Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

How would that compare to Johnson being fined and not resigning?

Even for a Johnson defender, you must eventually accept that resigning once given an FPN has more integrity than remaining in position after receiving one.

Why would anyone in their right mind quit their job over a fpn.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Why would anyone in their right mind quit their job over a fpn.

If you were the one that made the rules you might. It would make you a hypocrite.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Why would anyone in their right mind quit their job over a fpn.

In my mind, that's the wrong question.

The question to me should be: Why should anyone keep their job after breaking the law they made? They're either a law-breaker or incompetent. Both rule you out as good PM material.

And if you're a rule-breaker who supported the PM's lock-down legislation, you would be hypocritical if you didn't take your own advice. Mick has been right to point out that Starmer asked Johnson to step down following the investigation but has not taken that advice himself following the investigation into Beergate.

[Julian]

Some interesting stories going around about Beer Gate tonight.

starmer and the other revellers have all received FPNs and appealed them. They've also slapped an injunction on the MSM to stop them reporting on the story……

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

Obviously, if Starmer is fined he should resign (and looks like he will) but no one should take any lectures from supporters of Boris Johnson about this. We should hold politicians to a higher standard than they do for their mate Boris.

---------- Post added at 21:17 ---------- Previous post was at 21:16 ----------



Well if he resigns then that's more integrity than Boris Johnson.

Boris was fined for being in possession of a birthday cake.

The Boris haters are stretching it to the max to get us to believe he should resign over this.

He won’t, and nor should he.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Julian

Some interesting stories going around about Beer Gate tonight.

starmer and the other revellers have all received FPNs and appealed them. They've also slapped an injunction on the MSM to stop them reporting on the story……

That story fails to make sense to me as my understanding is you can't appeal a fixed penalty notice.

If you do not agree that you are guilty of the offence you can request a Court hearing.

There's a public interest here so I can't see the courts issuing a reporting ban.

Is there a good link to this story? It just doesn't seem to add up.

---------- Post added at 00:02 ---------- Previous post was at 00:00 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Boris was fined for being in possession of a birthday cake.

The Boris haters are stretching it to the max to get us to believe he should resign over this.

He won’t, and nor should he.

He wasn't fined for being in possession of a birthday cake, Old Boy. it was the presence of non-work colleagues that made this event a non-work gathering which therefore breached Johnson's own rules.

Originally Posted by Damien

He advocated for laws that saw people criminalised. He broke those laws he should go. The only mugs here would be the people who defend a situation where they have to obey laws that those who opposed them broke.

Technically, they’re not criminals once fine is paid, their potential criminality is waived. You cannot be labelled a criminal, if you ain’t got a criminal record.

But let’s get some reality check here. They were Stupid, mundane laws, he received a birthday cake, he’s not Jack the flaming Ripper.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

How would that compare to Johnson being fined and not resigning?

Even for a Johnson defender, you must eventually accept that resigning once given an FPN has more integrity than remaining in position after receiving one.

Johnson is, as Johnson is.

I don’t recall him promoting himself as virtuous.

I personally think the whole thing is irreverent given the other issues we are currently having to deal with but if he gets a FPN, Starmer finds himself in a position of his own design.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

]
He wasn't fined for being in possession of a birthday cake, Old Boy. it was the presence of non-work colleagues that made this event a non-work gathering which therefore breached Johnson's own rules.

What, two people who were in regular contact with the PM all the time - his wife and a designer advising on a government property (no 10 itself?). Even BJ's own advisors did not believe that broke the rules.

But I'm not surprised you are attempting to hype this up out of all proportion to the 'offence'. You may say he broke his own rules. Others may claim tbat he didn't and the police misjudged the situation, not for the first time. The Met has form for getting things wrong. They are now in special measures.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What, two people who were in regular contact with the PM all the time - his wife and a designer advising on a government property (no 10 itself?). Even BJ's own advisors did not believe that broke the rules.

But I'm not surprised you are attempting to hype this up out of all proportion to the 'offence'. You may say he broke his own rules. Others may claim tbat he didn't and the police misjudged the situation, not for the first time. The Met has form for getting things wrong. They are now in special measures.

I'm not hyping anything, I'm correcting your misinformation that he was fined for receiving a cake. You may not agree with his fine (he accepted it though) but it was not given for receiving cake.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What, two people who were in regular contact with the PM all the time - his wife and a designer advising on a government property (no 10 itself?). Even BJ's own advisors did not believe that broke the rules.

But I'm not surprised you are attempting to hype this up out of all proportion to the 'offence'. You may say he broke his own rules. Others may claim tbat he didn't and the police misjudged the situation, not for the first time. The Met has form for getting things wrong. They are now in special measures.

Oh, so now it's the Met's fault that Boris broke the very rules that he made?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm not hyping anything, I'm correcting your misinformation that he was fined for receiving a cake. You may not agree with his fine (he accepted it though) but it was not given for receiving cake.

You’re not correcting anything. Yes he was, the specific incident in which he received a cake was the reason he was fined by the MET, stop telling others are wrong, when you clearly are.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

You’re not correcting anything. Yes he was, the specific incident in which he received a cake was the reason he was fined by the MET, stop telling others are wrong, when you clearly are.

I absolutely agree that the specific gathering he was fined at was the one he received a cake.

However, the FPN was not for receiving a cake but for the gathering being deemed unlawful due to non-work people being present.

[tweetiepooh]

I just wish this could all be left alone. Both were likely unwise but a FPN really isn't a resigning matter.
And then the press calling these incidents ????gate. Firstly very few modern "gates" are anywhere close to Watergate and I wonder how many people today really understand or remember what Watergate was about.
Personally I'd like to see the spiteful little weasels who "leak" all this information identified and questioned on their motives. In neither case does it seem to be much in the way of protecting the public from a major risk.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

I just wish this could all be left alone. Both were likely unwise but a FPN really isn't a resigning matter.
And then the press calling these incidents ????gate. Firstly very few modern "gates" are anywhere close to Watergate and I wonder how many people today really understand or remember what Watergate was about.
Personally I'd like to see the spiteful little weasels who "leak" all this information identified and questioned on their motives. In neither case does it seem to be much in the way of protecting the public from a major risk.

Actually, a reasonable statement from Tweetiepooh.

I'd still like to see the back of Boris, though.

Of course, the reason why there's all this fuss about Boris and Starmer is the high office that they hold. Boris is a proven rules breaker.