Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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
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

The points I have been making do not concern Johnson's guilt or innocence.

They're about your insisting everyone else waits until the Sue Gray report is out before commenting on the No 10 party photos we've seen, whilst giving yourself permission to comment on them.

It's what Chris politely termed wanting to sit on both sides of the barrier. I find it disappointing that you can't see the contradiction in your approach.

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:34 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If he knew that the events he did attend were parties, he will be in trouble.

Ignorance of the law is no defence, so if anyone was found to have attended parties, they would be fined etc.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Carth

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.

I appreciate many many people are like me and believe politicians should be honest and truthful and that there should be meaningful consequences when they're found not to be, if that's to high an aspiration in the Mother of all Parliaments then what's the point of it all, we might as well give up on it and let the extremist elements who are happy to put up with this crap as long as their side wins lie it out amongst themselves

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

Well, I gave you the chance to concur with my interpretation, which probably won't receive serious challenge from others.

My reading of this tells me he knew.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-...port/100794378

It is not the first time Mr Johnson has apologised to parliament over the parties.

He did so on January 13 following the leak of an email invitation to a "bring your own booze" event at the Downing Street garden, and his office was forced to apologise to the Queen after it was revealed there was a lockdown party the night before Prince Philip's funeral.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

If I went in a room at work AND it happened to be my birthday AND there were loads of people there AND there was a birthday cake with my name AND candles on it AND people started signing happy birthday GrimUpNorth AND they told me to make a wish while I blew out the candles AND there were nibbles AND as well as work colleagues there were family AND friends there AND there was no sign of any work being done or meeting agendas etc, then I'd think I was at a birthday party AND I don't think I'd need a senior Civil Servant to confirm that too me. I'd think anyone who thought different certainly isn't Prime Minister material.

However you obviously think differently.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

If I went in a room at work AND it happened to be my birthday AND there were loads of people there AND there was a birthday cake with my name AND candles on it AND people started signing happy birthday GrimUpNorth AND they told me to make a wish while I blew out the candles AND there were nibbles AND as well as work colleagues there were family AND friends there AND there was no sign of any work being done or meeting agendas etc, then I'd think I was at a birthday party AND I don't think I'd need a senior Civil Servant to confirm that too me. I'd think anyone who thought different certainly isn't Prime Minister material.

However you obviously think differently.

See, that's the difference between us plebs and the politicians.
We would know it was a birthday party, but politician types have to put it to a sub-committee, followed by a further full review at a select committee before final analysis at a private commons meeting. . . . oh, (mutter mutter) and something about Sue Gray

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

If I went in a room at work AND it happened to be my birthday AND there were loads of people there AND there was a birthday cake with my name AND candles on it AND people started signing happy birthday GrimUpNorth AND they told me to make a wish while I blew out the candles AND there were nibbles AND as well as work colleagues there were family AND friends there AND there was no sign of any work being done or meeting agendas etc, then I'd think I was at a birthday party AND I don't think I'd need a senior Civil Servant to confirm that too me. I'd think anyone who thought different certainly isn't Prime Minister material.

However you obviously think differently.

Don’t forget when you went to a "booze session" in the garden to have "a few words" with some of your staff, and left after 25 minutes - you obviously spoke those "few words" very, very, very slowly…

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Don’t forget when you went to a "booze session" in the garden to have "a few words" with some of your staff, and left after 25 minutes - you obviously spoke those "few words" very, very, very slowly…

Come on, Hugh, you really think that was a booze session..

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The points I have been making do not concern Johnson's guilt or innocence.

They're about your insisting everyone else waits until the Sue Gray report is out before commenting on the No 10 party photos we've seen, whilst giving yourself permission to comment on them.

It's what Chris politely termed wanting to sit on both sides of the barrier. I find it disappointing that you can't see the contradiction in your approach.

Not at all. You are assuming the PM has broken the law and nothing anyone says convinces you otherwise, despite the fact that you have not heard the whole story.

My view is that the PM May be innocent after all and I’vetried to explain why, but I am perfectly prepared to concede that he broke the law if that’s where the evidence leads us. Once again, let’s make our minds up when we have all the facts.

---------- Post added at 19:48 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

If I went in a room at work AND it happened to be my birthday AND there were loads of people there AND there was a birthday cake with my name AND candles on it AND people started signing happy birthday GrimUpNorth AND they told me to make a wish while I blew out the candles AND there were nibbles AND as well as work colleagues there were family AND friends there AND there was no sign of any work being done or meeting agendas etc, then I'd think I was at a birthday party AND I don't think I'd need a senior Civil Servant to confirm that too me. I'd think anyone who thought different certainly isn't Prime Minister material.

However you obviously think differently.

Well, all this has been said before, and all this has been answered. Yet still we go around in another circle. I’m not answering it all again if nobody’s listening. I’ll leave you all to play amongst yourselves.

The truth will out soon enough.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not at all. You are assuming the PM has broken the law and nothing anyone says convinces you otherwise, despite the fact that you have not heard the whole story.

My view is that the PM May be innocent after all and I’ve tried to explain why, but I am perfectly prepared to concede that he broke the law if that’s where the evidence leads us. Once again, let’s make our minds up when we have all the facts.

A limited mind can only handle a limited amount of "facts", you may be trying to push the envelope too far in this case

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

A limited mind can only handle a limited amount of "facts", you may be trying to push the envelope too far in this case

Acknowledging this is a good start, well done, you'll get there

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Come on, Hugh, you really think that was a booze session..

I don’t, but that’s what the invite said…

The leaked email from Mr Reynolds, the prime minister's principal private secretary, to Number 10 staff states: "Hi all,

"After what has been an incredibly busy period we thought it would be nice to make the most of this lovely weather and have some socially distanced drinks in the No10 garden this evening.

"Please join us from 6pm and bring your own booze!

"Martin."

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not at all. You are assuming the PM has broken the law and nothing anyone says convinces you otherwise, despite the fact that you have not heard the whole story.

My view is that the PM May be innocent after all and I’vetried to explain why, but I am perfectly prepared to concede that he broke the law if that’s where the evidence leads us. Once again, let’s make our minds up when we have all the facts.

I'm not assuming anything, you're putting up a straw man and then demolishing it. If you've made a solid defence of Johnson then great but I've not seen it.

I've always accepted Johnson may be innocent or guilty. But the balance of evidence favours his being guilty. That's why loyal Conservatives like Seph feel that Johnson is no longer an electoral asset to the Party.

My issue has been for the reason Chris outlined - your wanting to be on both sides of the barrier.

---------- Post added at 21:50 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Acknowledging this is a good start, well done, you'll get there

It's been tough seeing the news recently - the war in Ukraine, surging energy prices and the uplift in National Insurance premiums. But when I read a story like this I put that all to the back of my mind and rejoice.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

A limited mind can only handle a limited amount of "facts", you may be trying to push the envelope too far in this case

I think you’re being a little harsh on OLD BOY…

[tweetiepooh]

I think that Boris can apologise even if he is subsequently found totally "innocent".



He is the leader and those he chose/employs/works for him, even indirectly, did do something that hurt others so he can show some regret that it happened.

[Carth]

To be fair, many world leaders/statesmen are becoming quite good at apologizing 'on behalf of' . . . but it's normally for something that happened 200 years ago