Not the sharpest tool in the Tory box – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Gove.numbertwelve said:
The only wildcard is probably Wallace. If Boris goes there will be pressure for a non-extended leadership contest and the only person who is ready to step into the breach as a holder of a GOOS is, I am afraid to say, Liz Truss.algarkirk said:
An obligation is only an obligation insofar as it is enforceable. SFAICS no-one has the power the enforce this one. So, in the modern world, an obligation it is not.mwadams said:
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.Applicant said:
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.mwadams said:
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.Applicant said:
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.ydoethur said:
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.BartholomewRoberts said:
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.RochdalePioneers said:
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.Nigelb said:On the whole misleading Parliament thing.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1513871655482929163
Rishi Sunak, 7 December 2021: “No, I did not attend any parties”
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
If he didn't think that was a party...
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
The only power with leverage is that possessed by Tory MPs to force a VONC among the Tory MPs, and the power of the opposition to force a VONC in the House of Commons.
Good luck with both of those.
PS Truss will not be the next leader.
Who else is there? Patel isn’t going to get it. Rishi is done. Tugenhadt isn’t even a minister. Mordaunt might be a good leader in opposition but has limited cabinet experience. Anyone like Mogg or Dorries is too bonkers even for the Tory party.0 -
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.Stereodog said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.BartholomewRoberts said:
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.RochdalePioneers said:
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"BartholomewRoberts said:
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.RochdalePioneers said:
1. "I did not attend a party"BartholomewRoberts said:
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.mwadams said:
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.Applicant said:
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.mwadams said:
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.Applicant said:
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.ydoethur said:
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.BartholomewRoberts said:
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.RochdalePioneers said:
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.Nigelb said:On the whole misleading Parliament thing.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1513871655482929163
Rishi Sunak, 7 December 2021: “No, I did not attend any parties”
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
If he didn't think that was a party...
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
2. Fined for attending a party
3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
You can break the law even without a party.0 -
Exactly!Stereodog said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.BartholomewRoberts said:
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.RochdalePioneers said:
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"BartholomewRoberts said:
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.RochdalePioneers said:
1. "I did not attend a party"BartholomewRoberts said:
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.mwadams said:
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.Applicant said:
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.mwadams said:
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.Applicant said:
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.ydoethur said:
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.BartholomewRoberts said:
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.RochdalePioneers said:
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.Nigelb said:On the whole misleading Parliament thing.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1513871655482929163
Rishi Sunak, 7 December 2021: “No, I did not attend any parties”
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
If he didn't think that was a party...
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
2. Fined for attending a party
3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
You can break the law even without a party.0 -
Of course it does. They didn't need a tip-off, they knew Johnson was guilty and it was only a matter of time until he got his collar felt.noneoftheabove said:The timing makes me wonder if No 10 had an advance tip off, and hence the campaign over the last week against Sunak.
0 -
God almighty can the BBC stop asking Michael Fabricant for a reaction on Partygate. It's like all those chat shoes who booked Oliver Reed knowing he'd turn up drunk and cause an amusing scene. Also doesn't do anything for the national blood pressure.3
-
Boris isn't going to resign.
He won't be forced out by his MPs.
Rishi may well do. He knows he is not going to become PM - that has not changed as a result of the fine - and he will be off back to business at GE 2024.
Boris MAY think about his own prospects in due course before the next GE. Per the expected boundary changes he needs to 'GAIN' his own seat. He may seek an alternative seat or may decide that 'ok time for a new leader for the election' but this won't happen for a while. Or he may stay to fight the GE.
In the meantime Starmer will remain an uninspiring wooden ideas-free option going forward and into the next GE. And the LAB team immediately behind Starmer and in the parliamentary party won't change.
It's not party time for LAB yet!
0 -
Finland will be joining NATO very soon, maybe in weeks but certainly months, so the question will soon be irrelevant.HYUFD said:
No, that would be Russia invading the Baltic States, Norway or Poland which already are in NATOrottenborough said:Russian invading Finland surely is the start of WWIII?
Btw, I agree with you that Boris is unlikely to resign. Personally I'm not sure he should. It's the wrong time, there's no obvious replacement, and Labour is still convalescing.
Labour will of course be very happy for him to stay on, but that's a different matter. Maybe if the Locals are truly dreadful things may change, and I do think there is a fair chance of this happening.
But for the moment, I don't see Boris getting off the pot.0 -
Had someone told him about the selling of indulgences ?HYUFD said:
Mr Johnson is a Roman Catholic not C of ECarnyx said:
Trouble is that Mr Johnson, as with the ethics arrangements in HMG, is de facto boss of the extramural ethics dept aka the C of E.HYUFD said:
Christianity is based on forgiveness as much as Old Testament condemnation, provided the perpetrator shows remorseOnlyLivingBoy said:
For an alleged Christian you have a remarkably transactional approach to the notion of right and wrong.HYUFD said:
Depends what the polls say over the next week. If he keeps the Labour lead under 10% he can stayHeathener said:An honest question for an honest answer:
Of all you right of centre posters on here, which always feels to me like a tidal surge, is there any one of you who does not think the Prime Minister should now resign?2 -
I would like to think that PB doesn't end up as Frog Soup.Stuartinromford said:
[Angus Deayton voice:]Mexicanpete said:
The precedent Mr Johnson sets if he does not resign for misleading Parliament which is now the key charge, and proven if the fines are accepted and not challenged, is outrageous. It allows any Minister or future Prime Minister can tell any old bollocks to Parliament without fear of the ultimate sanction.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sarah Jane Mee of Sky has said that the response to them from the public is evenly split on Boris resigning
I don't believe Mr Sunak has made that same grave error of misleading the House, nonetheless he now has a moral duty to go too. That would also put Mr Johnson under greater pressure. I wonder whether the removal vans at No 11 pre-empted his departure on the grounds of Partygate?
The Ministerial Code, Parliament and the Office of Prime Minister will be in disrepute if Johnson stays.
So no change there, then.
Seriously- since Summer 2019, BoJo has been gently boiling that frog perfectly until there is nothing left but frog soup.0 -
In which case why not leak against Sunak a few weeks ago before the first set of fines?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Of course it does. They didn't need a tip-off, they knew Johnson was guilty and it was only a matter of time until he got his collar felt.noneoftheabove said:The timing makes me wonder if No 10 had an advance tip off, and hence the campaign over the last week against Sunak.
0 -
As Sir Humphrey had it, you should always be honest…….. about things people can easily find out through another route.junius said:I have just emailed my MP under the header 'Good Parenting'.
I have asked her what I should have told my children when they were growing up. Should I have said "It's OK to lie - as long as you think you can get away with it."
0 -
Only if Finland makes a formal request and Putin has then not invaded Finland before it formally joins NATOPeter_the_Punter said:
Finland will be joining NATO very soon, maybe in weeks but certainly months, so the question will soon be irrelevant.HYUFD said:
No, that would be Russia invading the Baltic States, Norway or Poland which already are in NATOrottenborough said:Russian invading Finland surely is the start of WWIII?
Btw, I agree with you that Boris is unlikely to resign. Personally I'm not sure he should. It's the wrong time, there's no obvious replacement, and Labour is still convalescing.
Labour will of course be very happy for him to stay on, but that's a different matter. Maybe if the Locals are truly dreadful things may change, and I do think there is a fair chance of this happening.
But for the moment, I don't see Boris getting off the pot.0 -
You are having a car crash, love. Just stop.Applicant said:
Sorry, does the troll not like being called a troll? They should stop trolling, then.Heathener said:
I don't think anyone who completely changes a person's words in a quote is in any position to give a lecture on instructions from @PBModerator.Applicant said:
"Dickhead" is the person who misused the spam flag against the express instructions of @PBModerator.Heathener said:
Which is why you are a dickhead.0 -
This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.5 -
Blair wasn't "busted" over the 24 hour WMDs issue until after he left office as I recall. Once the guilt was nailed on he should have gone too. No ifs no buts.Alanbrooke said:
Tony BlairMexicanpete said:
The precedent Mr Johnson sets if he does not resign for misleading Parliament which is now the key charge, and proven if the fines are accepted and not challenged, is outrageous. It allows any Minister or future Prime Minister can tell any old bollocks to Parliament without fear of the ultimate sanction.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sarah Jane Mee of Sky has said that the response to them from the public is evenly split on Boris resigning
I don't believe Mr Sunak has made that same grave error of misleading the House, nonetheless he now has a moral duty to go too. That would also put Mr Johnson under greater pressure. I wonder whether the removal vans at No 11 pre-empted his departure on the grounds of Partygate?
The Ministerial Code, Parliament and the Office of Prime Minister will be in disrepute if Johnson stays.1 -
"FTFY" is venerable internet practice, especially in cases when a troll is trolling. Being honest is like being a lady or being powerful - if you have to say that you are, you aren't.IshmaelZ said:0 -
Rees-Mogg would lament the tragic leading astray of a great man by a wayward teen; Blunt would call it the worst miscarriage of justice since Pontius Pilate; Dorries would say she has proof that he far prefers women of a certain age; and Fabricant would say that the safest place for the PM to be was in Number 10 rather than hanging around the school gates in retirement.IshmaelZ said:
I have reluctantly concluded that if Johnson was the one who was just convicted of molesting a 15 year old he would probably ride it outSirNorfolkPassmore said:
And here's your regular reminder that the UK changed PMs on the day Bucharest fell to the Kaiser, and the day Hitler invaded France (as well as while forces massed for the first Gulf War).Big_G_NorthWales said:Roger Gale, one of Boris's principal critics, has said that now is not the moment as we deal with Ukraine and the refugee crisis bit I do not think the PM will lead us into the next election
Without wishing to diminish the importance of the war in Ukraine and Britain's role as a (significant) non-combatant, the idea from Tory MPs that we can't possibly change PMs now is as ignorant of history as it is utterly spineless.8 -
The *Sunak* one is for attendance at the birthday party. We don't know how many fines have been given to the Big Liar.Applicant said:Has anyone actually said that the Boris FPN is for the birthday cake/gathering/party, or is everyone just jumping to conclusions on that?
1 -
Raab is possible too in that sort of context.ozymandias said:
Gove.numbertwelve said:
The only wildcard is probably Wallace. If Boris goes there will be pressure for a non-extended leadership contest and the only person who is ready to step into the breach as a holder of a GOOS is, I am afraid to say, Liz Truss.algarkirk said:
An obligation is only an obligation insofar as it is enforceable. SFAICS no-one has the power the enforce this one. So, in the modern world, an obligation it is not.mwadams said:
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.Applicant said:
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.mwadams said:
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.Applicant said:
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.ydoethur said:
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.BartholomewRoberts said:
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.RochdalePioneers said:
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.Nigelb said:On the whole misleading Parliament thing.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1513871655482929163
Rishi Sunak, 7 December 2021: “No, I did not attend any parties”
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
If he didn't think that was a party...
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
The only power with leverage is that possessed by Tory MPs to force a VONC among the Tory MPs, and the power of the opposition to force a VONC in the House of Commons.
Good luck with both of those.
PS Truss will not be the next leader.
Who else is there? Patel isn’t going to get it. Rishi is done. Tugenhadt isn’t even a minister. Mordaunt might be a good leader in opposition but has limited cabinet experience. Anyone like Mogg or Dorries is too bonkers even for the Tory party.
I think the Tories will be happy enough to have a normal length leadership contest after the locals though. The rules do make such things reasonably swift.
I'd not be surprised to see a nearly complete unknown run.
I can't see Boris resigning now (unless there's some additional facts revealed), nor can I see the party ousting him before the locals, as it's better to wait until after.0 -
There are certainly some rather oddly shaped bones lurking in the murky sediment at the bottom of the PB discourse.Daveyboy1961 said:
I would like to think that PB doesn't end up as Frog Soup.Stuartinromford said:
[Angus Deayton voice:]Mexicanpete said:
The precedent Mr Johnson sets if he does not resign for misleading Parliament which is now the key charge, and proven if the fines are accepted and not challenged, is outrageous. It allows any Minister or future Prime Minister can tell any old bollocks to Parliament without fear of the ultimate sanction.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sarah Jane Mee of Sky has said that the response to them from the public is evenly split on Boris resigning
I don't believe Mr Sunak has made that same grave error of misleading the House, nonetheless he now has a moral duty to go too. That would also put Mr Johnson under greater pressure. I wonder whether the removal vans at No 11 pre-empted his departure on the grounds of Partygate?
The Ministerial Code, Parliament and the Office of Prime Minister will be in disrepute if Johnson stays.
So no change there, then.
Seriously- since Summer 2019, BoJo has been gently boiling that frog perfectly until there is nothing left but frog soup.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-remarkably-weird-skeletons-of-frogs/0 -
I expect he won't be forced out as you suggest. Parking Starmer and Labour aside do you think that wilfully lying to parliament is a resignation offence?londonpubman said:Boris isn't going to resign.
He won't be forced out by his MPs.
Rishi may well do. He knows he is not going to become PM - that has not changed as a result of the fine - and he will be off back to business at GE 2024.
Boris MAY think about his own prospects in due course before the next GE. Per the expected boundary changes he needs to 'GAIN' his own seat. He may seek an alternative seat or may decide that 'ok time for a new leader for the election' but this won't happen for a while. Or he may stay to fight the GE.
In the meantime Starmer will remain an uninspiring wooden ideas-free option going forward and into the next GE. And the LAB team immediately behind Starmer and in the parliamentary party won't change.
It's not party time for LAB yet!1 -
Or read https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5Andy_JS said:"Sweden’s inconvenient Covid victory
Were millions of people denied freedom for nothing?
BY JOHAN ANDERBERG"
https://unherd.com/2022/04/swedens-inconvenient-covid-victory/
Which should we trust on matters of science? Nature or Unherd?
1 -
Fabricant and Swayne are 2 of a kind in this respect, they remind me of Hinge and Brackett!Stereodog said:God almighty can the BBC stop asking Michael Fabricant for a reaction on Partygate. It's like all those chat shoes who booked Oliver Reed knowing he'd turn up drunk and cause an amusing scene. Also doesn't do anything for the national blood pressure.
0 -
We are all in violent agreement, in varying degrees. (I confess to misinterpreting your initial comment - and I wholly agree with you.)BartholomewRoberts said:
Exactly!Stereodog said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.BartholomewRoberts said:
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.RochdalePioneers said:
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"BartholomewRoberts said:
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.RochdalePioneers said:
1. "I did not attend a party"BartholomewRoberts said:
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.mwadams said:
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.Applicant said:
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.mwadams said:
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.Applicant said:
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.ydoethur said:
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.BartholomewRoberts said:
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.RochdalePioneers said:
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.Nigelb said:On the whole misleading Parliament thing.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1513871655482929163
Rishi Sunak, 7 December 2021: “No, I did not attend any parties”
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
If he didn't think that was a party...
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
2. Fined for attending a party
3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
You can break the law even without a party.1 -
That you won't address the issue of the day is painfully funny.HYUFD said:
Only if Finland makes a formal request and Putin has then not invaded Finland before it formally joins NATOPeter_the_Punter said:
Finland will be joining NATO very soon, maybe in weeks but certainly months, so the question will soon be irrelevant.HYUFD said:
No, that would be Russia invading the Baltic States, Norway or Poland which already are in NATOrottenborough said:Russian invading Finland surely is the start of WWIII?
Btw, I agree with you that Boris is unlikely to resign. Personally I'm not sure he should. It's the wrong time, there's no obvious replacement, and Labour is still convalescing.
Labour will of course be very happy for him to stay on, but that's a different matter. Maybe if the Locals are truly dreadful things may change, and I do think there is a fair chance of this happening.
But for the moment, I don't see Boris getting off the pot.1 -
I think that’s what the last 2 weeks have been about.Taz said:
What if Sunak just resigned over this, presuming he did would that not totally undermine Johnson.HYUFD said:
Possibly PM Wallace or Javid or Truss by the end of the summer if true.Applicant said:
Two rounds of toast.dixiedean said:PM, Chancellor to get FPN according to BBC.
Though depends on how bad the polling and local election losses turn out to be for the Tories as to whether Johnson and Sunak survive
I also think Truss would doom you to a rout in 2024.
Just imagine if Rishi had said 2 weeks ago “I will resign if I get a FPN”
Now if he resigns it’s not “principled chancellor resigns, apologies for mistake, how long can Boris hang on”, it’s “tarnished chancellor resigns in shame and flees to California”1 -
Sue Gray evidence might tip things? I also wonder if Dom has any more ammo? Perhaps he likes adding straw by straw to the camel's back?0
-
I forgot Gove, which is daft of me.
He’s been keeping such a low profile.
Truss PM / Gove CoE would be a potent combo.
Strategically it is likely best to wait for the council elections and the Sue Gray report.1 -
And Mark Francois and Andrew Bridgen would grunt inarticulately.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Rees-Mogg would lament the tragic leading astray of a great man by a wayward teen; Blunt would call it the worst miscarriage of justice since Pontius Pilate; Dorries would say she has proof that he far prefers women of a certain age; and Fabricant would say that the safest place for the PM to be was in Number 10 rather than hanging around the school gates in retirement.IshmaelZ said:
I have reluctantly concluded that if Johnson was the one who was just convicted of molesting a 15 year old he would probably ride it outSirNorfolkPassmore said:
And here's your regular reminder that the UK changed PMs on the day Bucharest fell to the Kaiser, and the day Hitler invaded France (as well as while forces massed for the first Gulf War).Big_G_NorthWales said:Roger Gale, one of Boris's principal critics, has said that now is not the moment as we deal with Ukraine and the refugee crisis bit I do not think the PM will lead us into the next election
Without wishing to diminish the importance of the war in Ukraine and Britain's role as a (significant) non-combatant, the idea from Tory MPs that we can't possibly change PMs now is as ignorant of history as it is utterly spineless.1 -
A complete circumlocution, rather than addressing the point.Theuniondivvie said:
There are some enthusiastic Tory fluffers on here but for day in, day out assiduous defence of small and large C conservatism, you are the nonpareil. I salute you.MattW said:
What depressing kneejerk reactions. Truss was styled by the fashion lecturer who put on the exhibition:boulay said:
She’s a white bonnet away from full handmaid’s tale….Theuniondivvie said:Truss is just a fag paper away from hiring Annie Leibowitz to do a special on her (or more likely trying to get it done on the public's dollar).
Sophie photographed Elizabeth in her constituency, close to where she grew up and began her photography. The all-female team shot on location at Hockwold Hall, which also has a direct link to the suffragettes. Alongside photographing, Sophie also styled Elizabeth, using clothing from local graduate designers and stores. The final portrait features a dress created by Norwich University of the Arts graduate Kate Illingsworth.
https://www.wsc.ac.uk/about-the-college/news/4819-college-lecturer-photographs-liz-truss-for-209-women-initiative
Un peu excentrique...0 -
It isn't going to happen, because Russia has no idea whether NATO would treat it as an attack (I think it would) but if it did it would be a fascinating moment in the glorious military history of the EU.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Russia invading Finland would be WW111 at that moment and you really do not understand geopolitical politics at allHYUFD said:
No, that would be Russia invading the Baltic States, Norway or Poland which already are in NATOrottenborough said:Russian invading Finland surely is the start of WWIII?
0 -
Photographer on the scene [GRAPHIC IMAGE] in Brooklyn - reckons injured should make it:
https://twitter.com/derekcfrench/status/15138619029459025990 -
You've also Shapps, and Javid. Wouldn't discount Zahawi either who had a "good" pandemic.Gardenwalker said:I forgot Gove, which is daft of me.
He’s been keeping such a low profile.
Truss PM / Gove CoE would be a potent combo.
Strategically it is likely best to wait for the council elections and the Sue Gray report.0 -
Neither. There are no popes in science.bondegezou said:
Or read https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5Andy_JS said:"Sweden’s inconvenient Covid victory
Were millions of people denied freedom for nothing?
BY JOHAN ANDERBERG"
https://unherd.com/2022/04/swedens-inconvenient-covid-victory/
Which should we trust on matters of science? Nature or Unherd?1 -
Two MPs tell me that they do not want to trigger leadership contest because of the paucity of candidates. “Successors are all damaged, from national insurance or visas or silly remarks, that means an unpredictable contest and you can’t have that in a war,” one says.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1513894560258301964
So not so much "because of the war" but "because we might get a dud during a war" - Churchill was not obviously, or widely seen as a good bet when first appointed.....1 -
Jumping to conclusions based on Sunak getting an FPN and that’s the event he was at.Applicant said:Has anyone actually said that the Boris FPN is for the birthday cake/gathering/party, or is everyone just jumping to conclusions on that?
0 -
My feeling is that these will be questions for 2023, and that therefore Boris exit 2023 may be a bit of value.Gardenwalker said:This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.
2 -
Indeed. But the abstract of the Nature article focuses on comparison with Norway, which is always a red flag.YBarddCwsc said:
Neither. There are no popes in science.bondegezou said:
Or read https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5Andy_JS said:"Sweden’s inconvenient Covid victory
Were millions of people denied freedom for nothing?
BY JOHAN ANDERBERG"
https://unherd.com/2022/04/swedens-inconvenient-covid-victory/
Which should we trust on matters of science? Nature or Unherd?0 -
The Tory party, have no shame, there is no way in my opinion, that enough of them, will grow a backbone and submit letters to the 1922 chairman, the unprincipled liar, is here to stay, the only way to get rid is a general election, and even then I'm not sure it will happen, especially when you see such nonsense spouted on here about his success with Brexit, Brexit is an ongoing disaster, as for Ukraine, what the hell has he done any different than any other leader would have done, as for Covid, the billions that was wasted on track and trace, and the scandal off the ppe contracts handed out to their cronies, the liar should definitely go, but he wont4
-
If Mr Khan shows remorse does he deserve to avoid a custodial sentence and retain his seat in Parliament?HYUFD said:
Christianity is based on forgiveness as much as Old Testament condemnation, provided the perpetrator shows remorseOnlyLivingBoy said:
For an alleged Christian you have a remarkably transactional approach to the notion of right and wrong.HYUFD said:
Depends what the polls say over the next week. If he keeps the Labour lead under 10% he can stayHeathener said:An honest question for an honest answer:
Of all you right of centre posters on here, which always feels to me like a tidal surge, is there any one of you who does not think the Prime Minister should now resign?
Asking for a friend.2 -
Tadpole and Taper.Daveyboy1961 said:
Fabricant and Swayne are 2 of a kind in this respect, they remind me of Hinge and Brackett!Stereodog said:God almighty can the BBC stop asking Michael Fabricant for a reaction on Partygate. It's like all those chat shoes who booked Oliver Reed knowing he'd turn up drunk and cause an amusing scene. Also doesn't do anything for the national blood pressure.
0 -
I was about to post a theory along these lines so good to see it confirmed via sources.CarlottaVance said:Two MPs tell me that they do not want to trigger leadership contest because of the paucity of candidates. “Successors are all damaged, from national insurance or visas or silly remarks, that means an unpredictable contest and you can’t have that in a war,” one says.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1513894560258301964
So not so much "because of the war" but "because we might get a dud during a war" - Churchill was not obviously, or widely seen as a good bet when first appointed.....
The only way Boris goes is via a coronation, and the ONLY candidate who could achieve that in the near term (3-6 months) is Liz Truss.
Much as I think she is an over-promoted Johnson “lite”, she does have the ability to present as an uncontaminated new start.0 -
Yawn. The Nature piece is politics not science, and is a bunch of scientists whining that nobody realises how important they are.bondegezou said:
Or read https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5Andy_JS said:"Sweden’s inconvenient Covid victory
Were millions of people denied freedom for nothing?
BY JOHAN ANDERBERG"
https://unherd.com/2022/04/swedens-inconvenient-covid-victory/
Which should we trust on matters of science? Nature or Unherd?0 -
When was the last time you broke a law that you created and insisted everyone follow?Alanbrooke said:
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.Stereodog said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.BartholomewRoberts said:
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.RochdalePioneers said:
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"BartholomewRoberts said:
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.RochdalePioneers said:
1. "I did not attend a party"BartholomewRoberts said:
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.mwadams said:
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.Applicant said:
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.mwadams said:
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.Applicant said:
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.ydoethur said:
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.BartholomewRoberts said:
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.RochdalePioneers said:
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.Nigelb said:On the whole misleading Parliament thing.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1513871655482929163
Rishi Sunak, 7 December 2021: “No, I did not attend any parties”
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
If he didn't think that was a party...
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
2. Fined for attending a party
3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
You can break the law even without a party.
2 -
That is true, but there is peer review, which Nature uses and Unherd doesn’t.YBarddCwsc said:
Neither. There are no popes in science.bondegezou said:
Or read https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5Andy_JS said:"Sweden’s inconvenient Covid victory
Were millions of people denied freedom for nothing?
BY JOHAN ANDERBERG"
https://unherd.com/2022/04/swedens-inconvenient-covid-victory/
Which should we trust on matters of science? Nature or Unherd?0 -
However, as non-specialists, we should probably weight the peer reviewed journal higher than what people "reckon" on "the digital magazine of ideas, culture and opinion", as we interrogate the topic and draw our own conclusion.YBarddCwsc said:
Neither. There are no popes in science.bondegezou said:
Or read https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5Andy_JS said:"Sweden’s inconvenient Covid victory
Were millions of people denied freedom for nothing?
BY JOHAN ANDERBERG"
https://unherd.com/2022/04/swedens-inconvenient-covid-victory/
Which should we trust on matters of science? Nature or Unherd?0 -
How can you “accidentally punch” the boss?RochdalePioneers said:
I think that was my example. Employee is highly regarded, beats all KPIs at appraisal time then accidently punches the boss at a work dinner. Doesn't matter how highly you perform you're getting the sack and you're out the door with no notice and not even your bus fare home.BartholomewRoberts said:
As am I.northern_monkey said:I’m with Dunt:
Boris has been an excellent PM in the round, he has handled the biggest issues (Ukraine, Covid, Brexit) extremely well.
But lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
As an analogy, its like an excellent employee who hits all the KPIs who goes on a bender and attacks a colleague - it is gross misconduct, they have to go, even if they've been hitting their KPIs.
He has to go. How can HY defend this?
If you weee aiming for someone else you should resign regardless1 -
"We need to hang on to the liar because the rest of us are shit" is an interesting argument for a party to make.CarlottaVance said:Two MPs tell me that they do not want to trigger leadership contest because of the paucity of candidates. “Successors are all damaged, from national insurance or visas or silly remarks, that means an unpredictable contest and you can’t have that in a war,” one says.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1513894560258301964
So not so much "because of the war" but "because we might get a dud during a war" - Churchill was not obviously, or widely seen as a good bet when first appointed.....11 -
If Johnson rides out the next week, the next Parliament is his, unless the electorate decide otherwise.algarkirk said:
My feeling is that these will be questions for 2023, and that therefore Boris exit 2023 may be a bit of value.Gardenwalker said:This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.0 -
Blackford letter to PM:
Parliament must now be recalled so Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak can give their resignation statements, and MPs can hold this Tory government to account.
https://twitter.com/Ianblackford_MP/status/15138956066741985300 -
Labour did it with Corbyn....Nigelb said:
"We need to hang on to the liar because the rest of us are shit" is an interesting argument for a party to make.CarlottaVance said:Two MPs tell me that they do not want to trigger leadership contest because of the paucity of candidates. “Successors are all damaged, from national insurance or visas or silly remarks, that means an unpredictable contest and you can’t have that in a war,” one says.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1513894560258301964
So not so much "because of the war" but "because we might get a dud during a war" - Churchill was not obviously, or widely seen as a good bet when first appointed.....3 -
I'm wondering if Javid is back in play and worth backing now? I know he's had his own non-dom issues, but he's lanced the boil whilst attention was elsewhere.
I remain convinced that, if the Tories change leader before an election (a fairly big "if") it'll be for someone who is, or was until fairly recently, the holder of one of the great offices of state as it's a big punt choosing a PM (as opposed to LOTO) from outside that group. So I'm highly sceptical about Tugenhat, Mordaunt, and Wallace. Patel isn't a contender, Sunak has lost it completely and I can't see a route back in the medium term. The field is narrowing and Javid is beginning to look quite plausible to me.0 -
.
And specifically which part of that link has been reviewed which contradicts what was said in the Unherd piece?bondegezou said:
That is true, but there is peer review, which Nature uses and Unherd doesn’t.YBarddCwsc said:
Neither. There are no popes in science.bondegezou said:
Or read https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5Andy_JS said:"Sweden’s inconvenient Covid victory
Were millions of people denied freedom for nothing?
BY JOHAN ANDERBERG"
https://unherd.com/2022/04/swedens-inconvenient-covid-victory/
Which should we trust on matters of science? Nature or Unherd?
In hindsight Sweden handled Covid excellently. In hindsight we should have done the same, but hindsight is 20/20.1 -
The fines will make no difference.
Boris is GOING NOWHERE.0 -
Whilst at the same time, denying - in Parliament - you had broken that law you insisted everyone else follow. Where there is along-standing convention that if you lie, you depart. Is what is toxic.SouthamObserver said:
When was the last time you broke a law that you created and insisted everyone follow?Alanbrooke said:
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.Stereodog said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.BartholomewRoberts said:
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.RochdalePioneers said:
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"BartholomewRoberts said:
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.RochdalePioneers said:
1. "I did not attend a party"BartholomewRoberts said:
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.mwadams said:
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.Applicant said:
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.mwadams said:
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.Applicant said:
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.ydoethur said:
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.BartholomewRoberts said:
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.RochdalePioneers said:
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.Nigelb said:On the whole misleading Parliament thing.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1513871655482929163
Rishi Sunak, 7 December 2021: “No, I did not attend any parties”
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
If he didn't think that was a party...
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
2. Fined for attending a party
3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
You can break the law even without a party.1 -
In real life he is an atheist who is only a member of any church for image reasons.HYUFD said:
Mr Johnson is a Roman Catholic not C of ECarnyx said:
Trouble is that Mr Johnson, as with the ethics arrangements in HMG, is de facto boss of the extramural ethics dept aka the C of E.HYUFD said:
Christianity is based on forgiveness as much as Old Testament condemnation, provided the perpetrator shows remorseOnlyLivingBoy said:
For an alleged Christian you have a remarkably transactional approach to the notion of right and wrong.HYUFD said:
Depends what the polls say over the next week. If he keeps the Labour lead under 10% he can stayHeathener said:An honest question for an honest answer:
Of all you right of centre posters on here, which always feels to me like a tidal surge, is there any one of you who does not think the Prime Minister should now resign?2 -
It is certainly fair to say that the article has more to do with commentary than science. It feels out of place in Nature and is more suited to a more narrative journal.IshmaelZ said:
Yawn. The Nature piece is politics not science, and is a bunch of scientists whining that nobody realises how important they are.bondegezou said:
Or read https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5Andy_JS said:"Sweden’s inconvenient Covid victory
Were millions of people denied freedom for nothing?
BY JOHAN ANDERBERG"
https://unherd.com/2022/04/swedens-inconvenient-covid-victory/
Which should we trust on matters of science? Nature or Unherd?0 -
daft question Im not an MP. But Ill guarantee just about everyone on PB today has broken a law at some time.SouthamObserver said:
When was the last time you broke a law that you created and insisted everyone follow?Alanbrooke said:
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.Stereodog said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.BartholomewRoberts said:
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.RochdalePioneers said:
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"BartholomewRoberts said:
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.RochdalePioneers said:
1. "I did not attend a party"BartholomewRoberts said:
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.mwadams said:
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.Applicant said:
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.mwadams said:
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.Applicant said:
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.ydoethur said:
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.BartholomewRoberts said:
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.RochdalePioneers said:
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.Nigelb said:On the whole misleading Parliament thing.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1513871655482929163
Rishi Sunak, 7 December 2021: “No, I did not attend any parties”
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
If he didn't think that was a party...
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
2. Fined for attending a party
3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
You can break the law even without a party.0 -
An outcome I outlined below. I think it a good bet. 2024 is way to late to depose him. 2022 only happens if Ukraine gets a rapid result, one way or the other.algarkirk said:
My feeling is that these will be questions for 2023, and that therefore Boris exit 2023 may be a bit of value.Gardenwalker said:This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.
I expect Boris to - ultimately - announce that he will resign, in time for the new leader to be in place by Conference 2023.0 -
Boris Johnson did a fine thing when he walked through the streets of Kyiv with President Zelensky. It was a brave thing to do and the right thing to do. Clearly, it was also very much a one-off.
I would not be surprised if he tried to get someone else to pay the fine for him.0 -
From the Staggers, unpaywalled. It’s worth a read in full:
It’s now official. For the first time a British prime minister has been found to have committed a criminal act while in office…
…Johnson will not do the honourable thing and resign… But can even a politician as utterly shameless as he survive this ignominy? Can even this deeply compromised and corrupted Conservative parliamentary party ignore his egregious conduct?…
… Johnson’s apologists will protest that the Prime Minister cannot possibly be ousted in the midst of a war between Russia and Ukraine…
… Rishi Sunak’s implosion over his wife’s tax avoidance, and the fact that he himself has now been fined for attending lockdown parties, will make it even harder for Tory backbenchers to remove their leader… and there simply are no other plausible contenders in the cabinet. Liz Truss for prime minister, anyone? Priti Patel? It’s unlikely.
But the price the Tories would pay for protecting the Prime Minister would be enormous. How could they possibly set such a dreadful precedent, such a terrible example, by allowing a Prime Minister who has committed a crime and lied about it to remain in office? How could they possibly portray themselves as the party of law and order ever again? How could they possibly justify such a course to furious constituents who sacrificed so much, and who were unable to attend the deaths, funerals, weddings and births of loved ones during the lockdowns? Why should any British citizen trust, respect or listen to Johnson ever again?…
…As for the argument that Johnson should not be replaced in wartime, I would turn it on its head. How can we demonstrate the moral, practical and political superiority of Western democracy over Putin’s dictatorship if we spare a leader who breaks his own laws, lies to parliament and takes the people for fools?
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/04/we-cannot-have-a-criminal-prime-minister3 -
But since 2019, the Conservative Party has essentially been the Boris Cheerleading Corps; pretty much anyone showing a scintilla of independence of thought has either jumped or been pushed out.Nigelb said:
"We need to hang on to the liar because the rest of us are shit" is an interesting argument for a party to make.CarlottaVance said:Two MPs tell me that they do not want to trigger leadership contest because of the paucity of candidates. “Successors are all damaged, from national insurance or visas or silly remarks, that means an unpredictable contest and you can’t have that in a war,” one says.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1513894560258301964
So not so much "because of the war" but "because we might get a dud during a war" - Churchill was not obviously, or widely seen as a good bet when first appointed.....
And a lack of viable alternatives is excellent news for any incumbent more interested in their status than doing a good job. Mayor Boris could appoint competent "Deputies", becuase they weren't really deputies- they were never rivals for his position. PM Boris couldn't appoint the best ministers, becuase they might become a threat.0 -
maybe he will, the fates have not looked kindly on his period in office. he's had pestilence and war best leg it before famine and death get going.MarqueeMark said:
An outcome I outlined below. I think it a good bet. 2024 is way to late to depose him. 2022 only happens if Ukraine gets a rapid result, one way or the other.algarkirk said:
My feeling is that these will be questions for 2023, and that therefore Boris exit 2023 may be a bit of value.Gardenwalker said:This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.
I expect Boris to - ultimately - announce that he will resign, in time for the new leader to be in place by Conference 2023.0 -
It is an absolute disgrace this announcement of fines has been done during recess.CarlottaVance said:Blackford letter to PM:
Parliament must now be recalled so Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak can give their resignation statements, and MPs can hold this Tory government to account.
https://twitter.com/Ianblackford_MP/status/1513895606674198530
Sickening.2 -
In al fairness, Labour did at least have 2-3 half-arsed attempts at ditching Corbyn: vote of no confidence, leadership challenge (albeit with anyone serious lacking the balls to stand) and - 3, most tenuous - the IG breakaway.ozymandias said:
Labour did it with Corbyn....Nigelb said:
"We need to hang on to the liar because the rest of us are shit" is an interesting argument for a party to make.CarlottaVance said:Two MPs tell me that they do not want to trigger leadership contest because of the paucity of candidates. “Successors are all damaged, from national insurance or visas or silly remarks, that means an unpredictable contest and you can’t have that in a war,” one says.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1513894560258301964
So not so much "because of the war" but "because we might get a dud during a war" - Churchill was not obviously, or widely seen as a good bet when first appointed.....
The Conservatives can't muster 54 (was it?) anonymous letters. Labour would have been able to defenestrate Corbyn (and all indications are the PLP would have done so) under Conservative party rules.1 -
On top of this, Johnson the other day reserved the right to introduce a new lockdown if he deemed it fit.northern_monkey said:From the Staggers, unpaywalled. It’s worth a read in full:
It’s now official. For the first time a British prime minister has been found to have committed a criminal act while in office…
…Johnson will not do the honourable thing and resign… But can even a politician as utterly shameless as he survive this ignominy? Can even this deeply compromised and corrupted Conservative parliamentary party ignore his egregious conduct?…
… Johnson’s apologists will protest that the Prime Minister cannot possibly be ousted in the midst of a war between Russia and Ukraine…
… Rishi Sunak’s implosion over his wife’s tax avoidance, and the fact that he himself has now been fined for attending lockdown parties, will make it even harder for Tory backbenchers to remove their leader… and there simply are no other plausible contenders in the cabinet. Liz Truss for prime minister, anyone? Priti Patel? It’s unlikely.
But the price the Tories would pay for protecting the Prime Minister would be enormous. How could they possibly set such a dreadful precedent, such a terrible example, by allowing a Prime Minister who has committed a crime and lied about it to remain in office? How could they possibly portray themselves as the party of law and order ever again? How could they possibly justify such a course to furious constituents who sacrificed so much, and who were unable to attend the deaths, funerals, weddings and births of loved ones during the lockdowns? Why should any British citizen trust, respect or listen to Johnson ever again?…
…As for the argument that Johnson should not be replaced in wartime, I would turn it on its head. How can we demonstrate the moral, practical and political superiority of Western democracy over Putin’s dictatorship if we spare a leader who breaks his own laws, lies to parliament and takes the people for fools?
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/04/we-cannot-have-a-criminal-prime-minister
Surely he has no authority or credibility to do that whatsoever.1 -
In particular being caught lying to parliament.Alanbrooke said:
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.Stereodog said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.BartholomewRoberts said:
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.RochdalePioneers said:
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"BartholomewRoberts said:
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.RochdalePioneers said:
1. "I did not attend a party"BartholomewRoberts said:
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.mwadams said:
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.Applicant said:
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.mwadams said:
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.Applicant said:
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.ydoethur said:
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.BartholomewRoberts said:
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.RochdalePioneers said:
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.Nigelb said:On the whole misleading Parliament thing.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1513871655482929163
Rishi Sunak, 7 December 2021: “No, I did not attend any parties”
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
If he didn't think that was a party...
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
2. Fined for attending a party
3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
You can break the law even without a party.1 -
Fines in relation to June birthday party says Number 10.1
-
Its a fair point. Cursory run over worldometers suggests overall Sweden has had 5 x the death rate of Norway. However, it has a better rate than most of the big European nations, such as UK, France, Spain, Italy and so on. Worse than Germany.bondegezou said:
Or read https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5Andy_JS said:"Sweden’s inconvenient Covid victory
Were millions of people denied freedom for nothing?
BY JOHAN ANDERBERG"
https://unherd.com/2022/04/swedens-inconvenient-covid-victory/
Which should we trust on matters of science? Nature or Unherd?
I think its reasonable to consider how fair comparisons are. Is Sweden more like Norway or France?
I'd also ask how the citizens of Sweden feel about how the pandemic was handled.0 -
I just don't see what it is you believe about Johnson's character that makes you think he will ride it out to next year and quietly slip away then. He will hang on for grim life until forced out - surely that's a fundamental aspect of his who he is?MarqueeMark said:
An outcome I outlined below. I think it a good bet. 2024 is way to late to depose him. 2022 only happens if Ukraine gets a rapid result, one way or the other.algarkirk said:
My feeling is that these will be questions for 2023, and that therefore Boris exit 2023 may be a bit of value.Gardenwalker said:This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.
I expect Boris to - ultimately - announce that he will resign, in time for the new leader to be in place by Conference 2023.0 -
That's not exactly a flattering comparison, either.ozymandias said:
Labour did it with Corbyn....Nigelb said:
"We need to hang on to the liar because the rest of us are shit" is an interesting argument for a party to make.CarlottaVance said:Two MPs tell me that they do not want to trigger leadership contest because of the paucity of candidates. “Successors are all damaged, from national insurance or visas or silly remarks, that means an unpredictable contest and you can’t have that in a war,” one says.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1513894560258301964
So not so much "because of the war" but "because we might get a dud during a war" - Churchill was not obviously, or widely seen as a good bet when first appointed.....0 -
That's too positive about how the ordinary person in the street will regard anyone exploiting the non-dom rules, even if it was before becoming a MP.SirNorfolkPassmore said:I'm wondering if Javid is back in play and worth backing now? I know he's had his own non-dom issues, but he's lanced the boil whilst attention was elsewhere.
I remain convinced that, if the Tories change leader before an election (a fairly big "if") it'll be for someone who is, or was until fairly recently, the holder of one of the great offices of state as it's a big punt choosing a PM (as opposed to LOTO) from outside that group. So I'm highly sceptical about Tugenhat, Mordaunt, and Wallace. Patel isn't a contender, Sunak has lost it completely and I can't see a route back in the medium term. The field is narrowing and Javid is beginning to look quite plausible to me.0 -
Perhaps but not certainly. A 2023 situation in which Labour leads in the polls, as now only more so, could easily lead to the MPs preferring to take a chance on keeping their seats in 2024 by anointing Hunt or Tugendhat. I think Truss will have vanished by then. She is not a heavyweight. And everyone in the current cabinet shares the taint.Mexicanpete said:
If Johnson rides out the next week, the next Parliament is his, unless the electorate decide otherwise.algarkirk said:
My feeling is that these will be questions for 2023, and that therefore Boris exit 2023 may be a bit of value.Gardenwalker said:This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.
0 -
Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
·
10m
No 10: “The Met have now explained that the FPN issued to the PM will be in relation to the following incident: On 19 June 2020 at the Cabinet Room 10 Downing Street between 1400 and 1500 you participated in a gathering of two or more people indoors in the Cabinet Room at 10DS.”0 -
He has all the authority and credibility he needs. He's got a whole coral reef of invertebrates behind him.MISTY said:
On top of this, Johnson the other day reserved the right to introduce a new lockdown if he deemed it fit.northern_monkey said:From the Staggers, unpaywalled. It’s worth a read in full:
It’s now official. For the first time a British prime minister has been found to have committed a criminal act while in office…
…Johnson will not do the honourable thing and resign… But can even a politician as utterly shameless as he survive this ignominy? Can even this deeply compromised and corrupted Conservative parliamentary party ignore his egregious conduct?…
… Johnson’s apologists will protest that the Prime Minister cannot possibly be ousted in the midst of a war between Russia and Ukraine…
… Rishi Sunak’s implosion over his wife’s tax avoidance, and the fact that he himself has now been fined for attending lockdown parties, will make it even harder for Tory backbenchers to remove their leader… and there simply are no other plausible contenders in the cabinet. Liz Truss for prime minister, anyone? Priti Patel? It’s unlikely.
But the price the Tories would pay for protecting the Prime Minister would be enormous. How could they possibly set such a dreadful precedent, such a terrible example, by allowing a Prime Minister who has committed a crime and lied about it to remain in office? How could they possibly portray themselves as the party of law and order ever again? How could they possibly justify such a course to furious constituents who sacrificed so much, and who were unable to attend the deaths, funerals, weddings and births of loved ones during the lockdowns? Why should any British citizen trust, respect or listen to Johnson ever again?…
…As for the argument that Johnson should not be replaced in wartime, I would turn it on its head. How can we demonstrate the moral, practical and political superiority of Western democracy over Putin’s dictatorship if we spare a leader who breaks his own laws, lies to parliament and takes the people for fools?
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/04/we-cannot-have-a-criminal-prime-minister
Surely he has no authority or credibility to do that whatsoever.0 -
What about all the bloody other incidents?0
-
Of course peer review is much misunderstood by the lay community.bondegezou said:
That is true, but there is peer review, which Nature uses and Unherd doesn’t.YBarddCwsc said:
Neither. There are no popes in science.bondegezou said:
Or read https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5Andy_JS said:"Sweden’s inconvenient Covid victory
Were millions of people denied freedom for nothing?
BY JOHAN ANDERBERG"
https://unherd.com/2022/04/swedens-inconvenient-covid-victory/
Which should we trust on matters of science? Nature or Unherd?1 -
No, you're not an MP or the PM. That's the point.Alanbrooke said:
daft question Im not an MP. But Ill guarantee just about everyone on PB today has broken a law at some time.SouthamObserver said:
When was the last time you broke a law that you created and insisted everyone follow?Alanbrooke said:
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.Stereodog said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.BartholomewRoberts said:
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.RochdalePioneers said:
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"BartholomewRoberts said:
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.RochdalePioneers said:
1. "I did not attend a party"BartholomewRoberts said:
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.mwadams said:
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.Applicant said:
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.mwadams said:
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.Applicant said:
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.ydoethur said:
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.BartholomewRoberts said:
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.RochdalePioneers said:
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.Nigelb said:On the whole misleading Parliament thing.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1513871655482929163
Rishi Sunak, 7 December 2021: “No, I did not attend any parties”
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
If he didn't think that was a party...
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
2. Fined for attending a party
3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
You can break the law even without a party.
3 -
Bozza is going to roll the dice and hold a snap confidence vote isn’t he. Keep control of the narrative. A chance for heart felt apologies. And importantly the hope of turning the page.
0 -
Graun feed has just said:rottenborough said:What about all the bloody other incidents?
"But the Met has said that further fines may be issued (see 11.43am) and so it is not necessarily the case that these will be the last fines issued to Johnson, or his wife Carrie. (Rishi Sunak is not thought to have attended any other Partygate events, so this probably is his only one.)
It does seem as if the Met are working through cases event by event, rather than individual by individual."0 -
Bloody hell! The PM in the Cabinet Room. At 10 Downing Street? For an hour? What the hell was he doing there?rottenborough said:Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
·
10m
No 10: “The Met have now explained that the FPN issued to the PM will be in relation to the following incident: On 19 June 2020 at the Cabinet Room 10 Downing Street between 1400 and 1500 you participated in a gathering of two or more people indoors in the Cabinet Room at 10DS.”2 -
That's your point, I'm just enjoying the sweet ooze of hypocrisySouthamObserver said:
No, you're not an MP or the PM. That's the point.Alanbrooke said:
daft question Im not an MP. But Ill guarantee just about everyone on PB today has broken a law at some time.SouthamObserver said:
When was the last time you broke a law that you created and insisted everyone follow?Alanbrooke said:
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.Stereodog said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.BartholomewRoberts said:
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.RochdalePioneers said:
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"BartholomewRoberts said:
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.RochdalePioneers said:
1. "I did not attend a party"BartholomewRoberts said:
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.mwadams said:
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.Applicant said:
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.mwadams said:
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.Applicant said:
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.ydoethur said:
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.BartholomewRoberts said:
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.RochdalePioneers said:
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.Nigelb said:On the whole misleading Parliament thing.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1513871655482929163
Rishi Sunak, 7 December 2021: “No, I did not attend any parties”
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
If he didn't think that was a party...
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
2. Fined for attending a party
3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
You can break the law even without a party.0 -
I think it means "at some time between" not "for this period" but am not at all sure.ozymandias said:
Bloody hell! The PM in the Cabinet Room. At 10 Downing Street? For an hour? What the hell as he doing there?rottenborough said:Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
·
10m
No 10: “The Met have now explained that the FPN issued to the PM will be in relation to the following incident: On 19 June 2020 at the Cabinet Room 10 Downing Street between 1400 and 1500 you participated in a gathering of two or more people indoors in the Cabinet Room at 10DS.”0 -
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone mention “the Belgians” so much since this:Malmesbury said:
Long time back, there was a very good documentary series by the BBC on the Falklands. They got everyone involved at a senior level, except Galteri, Thatcher and Reagan to participate.CarlottaVance said:
The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility.Sean_F said:
I never understood the fuss about the Belgrano. Wars are not won by playing nice.Nigel_Foremain said:
Absolutely nothing. The Belgrano was part of a pincer movement that was a threat to the task force. The decision to sink was a tough one but militarily correct. The loss of life was exacerbated by the supporting Argentine vessels fleeing the scene.JohnLilburne said:
What did she mislead the house about?MISTY said:
Thatcher/Belgrano?HYUFD said:
Blair did not resign after misleading the House over WMD.RochdalePioneers said:
Direct question. The Prime Minister deliberately mislead the House. Repeatedly.HYUFD said:
Possibly PM Wallace or Javid or Truss by the end of the summer if true.Applicant said:
Two rounds of toast.dixiedean said:PM, Chancellor to get FPN according to BBC.
Though depends on how bad the polling and local election losses turn out to be for the Tories as to whether Johnson and Sunak survive
Do you think he should follow the Ministerial Code and resign?
The Commander of the Argentine Navy said the Belgians was in a mission to attack the task force. The captain of the Belgians said that he was on a mission to attack the task force. He also has instructions to attack any Royal Navy ships he happened across - such as submarines.
The U.K. government knew, because the NSA was sending decrypts of Argentine communications in real-time - the contents of these was disclosed by Julian Assange and Wikileaks, in one of their data dumps.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ty7qO_RCnWA3 -
I'm not sure I agree. He has had a pretty good war (except for refugees) and the pandemic was a bit mixed (definitely ignoring parties), but if neither were there it would be non stop brexit fallout. Currently any issue can be blamed on Russia, COVID or Brexit and only one of those can be definitely laid at Boris' door.Alanbrooke said:
maybe he will, the fates have not looked kindly on his period in office. he's had pestilence and war best leg it before famine and death get going.MarqueeMark said:
An outcome I outlined below. I think it a good bet. 2024 is way to late to depose him. 2022 only happens if Ukraine gets a rapid result, one way or the other.algarkirk said:
My feeling is that these will be questions for 2023, and that therefore Boris exit 2023 may be a bit of value.Gardenwalker said:This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.
I expect Boris to - ultimately - announce that he will resign, in time for the new leader to be in place by Conference 2023.0 -
Drinking Cobra?ozymandias said:
Bloody hell! The PM in the Cabinet Room. At 10 Downing Street? For an hour? What the hell was he doing there?rottenborough said:Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
·
10m
No 10: “The Met have now explained that the FPN issued to the PM will be in relation to the following incident: On 19 June 2020 at the Cabinet Room 10 Downing Street between 1400 and 1500 you participated in a gathering of two or more people indoors in the Cabinet Room at 10DS.”4 -
Tory backbencher: "We must wait and see how many fines each of them gets before we rush to judgment on their respective futures"Carnyx said:
Graun feed has just said:rottenborough said:What about all the bloody other incidents?
"But the Met has said that further fines may be issued (see 11.43am) and so it is not necessarily the case that these will be the last fines issued to Johnson, or his wife Carrie. (Rishi Sunak is not thought to have attended any other Partygate events, so this probably is his only one.)
It does seem as if the Met are working through cases event by event, rather than individual by individual."
0 -
So could be from 14:03 to 14:05 then? Technically.Carnyx said:
I think it means "at some time between" not "for this period" but am not at all sure.ozymandias said:
Bloody hell! The PM in the Cabinet Room. At 10 Downing Street? For an hour? What the hell as he doing there?rottenborough said:Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
·
10m
No 10: “The Met have now explained that the FPN issued to the PM will be in relation to the following incident: On 19 June 2020 at the Cabinet Room 10 Downing Street between 1400 and 1500 you participated in a gathering of two or more people indoors in the Cabinet Room at 10DS.”0 -
I forgot to say the GRaun feed says No 10 confirms it's the birthday do.rottenborough said:
Tory backbencher: "We must wait and see how many fines each of them gets before we rush to judgment on their respective futures"Carnyx said:
Graun feed has just said:rottenborough said:What about all the bloody other incidents?
"But the Met has said that further fines may be issued (see 11.43am) and so it is not necessarily the case that these will be the last fines issued to Johnson, or his wife Carrie. (Rishi Sunak is not thought to have attended any other Partygate events, so this probably is his only one.)
It does seem as if the Met are working through cases event by event, rather than individual by individual."
But I can't tell if your quote is serious or ironic - the way things are now.0 -
So the Police may not even have gotten to the 20 May 2020 event yet.dixiedean said:Fines in relation to June birthday party says Number 10.
0 -
There is a war going on.Heathener said:An honest question for an honest answer:
Of all you right of centre posters on here, which always feels to me like a tidal surge, is there any one of you who does not think the Prime Minister should now resign?
We can sack Boris later.0 -
Pretty well a requirement for voting Tory at the moment.Alanbrooke said:
....I'm just enjoying the sweet ooze of hypocrisySouthamObserver said:
No, you're not an MP or the PM. That's the point.Alanbrooke said:
daft question Im not an MP. But Ill guarantee just about everyone on PB today has broken a law at some time.SouthamObserver said:
When was the last time you broke a law that you created and insisted everyone follow?Alanbrooke said:
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.Stereodog said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.BartholomewRoberts said:
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.RochdalePioneers said:
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"BartholomewRoberts said:
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.RochdalePioneers said:
1. "I did not attend a party"BartholomewRoberts said:
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.mwadams said:
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.Applicant said:
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.mwadams said:
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.Applicant said:
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.ydoethur said:
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.BartholomewRoberts said:
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.RochdalePioneers said:
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.Nigelb said:On the whole misleading Parliament thing.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1513871655482929163
Rishi Sunak, 7 December 2021: “No, I did not attend any parties”
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
If he didn't think that was a party...
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
2. Fined for attending a party
3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
You can break the law even without a party.0 -
Indeed. See Dougie Ross for starters.Carnyx said:
He has all the authority and credibility he needs. He's got a whole coral reef of invertebrates behind him.MISTY said:
On top of this, Johnson the other day reserved the right to introduce a new lockdown if he deemed it fit.northern_monkey said:From the Staggers, unpaywalled. It’s worth a read in full:
It’s now official. For the first time a British prime minister has been found to have committed a criminal act while in office…
…Johnson will not do the honourable thing and resign… But can even a politician as utterly shameless as he survive this ignominy? Can even this deeply compromised and corrupted Conservative parliamentary party ignore his egregious conduct?…
… Johnson’s apologists will protest that the Prime Minister cannot possibly be ousted in the midst of a war between Russia and Ukraine…
… Rishi Sunak’s implosion over his wife’s tax avoidance, and the fact that he himself has now been fined for attending lockdown parties, will make it even harder for Tory backbenchers to remove their leader… and there simply are no other plausible contenders in the cabinet. Liz Truss for prime minister, anyone? Priti Patel? It’s unlikely.
But the price the Tories would pay for protecting the Prime Minister would be enormous. How could they possibly set such a dreadful precedent, such a terrible example, by allowing a Prime Minister who has committed a crime and lied about it to remain in office? How could they possibly portray themselves as the party of law and order ever again? How could they possibly justify such a course to furious constituents who sacrificed so much, and who were unable to attend the deaths, funerals, weddings and births of loved ones during the lockdowns? Why should any British citizen trust, respect or listen to Johnson ever again?…
…As for the argument that Johnson should not be replaced in wartime, I would turn it on its head. How can we demonstrate the moral, practical and political superiority of Western democracy over Putin’s dictatorship if we spare a leader who breaks his own laws, lies to parliament and takes the people for fools?
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/04/we-cannot-have-a-criminal-prime-minister
Surely he has no authority or credibility to do that whatsoever.0 -
Indeed yes. They'd be cleaning my vomit off walls all the way to the Faroe Islands.Gardenwalker said:I forgot Gove, which is daft of me.
He’s been keeping such a low profile.
Truss PM / Gove CoE would be a potent combo.
And that's without me leaving Cannock...0 -
Paul Waugh
@paulwaugh
·
13m
💥My snap analysis on today's Covid lockdown fines for Johnson and Sunak.
The Tories look like a party drunk on power, not just drunk on cheap Tesco suitcase booze
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/15139002951217438721 -
Of course, but I suspect Boris was hoping for a benign environment where he could play Lord Bountiful of Falstaff. Instead has landed a much meaner period of world history.kjh said:
I'm not sure I agree. He has had a pretty good war (except for refugees) and the pandemic was a bit mixed (definitely ignoring parties), but if neither were there it would be non stop brexit fallout. Currently any issue can be blamed on Russia, COVID or Brexit and only one of those can be definitely laid at Boris' door.Alanbrooke said:
maybe he will, the fates have not looked kindly on his period in office. he's had pestilence and war best leg it before famine and death get going.MarqueeMark said:
An outcome I outlined below. I think it a good bet. 2024 is way to late to depose him. 2022 only happens if Ukraine gets a rapid result, one way or the other.algarkirk said:
My feeling is that these will be questions for 2023, and that therefore Boris exit 2023 may be a bit of value.Gardenwalker said:This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.
I expect Boris to - ultimately - announce that he will resign, in time for the new leader to be in place by Conference 2023.0 -
Depends how quickly he can eat a generous slice of cake and neck the beer.ozymandias said:
So could be from 14:03 to 14:05 then? Technically.Carnyx said:
I think it means "at some time between" not "for this period" but am not at all sure.ozymandias said:
Bloody hell! The PM in the Cabinet Room. At 10 Downing Street? For an hour? What the hell as he doing there?rottenborough said:Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
·
10m
No 10: “The Met have now explained that the FPN issued to the PM will be in relation to the following incident: On 19 June 2020 at the Cabinet Room 10 Downing Street between 1400 and 1500 you participated in a gathering of two or more people indoors in the Cabinet Room at 10DS.”
Seriously, though, the copperese provided by the Met does need to be translated by someone who knows.0 -
I'm hoping against hope that all the top management of the DfE are still fired, even if the Met couldn't be bothered to fine them.rottenborough said:What about all the bloody other incidents?
0 -
A very good question given his unsuitability for office.ozymandias said:
Bloody hell! The PM in the Cabinet Room. At 10 Downing Street? For an hour? What the hell was he doing there?rottenborough said:Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
·
10m
No 10: “The Met have now explained that the FPN issued to the PM will be in relation to the following incident: On 19 June 2020 at the Cabinet Room 10 Downing Street between 1400 and 1500 you participated in a gathering of two or more people indoors in the Cabinet Room at 10DS.”2 -
pretty well a requirement for politicsNigelb said:
Pretty well a requirement for voting Tory at the moment.Alanbrooke said:
....I'm just enjoying the sweet ooze of hypocrisySouthamObserver said:
No, you're not an MP or the PM. That's the point.Alanbrooke said:
daft question Im not an MP. But Ill guarantee just about everyone on PB today has broken a law at some time.SouthamObserver said:
When was the last time you broke a law that you created and insisted everyone follow?Alanbrooke said:
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.Stereodog said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.BartholomewRoberts said:
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.RochdalePioneers said:
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"BartholomewRoberts said:
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.RochdalePioneers said:
1. "I did not attend a party"BartholomewRoberts said:
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.mwadams said:
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.Applicant said:
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.mwadams said:
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.Applicant said:
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.ydoethur said:
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.BartholomewRoberts said:
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.RochdalePioneers said:
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.BartholomewRoberts said:
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.Nigelb said:On the whole misleading Parliament thing.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1513871655482929163
Rishi Sunak, 7 December 2021: “No, I did not attend any parties”
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
If he didn't think that was a party...
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
2. Fined for attending a party
3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
You can break the law even without a party.1
