Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Which is all well and good, but also very much at odds with this:
… in which you’re clearly trying to steer the discussion towards your preferred conclusion even though you acknowledge due process is ongoing.
Make your mind up which side of the barricade you’re on, because you can’t be on both at once.
|
I'm actually attempting to make people think about finding him guilty before they have the evidence. That is all. What's wrong with that?
---------- Post added at 07:24 ---------- Previous post was at 07:18 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
Strangely enough, being ignorant of the law is no excuse (especially when you implemented the rules & repeatedly reminded everyone in daily broadcasts to follow the rules)
And especially when in hindsight you admit you realised you were breaking the rules…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberth...h=5f5678e65777
|
Nobody (apart from the witching brigade) has said he didn't know the law. What the PM himself has said is that he didn't realise that any of the events he attended were parties. He thought they were all directly connected to the work (and breaks from work, such as the Starmer 'excuse').
On that 25 minute session in his garden, for example, he was told by his aides that he might want to say a few words to thank the team for their work during the epidemic, which he did. If it continued as a social event, you can see how he may not have known about that, because he was himself at work.
The hindsight he talked about was along the lines of 'If I knew then what I know now', Starmer-like.