Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
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?[COLOR="Silver"]
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.
|
Old Boy, disappointingly, you're still doing precisely what Chris outlined earlier - trying to be on both sides of the barrier.
You can either try and defend Johnson (as you have done above above) or you can say wait until the Sue Gray report. You can't do both.
And if you're taking the approach of waiting upon due process, calling the fact that Starmer was cleared of any wrong doing an excuse shows that you won't respect due process if the outcome doesn't confirm to your pre-judgments anyway.
It comes across to me that you're not genuinely signed up to this wait until the Sue Gray report philosophy. You're just using it to try and bat away criticism of the No 10 parties.