Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And if he hadn’t signed off the proposal?

He could have disagreed…

Then he would have intervened....

---------- Post added at 07:32 ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You hold multiple and contradictory positions on this.

Position No. 1


Position No. 2

I repeat. I said from what we know.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I repeat. I said from what we know.

Innocent from what we know is not the same as wait for the report.

And on that point, the fact that Sue Gray had to refer the report to the Metropolitan Police suggests something far removed from your overly optimistic speculation. If she had found nothing untoward, the Metropolitan Police would not be investigating. That's not speculation, that's based upon her terms of reference.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Then he would have intervened....

---------- Post added at 07:32 ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 ----------



I repeat. I said from what we know.

Let me try and explain it for the hard of understanding…

If he did nothing, it would have not happened, and nothing would have changed from the original situation.

He did something (authorised it), it happened - intervention.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Innocent from what we know is not the same as wait for the report.

And on that point, the fact that Sue Gray had to refer the report to the Metropolitan Police suggests something far removed from your overly optimistic speculation. If she had found nothing untoward, the Metropolitan Police would not be investigating. That's not speculation, that's based upon her terms of reference.

How about innocent until proven guilty? A cornerstone of the British judicial system.

Are the Met investigating the parties or Johnson?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Let me try and explain it for the hard of understanding…

If he did nothing, it would have not happened, and nothing would have changed from the original situation.

He did something (authorised it), it happened - intervention.

I think your patience here far exceeds the usual reasonable adjustments required by law.

---------- Post added at 13:02 ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 ----------

Breaking News Boris Johnson has dismissed claims he approved the airlift of animals out of Afghanistan, saying they are "total rhubarb".

https://news.sky.com/story/total-rhu...istan-12526582

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Innocent from what we know is not the same as wait for the report.

And on that point, the fact that Sue Gray had to refer the report to the Metropolitan Police suggests something far removed from your overly optimistic speculation. If she had found nothing untoward, the Metropolitan Police would not be investigating. That's not speculation, that's based upon her terms of reference.

Well, that’s much more ‘enlightened’ than making your mind up that he was guilty on the basis of allegations only. I am prepared to concede that the report and/or the police investigation may confirm the views you have. I am not being dogmatic as some of you guys are.

I don’t accept your conclusion in the last paragraph. Clearly, she found something for the police to take into account or investigate. That on its own doesn’t making him guilty either.

Originally Posted by pip08456

How about innocent until proven guilty? A cornerstone of the British judicial system.

Are the Met investigating the parties or Johnson?

I agree with the "innocent until proven guilty", but we are allowed opinions, and my opinion that Johnson is lying is based on the facts we know - he’s a proven liar (been fired a couple of times for lying), he is consistently dishonest (cheating on his wife multiple times, and on his current wife when they were not yet married), he has repeatedly failed to declare interests in the Members’ Register, there were the pictures of them in the garden eating cheese & wine during the lockdown, his admission that he was in a room with around 30 others who had gathered to sing "happy birthday" and eat cake and M&S snacks at a time when this wasn’t allowed, and many other examples.

When it walks like a lying duck, and sounds like a lying duck, it’s usually a lying duck…

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, that’s much more ‘enlightened’ than making your mind up that he was guilty on the basis of allegations only. I am prepared to concede that the report and/or the police investigation may confirm the views you have. I am not being dogmatic as some of you guys are.

I don’t accept your conclusion in the last paragraph. Clearly, she found something for the police to take into account or investigate. That on its own doesn’t making him guilty either.

There is no way that Boris will be prosecuted or fined as it is pretty clear from what we know that there is insufficient evidence to do so

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I agree with the "innocent until proven guilty", but we are allowed opinions, and my opinion that Johnson is lying is based on the facts we know - he’s a proven liar (been fired a couple of times for lying), he is consistently dishonest (cheating on his wife multiple times, and on his current wife when they were not yet married), he has repeatedly failed to declare interests in the Members’ Register, there were the pictures of them in the garden eating cheese & wine during the lockdown, his admission that he was in a room with around 30 others who had gathered to sing "happy birthday" and eat cake and M&S snacks at a time when this wasn’t allowed, and many other examples.

When it walks like a lying duck, and sounds like a lying duck, it’s usually a lying duck…

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------

Unless you’re just holding the picture up the wrong way!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Unless you’re just holding the picture up the wrong way!

Getting your excuse in early, I see…

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I agree with the "innocent until proven guilty", but we are allowed opinions, and my opinion that Johnson is lying is based on the facts we know - he’s a proven liar (been fired a couple of times for lying), he is consistently dishonest (cheating on his wife multiple times, and on his current wife when they were not yet married), he has repeatedly failed to declare interests in the Members’ Register, there were the pictures of them in the garden eating cheese & wine during the lockdown, his admission that he was in a room with around 30 others who had gathered to sing "happy birthday" and eat cake and M&S snacks at a time when this wasn’t allowed, and many other examples.

When it walks like a lying duck, and sounds like a lying duck, it’s usually a lying duck…



---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------



Quote:
There is no way that Boris will be prosecuted or fined as it is pretty clear from what we know that there is insufficient evidence to do so

From what we know….

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

From what we know….

Gray ja vu.

[Carth]

Christ, is this farce still ongoing?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by pip08456

How about innocent until proven guilty? A cornerstone of the British judicial system.

Are the Met investigating the parties or Johnson?

The cake is the priority.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Carth

Christ, is this farce still ongoing?

Said the last one to leave the party....

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

Christ, is this farce still ongoing?

Yup, like a bad children's party, the clown's refusing to leave although the jokes have worn thin.