Boris misled just about everyone.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Oh, the irony…

No irony here, Hugh, just wilful incomprehension on your part.

It’s fascinating seeing you all come in for the kill, with no expectation as to whether justice has been done in this case.

You just hate Boris Johnson. End of.

---------- Post added at 19:50 ---------- Previous post was at 19:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

You do realise it wasn’t real life, don’t you?

They just keep coming, Hugh! Go on, tell us another one!

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No irony here, Hugh, just wilful incomprehension on your part.

It’s fascinating seeing you all come in for the kill, with no expectation as to whether justice has been done in this case.

You just hate Boris Johnson. End of.

---------- Post added at 19:50 ---------- Previous post was at 19:49 ----------



They just keep coming, Hugh! Go on, tell us another one!

Nothing to do with people hating Boris Johnson but still you are quite a expert at whataboutery and deflection so l suppose your utterly predictable reaction comes as no surprise to many of us.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If MPs are doing their jobs, they will ask the Chair of the Conduct and Privileges Committee why they have not directly addressed the points that Boris Johnson made in his defence.

On the face of it, they’ve made their decision on the basis that this is Boris, and not on the evidence he has submitted in his defence.

I do recognise that some of you aren’t really interested in relevant information that might actually be helpful to BJ.

They've looked at all the evidence, not just that submitted by Johnson. And that evidence includes his rather desperate attempts at intimidating the committee.

You need to read beyond Johnson's sound bites. You shouldn't just decide that because you like Johnson, he can't put a foot wrong and you loathe Starmer so the latter must be guilty. You need to take a more evidence-based approach. Fortunately for British democracy, in the democratically-constituted committee we have a bunch of grown-ups who're able to do exactly that. A majority of them are Conservative who have put country before party politics. I appreciate the decision may be harder to swallow than the populist, comforting sound bites from Johnson but like those parties and misleading Parliament, it's reality.

---------- Post added at 20:32 ---------- Previous post was at 20:21 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Nothing to do with people hating Boris Johnson but still you are quite a expert at whataboutery and deflection so l suppose your utterly predictable reaction comes as no surprise to many of us.

I hope enough Conservative MPs can summon up the courage and vote to drain the swamp on Monday.

True Conservative supporters will want to learn the lessons from Johnson's assault on democracy whilst putting some space between the current regime and Johnson's. Until this is done, he will haunt the Party like the ghost of Banquo haunted Macbeth with journalists willing to remind the public that Sunak was fined too.

Think of this as a plot for Yes Prime Minister...

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Think of this as a plot for Yes Prime Minister...

It would be thrown out - no PM would lie to Parliament that many times, would they? It's unprecedented.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No irony here, Hugh, just wilful incomprehension on your part.

It’s fascinating seeing you all come in for the kill, with no expectation as to whether justice has been done in this case.

You just hate Boris Johnson. End of.

---------- Post added at 19:50 ---------- Previous post was at 19:49 ----------



They just keep coming, Hugh! Go on, tell us another one!

You are mistaken in that assertion - I try very hard not to hate anyone (the old “If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you” thing…).

However, I intensely dislike what he’s done to the Conservatives, the Country, all for his self-interest, and not for what he truly believed - he is a lying, philandering narcissist, which is not the type of person I would support or defend - ymmv…

Just read the Times editorial, and the last paragraph summed it up

(Boris Johnson is) fond of quoting the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who observed that “character is destiny”. In the end, Mr Johnson could not defy his. Therein lies his tragedy.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d...b2bbb8b0285334

[1andrew1]

A good summary for once from The Express. It details 10 bombshells from the report, below. I think it's encouraging that the paper is not trying to defend the indefensible.
1. He was aware of the rules and had “knowledge of breaches” of these rules in Number 10.
2. He misled the House on numerous accounts
3. He hid behind the Sue Gray report to avoid giving evidence
4. He continued to lie to the House and Committee after initial findings
5. He was ‘deliberately disingenuous’ in trying to rewrite the rules to suit his narrative
6. The Government gave emails, Whatsapp messages and photographs to the committee — but Boris only had “a limited number of WhatsApp messages"
7. He “deliberately closed his mind” to the facts of social distancing breaches
8. He was complicit in the “campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation” of the Committee
9. His statements last week were in breach of direct confidentiality instructions and are a further offence
10. He should be suspended for 90 days — but he’s already resigned.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...-committee-spt

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

A good summary for once from The Express. It details 10 bombshells from the report, below. I think it's encouraging that the paper is not trying to defend the indefensible.
1. He was aware of the rules and had “knowledge of breaches” of these rules in Number 10.
2. He misled the House on numerous accounts
3. He hid behind the Sue Gray report to avoid giving evidence
4. He continued to lie to the House and Committee after initial findings
5. He was ‘deliberately disingenuous’ in trying to rewrite the rules to suit his narrative
6. The Government gave emails, Whatsapp messages and photographs to the committee — but Boris only had “a limited number of WhatsApp messages"
7. He “deliberately closed his mind” to the facts of social distancing breaches
8. He was complicit in the “campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation” of the Committee
9. His statements last week were in breach of direct confidentiality instructions and are a further offence
10. He should be suspended for 90 days — but he’s already resigned.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...-committee-spt

you mean that remoaner plot that all out to get Johnson OH WAIT he was banged to rights and rightly so

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If MPs are doing their jobs, they will ask the Chair of the Conduct and Privileges Committee why they have not directly addressed the points that Boris Johnson made in his defence.

On the face of it, they’ve made their decision on the basis that this is Boris, and not on the evidence he has submitted in his defence.

I do recognise that some of you aren’t really interested in relevant information that might actually be helpful to BJ.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8...42f9757dd41273

On Thursday last week the committee sent a draft of its conclusions to Johnson and his lawyers “under secure invigilated conditions”. Each page of the document said “PRIVILEGED AND IN STRICT CONFIDENCE — FOR THE USE OF MR JOHNSON AND HIS NOMINATED LEGAL ADVISERS ONLY,” adding: “It is a contempt of the House to reveal the contents of this document.”

The report states: “Within 24 hours of receiving our warning letter, on Friday 9 June 2023, Mr Johnson announced his intention to resign as an MP with immediate effect, broke the confidentiality of the process by revealing the contents of the warning letter and linked material, and attacked the committee.”

It adds: “At the time we wrote to Mr Johnson, we had come to no final conclusions, since we awaited his response. In making his statement when he did, Mr Johnson knew that the committee would be unable to make a substantive response until it had completed its inquiry, and his assertions would be unchallenged. We note that Mr Johnson does not merely criticise the fairness of the committee’s procedures; he also attacks in very strong, indeed vitriolic, terms the integrity, honesty and honour of its members.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8...42f9757dd41273

Indeed.

Before anyone proclaims that the report does not address the points that Johnson made in his defence, it's a good idea to read the report first!

[jonbxx]

I read this article the other day - https://theconversation.com/the-dark...-traits-177662

Written by a psychologist, it gives an insight into Boris Johnson’s personality and the psychological traits that got him in to so much trouble

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I read this article the other day - https://theconversation.com/the-dark...-traits-177662

Written by a psychologist, it gives an insight into Boris Johnson’s personality and the psychological traits that got him in to so much trouble

One person’s drivel does not a convincing argument make.

The worst thing in there is that No 10 wasn't only operating several wine days and so on but that they told staff to be mindful of the cameras outside when leaving, they knew exactly what they were doing.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Kursk

One person’s drivel does not a convincing argument make.

Where is the drivel in the psychologist’s analysis?

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Where is the drivel in the psychologist’s analysis?

I simply don't see the need for links to randoms. Dutifully, I read the 'expert' babble but felt my time had been wasted.