Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

[QUOTE=OLD BOY;36118214]Are we actually interested in the evidence or is this just a personal vendetta?

He's in charge..

---------- Post added at 19:36 ---------- Previous post was at 19:35 ----------

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I’ve given my opinion, sure, but I have always maintained that it is for the police to judge whether or not that is correct.

You, however, seem to have abandoned any notion of proof before judgement, which I find rather worrying. Let’s hope you are never falsely accused of anything.

The irony. You've just done exactly that.

[OLD BOY]

[QUOTE=Maggy;36118221]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Are we actually interested in the evidence or is this just a personal vendetta?

He's in charge..

---------- Post added at 19:36 ---------- Previous post was at 19:35 ----------

But apparently, he didn’t know. So that makes him guilty. Yes, whatever!

---------- Post added at 23:31 ---------- Previous post was at 23:29 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The irony. You've just done exactly that.

You’re twisting it again Andrew. There’s no point in discussing stuff if it’s just a game to you.

For the umpteenth time, we must await due process. That’s how it works and that’s what most democratic, fair minded people expect

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You’re twisting it again Andrew. There’s no point in discussing stuff if it’s just a game to you.

For the umpteenth time, we must await due process. That’s how it works and that’s what most democratic, fair minded people expect

Which is all well and good, but also very much at odds with this:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, and the conclusion of the police investigation.

Boris has not been personally implicated so far, much to the disappointment of his detractors.

It’s all beginning to look like fluff, wouldn’t you say, Hugh?

… 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.

[1andrew1]

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.

Exactly

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

"Let's wait until the Sue Gray report is published" is what Old Boys tells us all to do but then he breaks those rules himself!

Reminds me of something else.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You’re twisting it again Andrew. There’s no point in discussing stuff if it’s just a game to you.

For the umpteenth time, we must await due process. That’s how it works and that’s what most democratic, fair minded people expect

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…

Johnson said he attended the gathering for 25 minutes and believed it “was a work event,” adding that “with hindsight I should have sent everyone back inside."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberth...h=5f5678e65777

[OLD BOY]

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 ----------

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.

[1andrew1]

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.

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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.

One can defend a person who has not been found guilty by saying wait for the outcome of an investigation. That would not be trying to be on both sides of a barrier.
You can also state information in support of the defendant where the outcome is still unknown/unpublished.
There are far bigger things to sort out at the moment and for our government and parliament to focus on than some infringement of a rule about parties. If found to have broken the rules then they get fined like anyone else, if the country thinks something further is required it will say so in the next ballot.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

There are far bigger things to sort out at the moment and for our government and parliament to focus on than some infringement of a rule about parties. If found to have broken the rules then they get fined like anyone else, if the country thinks something further is required it will say so in the next ballot.

It's not about rules infringement, it's about the break-down in trust between government and the governed. That's pretty fundamental.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's not about rules infringement, it's about the break-down in trust between government and the governed. That's pretty fundamental.

My trust in the Government ended somewhere in the early 1970's.
I appreciate that I may be alone in this, and many many people still believe that politicians (car salesmen, solicitors,TV advert etc) are honest and truthful in all they do and say.

Originally Posted by Carth

My trust in the Government ended somewhere in the early 1970's.

I'm impressed you ever trusted them at all.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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.

Andrew, in your mind he is guilty and you say that without having all the facts yet. I am simply presenting the alternative scenario, which you don’t seem to want to contemplate.

I’m not saying that scenario is correct, because I don’t know any more than you do, but my main message is to wait until we have all the facts. I find it amazing that such a straight forward concept as that is so hard to grasp. It’s surely what you’d say if you were accused of something you didn’t do.

I really do think that you want to argue rather than discuss. You may be right sometimes, but not all the time, much like everyone else.

---------- Post added at 13:35 ---------- Previous post was at 13:31 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's not about rules infringement, it's about the break-down in trust between government and the governed. That's pretty fundamental.

Yes, as a result of the big deal Starmer has been making out of all this. Who do you think people will trust if the end result shows that Boris was not complicit?

All of your arguments are based on your fixed belief that Boris is guilty. Even though you don’t have all the facts. Incredible.

---------- Post added at 13:35 ---------- Previous post was at 13:35 ----------

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

One can defend a person who has not been found guilty by saying wait for the outcome of an investigation. That would not be trying to be on both sides of a barrier.
You can also state information in support of the defendant where the outcome is still unknown/unpublished.
There are far bigger things to sort out at the moment and for our government and parliament to focus on than some infringement of a rule about parties. If found to have broken the rules then they get fined like anyone else, if the country thinks something further is required it will say so in the next ballot.

Well said, tweetie.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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.

This is a compound situation on several fronts.

First, there’s OB and his preference not to throw stones at Boris unless the Sue Gray report indicts Boris.

Then there’s Boris who, conscious of his public image, may well have sought advice as to how far he could go in his own home. The CPS will undoubtedly give weight to the”his home” factor.

Then there’s the fact that Boris did know about the parties going on in his home. Sue Gray ought to have found out whether or not Boris queried the legality of such parties; that makes a difference. In any case, he should have put a stop to it after the first non-attending party of which he became aware.

I now expect OB to reply “Well said, Seph”.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

This is a compound situation on several fronts.

First, there’s OB and his preference not to throw stones at Boris unless the Sue Gray report indicts Boris.

Then there’s Boris who, conscious of his public image, may well have sought advice as to how far he could go in his own home. The CPS will undoubtedly give weight to the”his home” factor.

Then there’s the fact that Boris did know about the parties going on in his home. Sue Gray ought to have found out whether or not Boris queried the legality of such parties; that makes a difference. In any case, he should have put a stop to it after the first non-attending party of which he became aware.

I now expect OB to reply “Well said, Seph”.

Is it a ‘fact’ that Boris knew? The first thing the police will be doing is finding out whether he did know. Although I have to say, even if he did, he would not get a fine if he wasn’t present. If he knew that the events he did attend were parties, he will be in trouble.