Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

[jfman]

The police don’t investigate the crimes of rich people in this country.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jfman

The police don’t investigate the crimes of rich people in this country.

best keep your head down then

The police don't want to investigate is more like it.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

How do you draw that conclusion? I am advocating waiting for the result of the inquiry before making a decision.

You lot have found him guilty before you have all the facts. But of course you are always right regardless, eh?

I "drew that conclusion" when you posted

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Ha ha! You find this trivia serious?

Well, if this is the most serious issue you think this world faces, you really need to get a grip, Andrew.

These were work colleagues who were together because the government can’t just stop functioning. If they met for drinks afterwards, where is the harm?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I certainly don’t support everything Boris does - he’s often embarrassing to watch and his behaviour is sometimes open to question.

However, I don’t judge Prime Ministers by such trivia, I judge them by results, as will most of the electorate when the election comes around.

By the way, it was the scientists that pushed Boris into the lockdown rules. His heart was never really in it, was it?

btw, you never responded to my question - if he wasn’t there, why doesn’t just say so? He wouldn’t be prejudicing any Enquiry outcomes, and he would clear his own name.

Originally Posted by Mick

Added a simple poll to the thread - Should Boris Johnson now resign?

Now ? No.
Atm, its an allegation, nothing more.

Last I checked, we are still innocent until proven guilty in the UK.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Ordinarily, you'd be right. But in this case, Boris refused to say whether he was at the 100 invitation party; he could have said "No".

Yes, but why spoil the fun of seeing the disappointment on the benches opposite when/if he’s exonerated? He has a policy of not speaking about his personal activities.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, but why spoil the fun of seeing the disappointment on the benches opposite when/if he’s exonerated? He has a policy of not speaking about his personal activities.

Stop OB, my sides are hurting from laughing.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

The police don’t investigate the crimes of rich people in this country.

That doesn’t explain the Cliff Richard investigation, or many others that you will be well aware of. It simply isn’t true.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

He has a policy of not speaking about his personal activities.

How is this a personal activity when it involved his work office and staff??

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That doesn’t explain the Cliff Richard investigation, or many others that you will be well aware of. It simply isn’t true.

I’m sure even in banana republics they throw a few to the lions to spare the great and the good. For every Cliff Richard there’s a Jimmy Saville.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I "drew that conclusion" when you posted





btw, you never responded to my question - if he wasn’t there, why doesn’t just say so? He wouldn’t be prejudicing any Enquiry outcomes, and he would clear his own name.

The inquiry will clear him. Just as the inquiry about his expenses cleared him.

If he said he wasn’t at that party, would you believe him? It would only lead to further questions.

As I said before, why give these blowhards the oxygen they crave? It will be satisfying enough to see their deflated looks when the inquiry exonerates him. Assuming it does, of course. If it doesn’t, he will have to consider his position before others do it for him.

---------- Post added at 19:22 ---------- Previous post was at 19:19 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m sure even in banana republics they throw a few to the lions to spare the great and the good. For every Cliff Richard there’s a Jimmy Saville.

You really think that?

---------- Post added at 19:23 ---------- Previous post was at 19:22 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

How is this a personal activity when it involved his work office and staff??

It’s no business of the Labour Party’s.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I am advocating waiting for the result of the inquiry before making a decision.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The inquiry will clear him.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You really think that?

100% corruption goes to the core of the British state. It wears both blue and red lapels. It holds high ranking positions in the police, the judiciary and the media. And it looks after it’s own.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It’s no business of the Labour Party’s.

The Prime Minister (Johnson or anyone else) is not an absolute monarch or dictator (hopefully). They are supposed to be a public servant.

It's as much Labour's right to question the behaviour of our Prime Minister as it is mine, yours or anyone else's. That's true no matter which party is in power or who the current Prime Minister is.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, but why spoil the fun of seeing the disappointment on the benches opposite when/if he’s exonerated? He has a policy of not speaking about his personal activities.

I'm at a loss to understand why you set your self up for the fall like this. It's past the point of any belief in his exoneration if it occurs. The investigation will become discredited if a witness or two come forward to say he was there and the investigation says he wasn't.

Quite simply, his word is not trusted and that's fatal in politics.