate and there was no other option.
So when there’s a vacancy for a Tory leader after the next election, and Boris is advertising himself from his new safe seat
Alexander Horne, ex-parliamentary lawyer, doesn't think the Committee will recommend a suspension long enough to trigger a by-election, which is also my view. He says:
Even if the committee finds that Johnson has committed a contempt, the type of sanctions that it can recommend include anything from requiring him to apologise to the house, to proposing a suspension of ten days or more which could, in theory, lead to a recall petition and a possible by-election in his constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Given that its recommendation must be approved by the House of Commons, I would be surprised if the committee opted for the nuclear option unless it had very cogent evidence that Johnson had deliberately misled the House on these matters.
(Article in the Spectator, summarised in Guardian live blog at 14:40)
Yes, seems most likely. Johnson will be sanctioned but not severely enough to trigger a recall petition.
Labour won't be too upset, keeping Johnson as Uxbridge MP gives them a good chance of a Tory seat they would otherwise expect to take at the next GE.
It was my feeling when first announced that might be the outcome. Proving knowingly is very hard if someone sticks to their story (it will save Trump in many cases) so a lesser sanction below threshold sends a message and probably reduces those willing to defend their fallen hero.
In the courtroom action that I have personally observed - for example, via "Perry Mason" and "Judge Judy" - a witness whose testimony is proven, or has been proven in the past, to be a tissue of bullshit, is NOT considered credible.
Just sayin'.
That’s nothing to do with this Boris thing then, because what I’m pointing out is it’s not at any stage going to be a court room.
High Court of Parliament.
Officially that jurisdiction was transferred to the new Supreme Court in 2007. Parliament can still impose sanctions for breach of its own rules however.
However, the name HCoP still endures? Along with role as judge AND jury of its own membership?
Wikipedia says "High Court of Parliament" is "the formal name for Parliament".
Possibly, in terms of documents that are still half written in Norman French. Nobody ever actually calls it that.
Alexander Horne, ex-parliamentary lawyer, doesn't think the Committee will recommend a suspension long enough to trigger a by-election, which is also my view. He says:
Even if the committee finds that Johnson has committed a contempt, the type of sanctions that it can recommend include anything from requiring him to apologise to the house, to proposing a suspension of ten days or more which could, in theory, lead to a recall petition and a possible by-election in his constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Given that its recommendation must be approved by the House of Commons, I would be surprised if the committee opted for the nuclear option unless it had very cogent evidence that Johnson had deliberately misled the House on these matters.
(Article in the Spectator, summarised in Guardian live blog at 14:40)
There's fucking pictures, 20+ witnesses and a fucking fine. How much more 'cogent' would the Spectator prefer their evidence?
Don’t shoot the messenger.
I’m going to tap out. Some people aren’t going to take what’s going to happen here very well are they. 🫡
In the courtroom action that I have personally observed - for example, via "Perry Mason" and "Judge Judy" - a witness whose testimony is proven, or has been proven in the past, to be a tissue of bullshit, is NOT considered credible.
Just sayin'.
That’s nothing to do with this Boris thing then, because what I’m pointing out is it’s not at any stage going to be a court room.
High Court of Parliament.
Officially that jurisdiction was transferred to the new Supreme Court in 2007. Parliament can still impose sanctions for breach of its own rules however.
However, the name HCoP still endures? Along with role as judge AND jury of its own membership?
Wikipedia says "High Court of Parliament" is "the formal name for Parliament".
Possibly, in terms of documents that are still half written in Norman French. Nobody ever actually calls it that.
I just did - never say never!
Yes, but with respect (a) you're a foreigner, and (b) you only did so because you were trying to use it to prove your point.
The problem I have with Partygate. Boris Johnson, dishonest, malign and incompetent, should never have been within a thousand miles of the premiership. Attending a couple of unauthorised parties is neither here nor there, but that's what's brought him down.
Covid was just too serious an issue for BoJo to be in charge of; lives were at stake. Hence if you believe it is reasonable to say that all issues that the PM deals with in some way have lives at stake then the obvious conclusion is that BoJo was not fit to be PM at all.
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.
“ He lied and lied.”
But not being a legal investigation, it can’t boil down to a simple yes or no question. I have seen some comment that if it was more strictly legal procedure he would have more chance of getting off on technicality. I think it’s the other way. Not being legal won’t boil down to misled yes or no - it will bring into it degrees.
As much as he did mislead the commons. Did he intentionally and recklessly mislead? That clearly the canny angle he is playing here, putting idea’s in their head as to the reckless, or otherwise, nature of his actions. I think the committee will fall for it. Slap him. Though not as hard as he can’t come back from.
I expect the opposite. Nearly half the committee are opposition MPs, they'll find against him based on the party label. And most Tory MPs hate him and it doesn't take many of them on the committee to recognise the end of his career.
😃 “Nearly half the committee” you mean the minority?
We all agree he doesn’t get off completely. But if you expecting, as you clearly are, or merely hoping for end of his career, I have read enough political biographies to know political careers are more durable than you think. Remember you read it here first, if you disbelieve me.
His career is over anyway. I thought that he was the only person who didn't realise that, but perhaps not.
Like you, I’d like to think so. Like to think that about Trump as well. But UNLIKE YOU the history books are saying to me, wait a moment. You come in and out and in fashion in politics so rather quickly, despite the low points.
If you put Boris and Rishi to the Tory members today, who do you think would win?
Probably Boris, but it's an absurd counterfactual. There is no way in heck that Boris is getting past the MPs again. He didn't in 2016. He didn't in 2022. And he only did in 2019 because they were desperate and there was no other option.
So when there’s a vacancy for a Tory leader after the next election, and Boris is advertising himself from his new safe seat
We can safely stop there.
You have heard of the Conservative Democratic Organisation? You have been following their good work of recent months?
In the courtroom action that I have personally observed - for example, via "Perry Mason" and "Judge Judy" - a witness whose testimony is proven, or has been proven in the past, to be a tissue of bullshit, is NOT considered credible.
Just sayin'.
That’s nothing to do with this Boris thing then, because what I’m pointing out is it’s not at any stage going to be a court room.
High Court of Parliament.
Officially that jurisdiction was transferred to the new Supreme Court in 2007. Parliament can still impose sanctions for breach of its own rules however.
However, the name HCoP still endures? Along with role as judge AND jury of its own membership?
Wikipedia says "High Court of Parliament" is "the formal name for Parliament".
Possibly, in terms of documents that are still half written in Norman French. Nobody ever actually calls it that.
I just did - never say never!
Yes, but with respect (a) you're a foreigner, and (b) you only did so because you were trying to use it to prove your point.
a) even foreigners are somebody, NOT "nobody";
b) pot calling kettle black? (Not singling YOU out, just standard PBery!)
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.
“ He lied and lied.”
But not being a legal investigation, it can’t boil down to a simple yes or no question. I have seen some comment that if it was more strictly legal procedure he would have more chance of getting off on technicality. I think it’s the other way. Not being legal won’t boil down to misled yes or no - it will bring into it degrees.
As much as he did mislead the commons. Did he intentionally and recklessly mislead? That clearly the canny angle he is playing here, putting idea’s in their head as to the reckless, or otherwise, nature of his actions. I think the committee will fall for it. Slap him. Though not as hard as he can’t come back from.
I expect the opposite. Nearly half the committee are opposition MPs, they'll find against him based on the party label. And most Tory MPs hate him and it doesn't take many of them on the committee to recognise the end of his career.
😃 “Nearly half the committee” you mean the minority?
We all agree he doesn’t get off completely. But if you expecting, as you clearly are, or merely hoping for end of his career, I have read enough political biographies to know political careers are more durable than you think. Remember you read it here first, if you disbelieve me.
His career is over anyway. I thought that he was the only person who didn't realise that, but perhaps not.
Like you, I’d like to think so. Like to think that about Trump as well. But UNLIKE YOU the history books are saying to me, wait a moment. You come in and out and in fashion in politics so rather quickly, despite the low points.
If you put Boris and Rishi to the Tory members today, who do you think would win?
Probably Boris, but it's an absurd counterfactual. There is no way in heck that Boris is getting past the MPs again. He didn't in 2016. He didn't in 2022. And he only did in 2019 because they were desperate and there was no other option.
So when there’s a vacancy for a Tory leader after the next election, and Boris is advertising himself from his new safe seat
We can safely stop there.
You have heard of the Conservative Democratic Organisation? You have been following their good work of recent months?
I think their name is rather reminiscent of what Voltaire said of the Holy Roman Empire.
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.
Private Eye thinks they only fined that event because it was reported in The Times the next day, whereas all the other potential breaches couldn't be proven because Boris probably didn't answer the questionnaire on the advice of his legal team, while the staff made the mistake of actually answering the police's questions.
Covid was just too serious an issue for BoJo to be in charge of; lives were at stake. Hence if you believe it is reasonable to say that all issues that the PM deals with in some way have lives at stake then the obvious conclusion is that BoJo was not fit to be PM at all.
I'm not so sure, actually. He's about the only senior politician whose instincts would be to stand up against the authoritarian bullshit the "experts" were demanding. Certainly Sir Keir wouldn't have!
It took a while for him to have enough strength to resist them, but he did get there in the 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, 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.
“ He lied and lied.”
But not being a legal investigation, it can’t boil down to a simple yes or no question. I have seen some comment that if it was more strictly legal procedure he would have more chance of getting off on technicality. I think it’s the other way. Not being legal won’t boil down to misled yes or no - it will bring into it degrees.
As much as he did mislead the commons. Did he intentionally and recklessly mislead? That clearly the canny angle he is playing here, putting idea’s in their head as to the reckless, or otherwise, nature of his actions. I think the committee will fall for it. Slap him. Though not as hard as he can’t come back from.
I expect the opposite. Nearly half the committee are opposition MPs, they'll find against him based on the party label. And most Tory MPs hate him and it doesn't take many of them on the committee to recognise the end of his career.
😃 “Nearly half the committee” you mean the minority?
We all agree he doesn’t get off completely. But if you expecting, as you clearly are, or merely hoping for end of his career, I have read enough political biographies to know political careers are more durable than you think. Remember you read it here first, if you disbelieve me.
His career is over anyway. I thought that he was the only person who didn't realise that, but perhaps not.
Like you, I’d like to think so. Like to think that about Trump as well. But UNLIKE YOU the history books are saying to me, wait a moment. You come in and out and in fashion in politics so rather quickly, despite the low points.
If you put Boris and Rishi to the Tory members today, who do you think would win?
Probably Boris, but it's an absurd counterfactual. There is no way in heck that Boris is getting past the MPs again. He didn't in 2016. He didn't in 2022. And he only did in 2019 because they were desperate and there was no other option.
So when there’s a vacancy for a Tory leader after the next election, and Boris is advertising himself from his new safe seat
We can safely stop there.
You have heard of the Conservative Democratic Organisation? You have been following their good work of recent months?
I think their name is rather reminiscent of what Voltaire said of the Holy Roman Empire.
Is that neither, Holy, Roman, or strictly an empire?
But it was though. The first emperor was crowned by the Pope. Kaiser is German for Caesar - later Gloryanna was built on Elizabeth and her fathers descent from the Caesar’s. And though being a commercial empire, that’s little different than the Roman Empire we still call an Empire.
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.
And it's the institution that needs sorting out. We've had twenty years or more of the 'just a few rotten apples' nonsense.
I'm not putting up a few rotten apples as a counter argument.
What I'm arguing is that you need a story that will create change, that will change the culture away from covering up for your colleagues to doing what's right by the public.
I don't think that the label, "institutionally " helps with that process.
The problem I have with Partygate. Boris Johnson, dishonest, malign and incompetent, should never have been within a thousand miles of the premiership. Attending a couple of unauthorised parties is neither here nor there, but that's what's brought him down.
Isn't the point simply that the wider public were in fact making quite major sacrifices, and almost everyone has a sad story of a wedding cancelled, an elderly relative dying alone, kids missing out on the ordinary social life involved in growing up etc.
So the idea of the person making the rules essentially ignoring them himself is f***ing irksome to large numbers of people in a way that other manifestations of Johnson dishonesty, rule-breaking, and general arseholery aren't so much (even if, purely objectively, they are more heinous examples of misbehaviour).
If there ends up a by election will Johnson even stand ? He is bound to lose.
Will he even be allowed to be an official Conservative candidate?
They allowed that chap in Wales to run in a byelection after conviction didn't they? So Boris would be fine.
Another reason Paterson was an idiot - he quit in disgust at being held accountable even though he'd probably have been returned.
That chap in Wales wasn't disciplined by the House whilst Prime Minister, though, was he? He was just some bloke nobody much had ever heard of. Not the guy leading the country through the worst pandemic in a century, killing 200,000 plus of us and threatening mortal danger to the economy. That bloke might just be in rather more difficulty.
Covid was just too serious an issue for BoJo to be in charge of; lives were at stake. Hence if you believe it is reasonable to say that all issues that the PM deals with in some way have lives at stake then the obvious conclusion is that BoJo was not fit to be PM at all.
And most Tory MPs knew that when he topped their ballot for leader. The crime was executed with malice aforethought.
Interesting looking at these posts. I was perhaps one of the few right of centre posters on here that recognised Johnson for what he was from the very beginning. To those who have had a slightly later realisation, I will not be forgiving or magnanimous;
If there ends up a by election will Johnson even stand ? He is bound to lose.
Will he even be allowed to be an official Conservative candidate?
They allowed that chap in Wales to run in a byelection after conviction didn't they? So Boris would be fine.
Another reason Paterson was an idiot - he quit in disgust at being held accountable even though he'd probably have been returned.
That chap in Wales wasn't disciplined by the House whilst Prime Minister, though, was he? He was just some bloke nobody much had ever heard of. Not the guy leading the country through the worst pandemic in a century, killing 200,000 plus of us and threatening mortal danger to the economy. That bloke might just be in rather more difficulty.
I suspect the point is moot as he'd just not want to stand. It'd almost inevitably be a humiliating defeat in a seat that isn't safe at a General Election as it is. If there is a way back for Johnson post-recall petition (if it does come to that) it probably involves sitting this out and popping up in another seat in 2024/5.
The "deliberately misled" rather than just "misled" is a tell. Johnson with no concept of right or wrong isn't even aware he's lying.
And this guy should be prime minister?
If you're not aware what you're saying isn't true, then it's not lying.
In Johnson's case, he has no idea where the line between fact and fiction manifests itself, because the truth has never been something that he has troubled himself with.
Alexander Horne, ex-parliamentary lawyer, doesn't think the Committee will recommend a suspension long enough to trigger a by-election, which is also my view. He says:
Even if the committee finds that Johnson has committed a contempt, the type of sanctions that it can recommend include anything from requiring him to apologise to the house, to proposing a suspension of ten days or more which could, in theory, lead to a recall petition and a possible by-election in his constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Given that its recommendation must be approved by the House of Commons, I would be surprised if the committee opted for the nuclear option unless it had very cogent evidence that Johnson had deliberately misled the House on these matters.
(Article in the Spectator, summarised in Guardian live blog at 14:40)
Yes, seems most likely. Johnson will be sanctioned but not severely enough to trigger a recall petition.
Labour won't be too upset, keeping Johnson as Uxbridge MP gives them a good chance of a Tory seat they would otherwise expect to take at the next GE.
I must say that for partisan reasons I would prefer to see Johnson remain in the house causing constant disruption to the Tories. Same reason I would like to see the GOP nominate Trump again. If we or the Americans are daft enough to elect Johnson or Trump to the top post again then, frankly, we deserve what follows.
Covid was just too serious an issue for BoJo to be in charge of; lives were at stake. Hence if you believe it is reasonable to say that all issues that the PM deals with in some way have lives at stake then the obvious conclusion is that BoJo was not fit to be PM at all.
I'm not so sure, actually. He's about the only senior politician whose instincts would be to stand up against the authoritarian bullshit the "experts" were demanding. Certainly Sir Keir wouldn't have!
It took a while for him to have enough strength to resist them, but he did get there in the end.
Seeing as you are buying today. Hello, can I introduce myself? My name is Pete and I have an invisible garden bridge to sell you.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
The problem I have with Partygate. Boris Johnson, dishonest, malign and incompetent, should never have been within a thousand miles of the premiership. Attending a couple of unauthorised parties is neither here nor there, but that's what's brought him down.
Isn't the point simply that the wider public were in fact making quite major sacrifices, and almost everyone has a sad story of a wedding cancelled, an elderly relative dying alone, kids missing out on the ordinary social life involved in growing up etc.
So the idea of the person making the rules essentially ignoring them himself is f***ing irksome to large numbers of people in a way that other manifestations of Johnson dishonesty, rule-breaking, and general arseholery aren't so much (even if, purely objectively, they are more heinous examples of misbehaviour).
Note that in the USA, authorities never did charge, let alone convict, Al Capone of his numerous and obvious violations of state and federal law.
With one exception: the Internal Revenue code.
A pretty big thing, actually. However, quite often a political downfall is caused to a very minor peccadillo . . .
In the courtroom action that I have personally observed - for example, via "Perry Mason" and "Judge Judy" - a witness whose testimony is proven, or has been proven in the past, to be a tissue of bullshit, is NOT considered credible.
Just sayin'.
That’s nothing to do with this Boris thing then, because what I’m pointing out is it’s not at any stage going to be a court room.
High Court of Parliament.
Officially that jurisdiction was transferred to the new Supreme Court in 2007. Parliament can still impose sanctions for breach of its own rules however.
However, the name HCoP still endures? Along with role as judge AND jury of its own membership?
Wikipedia says "High Court of Parliament" is "the formal name for Parliament".
Possibly, in terms of documents that are still half written in Norman French. Nobody ever actually calls it that.
I just did - never say never!
Yes, but with respect (a) you're a foreigner, and (b) you only did so because you were trying to use it to prove your point.
a) even foreigners are somebody, NOT "nobody";
b) pot calling kettle black? (Not singling YOU out, just standard PBery!)
I've no desire to question your right to comment on British matters, SS. That might call into question our fun with regard to the US, which is unthinkable.
My own quasi-fearless guess, is that this Mother will NOT be bounced out of the Mother of Parliaments by his fellow MPs.
For reasons legal AND political.
Why legal? I get the political point, although I don't really think that he has the numbers. But there isn't really a legal route for him here - Pannick is doing his best for Johnson but, ultimately, the Committee can decide Johnson is lying (the clue being his lips moving), Parliament can endorse any sanction, and there just isn't a legal route of appeal that has any prospect of success. The Pannick submissions drip with frustration at that, but that's largely because he's a clever man and knows it's true.
On a technical point, it also wouldn't be MPs bouncing him out. The Uxbridge residents signing a recall petition that would do that, although it's surely a formality the signatures will follow if the conditions are met to launch one.
The "deliberately misled" rather than just "misled" is a tell. Johnson with no concept of right or wrong isn't even aware he's lying.
And this guy should be prime minister?
If you're not aware what you're saying isn't true, then it's not lying.
No. It's that Johnson has no concept of truth. It is something that doesn't matter to him. The rest of us may tell lies from time to time but we know we're doing it.
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.
A one off mistake is an oversight, and forgivable (if you ask for forgiveness). Multiple breaches is a pattern of behaviour.
It's definitely several notches higher on the taking the piss meter.
A pattern of behaviour, sure, but that doesn't mean a pattern of knowingly-wrong behaviour.
It does make it more likely it was knowingly as many more opportunity to understand things
No, that doesn't follow. The first time anyone actually thought that was a breach of the rules was when police issued the FPN.
Yes, but they should have understood and the more events they held the more they should have checked and understood the rules and guidance. Do something as a one off and you might mess up. Do it over and over and you should have checked properly, and thus determined your first check was wrong.
The really irksome thing is people debating whether or not Boris broke the rules when what we should really be debating is whether or not those rules were a gross overreach of power in a supposedly democratic society, that should never, ever be repeated.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
150,000 deaths wasn't enough for you, I see. A curious view, luckily one held only by a tiny, extreme minority.
Comments
It's definitely several notches higher on the taking the piss meter.
That story about your daughter being sent home for one cough really illustrates to me why I say that much of the country went mad - that was never in the rules, guidance or anything else.
That those involved are so wrapped up in denial that they can’t even manage to accept this as a possibility speaks volumes frankly.
Whitty/Vallance would have been in the SAGE Zoom calls, I presume. The dissemination of SAGE conclusions was done through documents, reports and minutes. Whitty/Vallance appear to have communicated with ministers sometimes electronically (as we see in Hancock’s WhatsApp messages), but there were also times when people were in a room together.
Decisions on policy were taken by politicians and civil servants, sometimes together, sometimes in things like WhatsApp.
If the institution is the problem then it absolves individuals of their responsibility to fix the problem. What the Met needs is for leadership to take responsibility for fixing the problem and for them to win the support of the better rank and file officers in making the changes that will create that change.
But in general I think if you want to recognise a problem it is helpful to describe it accurately, and "institutional" racism etc is I think an accurate way of describing a problem that is deep rooted within the culture and practice of an institution, going beyond the behaviour of a few rogue operators. Even the idiotic Braverman acknowledges "systemic problems." No doubt the PB anti woke syntax police are on hand to explain why "systemic" is apt but "institutional" is verboten.
But not being a legal investigation, it can’t boil down to a simple yes or no question. I have seen some comment that if it was more strictly legal procedure he would have more chance of getting off on technicality. I think it’s the other way. Not being legal won’t boil down to misled yes or no - it will bring into it degrees.
As much as he did mislead the commons. Did he intentionally and recklessly mislead? That clearly the canny angle he is playing here, putting idea’s in their head as to the reckless, or otherwise, nature of his actions. I think the committee will fall for it. Slap him. Though not as hard as he can’t come back from.
https://twitter.com/JordiRib1/status/1638167237856235520
https://mobile.twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/1638170589348200448
We've had twenty years or more of the 'just a few rotten apples' nonsense.
Obviously, I was using a bit of hyperbole about Cummings behaviour, although some members (I think one in particular who leaked everything and had an agenda) described him as inappropriately intervening to influence the process.
" As I made clear to the House of Commons on 25 May 2022, I take full responsibility for everything that took place on my watch at No. 10. The revelations in Sue Gray’s report shocked the public, and they shocked me. I therefore begin by renewing my apologies to the British people for what happened on my watch. It is now clear that over a number of days, there were gatherings at No. 10 that, however they began, went past the point where they could be said to have been reasonably necessary for work purposes. That should never have happened, and it fills me with sadness and regret that it did."
SSI - question: many lies does BJ utter above? My own count = 6.
We all agree he doesn’t get off completely. But if you expecting, as you clearly are, or merely hoping for end of his career, I have read enough political biographies to know political careers are more durable than you think. Remember you read it here first, if you disbelieve me.
While Hancock is something of a pantomime villain in all this - with, it must be said, SKS baying for more all the time - it must be conceded that these are democratic politicians responding to democratic pressures.
I remember seeing a story on facebook about parking at Dovestones reservoir. (Too many people, too few spaces.) The ire that this provoked below the line - including from people whom I had hitherto thought to be reasonable - that people had the nerve to go for a walk in the countryside with their families. This wasn't even against guidance.
There was this belief that the whole thing would go away if only we would sacrifice enough. It was almost medieval.
Or (dare I say) NPxMP? Jury still out on him! Personally hope he makes a comeback someday: the New Nick?
Look at Rishi Sunak for example. He was finished.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/09/rishi-sunaks-hopes-of-becoming-prime-minister-are-over-say-top-tories
If you put Boris and Rishi to the Tory members today, who do you think would win?
Just sayin'.
Even if the committee finds that Johnson has committed a contempt, the type of sanctions that it can recommend include anything from requiring him to apologise to the house, to proposing a suspension of ten days or more which could, in theory, lead to a recall petition and a possible by-election in his constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Given that its recommendation must be approved by the House of Commons, I would be surprised if the committee opted for the nuclear option unless it had very cogent evidence that Johnson had deliberately misled the House on these matters.
(Article in the Spectator, summarised in Guardian live blog at 14:40)
I’m finished then. You should see how hands on and kissy kissy I get when drunk. And Barry Zuckerkorn could probably tie me in knots,
Labour won't be too upset, keeping Johnson as Uxbridge MP gives them a good chance of a Tory seat they would otherwise expect to take at the next GE.
And even if they do, recall, by election etc, if Boris is determined on a Churchillian comeback there’s still all sorts of options available to him. Not contesting the by election but popping up in a safe seat instead for example.
b) A PM with good judgment would have insisted on a puritan culture in Number 10, given the context; and
c) therefore I sympathise with his defence in terms of remaining an MP but not in terms of ever again holding high office.
In any event I think he knows his time has come and gone, and if he stays as an MP it’ll just be a platform for him to sell books and Telegraph columns.
EDIT - Also b) part 2: I am sure there were egregious breaches up in the flat, as suggested, that haven’t come out.
When THAT didn't happen, this faux regret evaporated.
And AF remains in history's dumpster, except when his comic SNL and movie roles get replayed on TV or YouTube.
Alternatively, if Boris survives with a lesser sanction, there will still be divisions amongst the Tories, Boris remains as an irritant in Rishi's side and a focus for dissent, and hopefully he gets ditched at the GE anyway.
Possibly, in terms of documents that are still half written in Norman French. Nobody ever actually calls it that.
Another reason Paterson was an idiot - he quit in disgust at being held accountable even though he'd probably have been returned.
What doesn’t kill Boris this week draws the poison and leaves him stronger. That’s how politics works.
The insanity of a “fuck-mule” and then a medal from everyone for surviving the “fuck-mule”.
As for "safe seat" do you reckon that any normally safe seat for a semi-normal Tory candidate, would ipso facto be safe for BJ?
I’m going to tap out. Some people aren’t going to take what’s going to happen here very well are they. 🫡
b) pot calling kettle black? (Not singling YOU out, just standard PBery!)
It took a while for him to have enough strength to resist them, but he did get there in the end.
But it was though. The first emperor was crowned by the Pope. Kaiser is German for Caesar - later Gloryanna was built on Elizabeth and her fathers descent from the Caesar’s. And though being a commercial empire, that’s little different than the Roman Empire we still call an Empire.
Bit hit and miss Voltaire.
For reasons legal AND political.
And this guy should be prime minister?
What I'm arguing is that you need a story that will create change, that will change the culture away from covering up for your colleagues to doing what's right by the public.
I don't think that the label, "institutionally
So the idea of the person making the rules essentially ignoring them himself is f***ing irksome to large numbers of people in a way that other manifestations of Johnson dishonesty, rule-breaking, and general arseholery aren't so much (even if, purely objectively, they are more heinous examples of misbehaviour).
As for exile, thought that Parliament was supreme and unfettered in lawmaking? At least that was part of the pro-Brexit argument?
I make it a half-dozen.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23718901/borisdossierprivilegescommittee.pdf
I fecking told you so.
I couldn't give a toss if he had a can of coke and a slice of birthday cake. I don't want any politician to ever be able to lock us up indefinitely ever again.
With one exception: the Internal Revenue code.
A pretty big thing, actually. However, quite often a political downfall is caused to a very minor peccadillo . . .
That might call into question our fun with regard to the US, which is unthinkable.
On a technical point, it also wouldn't be MPs bouncing him out. The Uxbridge residents signing a recall petition that would do that, although it's surely a formality the signatures will follow if the conditions are met to launch one.