Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36109201)

Why so? Because your average member of the public does not set the rules, nor do they stand up in Parliament and advise the House that they condemned parties that took place at their house and then subsequently admit to being at one.

The issues here are rule-breaking, honesty and poor decision-making. Not features you want from someone in the highest position of authority.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36109201)

False equivalence. Having Aunt Maud and Uncle Bill over for a cheeky prosecco in the garden was not comparable. And even Johnson is not daft enough to patronise the British public with such an excuse.

Why so? Because your average member of the public does not set the rules, nor do they stand up in Parliament and advise the House that they condemned parties that took place at their house and then subsequently admit to being at one.

The issues here are rule-breaking, honesty and poor decision-making. Not features you want from someone in the highest position of authority.

The only moving-on will be done by Johnson. Either this summer when the 1922 Committee gets enough votes to run a leadership challenge, or in 2024's general election.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36109201)

Why so? Because your average member of the public does not set the rules, nor do they stand up in Parliament and advise the House that they condemned parties that took place at their house and then subsequently admit to being at one.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36109206)

The numbers are almost certainly there, it’s just when the nudge goes in from the runners and riders to make a move. Knee deep in the current wave of Covid, energy bills, inflation. It’s a rocky start for anyone, and leaving the bumbling fool in place for a few weeks or months might actually be a prudent move to allow the next PM to draw a line under all of it with BoJo.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36109194)

I wonder if all those calling for heads to roll would be willing to be subject to investigation and prosecution for past events in quite the same way. "You have been found guilty of an event with 7 people attending when the limit was 6 on the evening of 21 May 2020, £200 fine."


If the event was illegal then prosecute accordingly, if not then so what? Foolish, insensitive all possible but investigate, deal and move on.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36109209)

All true, but there is also a whole shovel full of hypocrisy around. Certainly I don't know how Beth Rigby has the front to be reporting on it.

Originally Posted by BenMcr (Post 36109215)

Priti Patel used to be quite keen on investigating and prosecuting lockdown breaches, but suddenly isn't - wonder what's different?

https://www.indy100.com/politics/pri...olice-b1992164

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36109216)

Not sure what Rigby did but she's not the Prime Minister.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Not a great decision for a journalist!

Quote:
Sky News presenter Kay Burley and three colleagues have been taken off air while an investigation into breaches of Covid guidelines is carried out.

Political editor Beth Rigby, north of England correspondent Inzamam Rashid and presenter Sam Washington are also off air while the inquiry takes place.

BBC media editor Amol Rajan said Burley's job is hanging in the balance.

It follows her admission that she "broke the rules" while celebrating her 60th birthday at the weekend.

The journalist said she could "only apologise" for her "error of judgment".

Amol Rajan said she was one of a party of 10 people at the Century Club, a private members' club on London's Shaftesbury Avenue. Her group took up two tables, with six people on one and four on the other.

Burley then went onto Folie restaurant, where she used the toilet, before moving on to a private residence where individuals from at least three households mixed, Rajan said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55245914

Originally Posted by Julian (Post 36109224)

LINK ;)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36109216)

Not sure what Rigby did but she's not the Prime Minister.

In terms of hypocrisy, didn't Johnson call out Rita Orr for holding a party for 30 people? And Patel said she would happily grass her neighbours up if they broke the rules?

---------- Post added at 12:31 ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 ----------


Did she not also advocate stripping dual national convicted criminals of their British nationality? ;)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36109229)

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36109231)

"Suspended" is pushing it. She was taken off air while it blew over. No doubt on full pay.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36109229)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36109234)

Perhaps, since they were all colleagues, she implicitly believed it was a work meeting?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36109246)

Fair enough, she didn't lose her job over it though.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36109246)

Fair enough, she didn't lose her job over it though.