Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, you shouldn’t be surprised. If these wreckers didn’t keep adding new allegations every day, it would be finished this week.

You appear to be blaming the people reporting the fires, rather than the arsonists - perhaps if the people who set the rules & laws hadn’t kept breaking the rules and laws, there would have been nothing to report?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, you shouldn’t be surprised. If these wreckers didn’t keep adding new allegations every day, it would be finished this week.

Beggars belief that dom is now the go to guy for the truth.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1994594.html

I don’t have a problem with Johnson commuting from Chequers to Downing Street during lockdown, as Mrs Johnson was in the "vulnerable" category (heavily pregnant), and was probably safer there, and Johnson was trying to deal with the COVID crisis - it’s just the bit at the end that raises doubts.

The spokesman said there would have been staff at Chequers with the couple, and when asked if they had any non-work visitors he said: “Well, they were acting in accordance with the guidance and any subsequent legislation at all times. So beyond that, I don’t have any more to add.”

Why don’t they just say "No, we didn’t have any non-work visitors", rather than the phrase which dropped them in it before "The spokesman said there would have been staff at Chequers with the couple, and when asked if they had any non-work visitors he said: “Well, they were acting in accordance with the guidance and any subsequent legislation at all times."?.

[papa smurf]

Keir Starmer is accused of flouting Covid rules banning political campaigners from meeting indoors during local ballots last year

Now it has emerged that the event may also have breached special guidelines published for the local election campaign.


This guidance said campaigners should not meet indoors and there should be no social use of committee rooms.

It also stated that work organising campaigns should be done virtually and should not take place in person.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mpaigning.html

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1994594.html

I don’t have a problem with Johnson commuting from Chequers to Downing Street during lockdown, as Mrs Johnson was in the "vulnerable" category (heavily pregnant), and was probably safer there, and Johnson was trying to deal with the COVID crisis - it’s just the bit at the end that raises doubts.



Why don’t they just say "No, we didn’t have any non-work visitors", rather than the phrase which dropped them in it before "The spokesman said there would have been staff at Chequers with the couple, and when asked if they had any non-work visitors he said: “Well, they were acting in accordance with the guidance and any subsequent legislation at all times."?.

I think you can also give some leeway to the Prime Minister to move between locations as well. The Chequers thing is a non-starter to me. Yeah if he had guests and another poxy party that's an issue obviously.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Apologies arent enough , it was breaking the law for which others were prosecuted and fined for.
Either they are saying the law doesn't apply to everyone, or they need to start again with new bunch of muppets running the country.

Goes without saying they should take the punishment - at least what it would be if you or I had been doing it, as they are in a position of responsibility and need to set an example.


But I don't see what realistically they can do to put the matter right otherwise. They can't undo the parties.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by nffc

Goes without saying they should take the punishment - at least what it would be if you or I had been doing it, as they are in a position of responsibility and need to set an example.


But I don't see what realistically they can do to put the matter right otherwise. They can't undo the parties.

There's lots they can do, resign, clear the convictions of those prosecuted , take some responsibility instead of lies and /retractions when found out ..

[1andrew1]

Don't want to alarm anyone, but I hear there's a shortage of popcorn in supermarkets, as the country stocks up in readiness for tomorrow's PMQs!

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by nffc

Goes without saying they should take the punishment - at least what it would be if you or I had been doing it, as they are in a position of responsibility and need to set an example.


But I don't see what realistically they can do to put the matter right otherwise. They can't undo the parties.

It would help to some extent if Boris, his PPS and all attendees reported themselves to the Police and let the law take its course. If the Police decide that the law was broken, these individuals would have to pay the prescribed penalty, maybe at a doubling rate for more than one attended party. That would put them on a par with public offenders. Sue Gray would be irrelevant to this if she found that only "guidance" was flouted.

It won't go away for the Guvmin if they flouted their own guidance; the public wouldn't see it favourably, never mind the flouting I reckon we've all done to some extent.

As to illegality, have a read of this: https://barristerblogger.com/2021/12...-street-party/

It's difficult to paste a useful quote due to the way the item is formatted. But really worth a read.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It would help to some extent if Boris, his PPS and all attendees reported themselves to the Police and let the law take its course. If the Police decide that the law was broken, these individuals would have to pay the prescribed penalty, maybe at a doubling rate for more than one attended party. That would put them on a par with public offenders. Sue Gray would be irrelevant to this if she found that only "guidance" was flouted.

It won't go away for the Guvmin if they flouted their own guidance; the public wouldn't see it favourably, never mind the flouting I reckon we've all done to some extent.

As to illegality, have a read of this: https://barristerblogger.com/2021/12...-street-party/

It's difficult to paste a useful quote due to the way the item is formatted. But really worth a read.

That article is from December and pre-dates the recent party allegations, in particular the 100-invite May 20 one. Is it still relevant?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

That article is from December and pre-dates the recent party allegations, in particular the 100-invite May 20 one. Is it still relevant?

The December party is still part of the Sue Gray investigation.

[jonbxx]

Possibly for a different thread but, as there are more dead cats than a really bad vet coming from the Government, one issue hasn't reared its' head. Dmitry Grozoubinski a trade chap on Twitter pointed out;

Interesting shift in British politics, or at least government's perception thereof.

An "Operation Red Meat" five months ago would have been full of performative provocations toward the EU, up to and including Article 16 invocation.

Now, not a thing.

That said, he followed up with;

I appreciate I'm risking looking pretty silly when tomorrow they launch Trident at Brussels or invade Calais.

Not sure what has changed but I would have thought that keeping people like Steve Baker and Andrew Bridgen on side would be helpful right now...

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Possibly for a different thread but, as there are more dead cats than a really bad vet coming from the Government, one issue hasn't reared its' head. Dmitry Grozoubinski a trade chap on Twitter pointed out;

That said, he followed up with;

Not sure what has changed but I would have thought that keeping people like Steve Baker and Andrew Bridgen on side would be helpful right now...

Interesting point.

Not exactly a strong defence of the PM from Sunak: https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1483407346906841088

NEW: @RishiSunak on allegations PM lied about No 10 parties:
"I won't get into hypotheticals. The ministerial code is clear on these matters."

Reporter: Do you believe the PM?
Sunak: Of course I do... I'd refer you to his words.'

via broadcast pool

Originally Posted by Damien

Not exactly a strong defence of the PM from Sunak: https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1483407346906841088

I decided to look up the full context of ‘damn with faint praise’. It’s rather good.

Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer,
And without sneering, teach the rest to sneer;
Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike,
Just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike.
- Alexander Pope