Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Offering to resign because you got caught lying[assuming he gets a fpn] is neutralising what exactly.

Not sure even if he was fined you could prove it was lying.

The issue of receiving a fine for a law you endorsed is hypocrisy. If Starmer gets fined then the issue goes away with him. And people are then entitled to ask, if Starmer did the decent thing, why not Johnson?

Wes Streeting and Andy Burnham clearly think he is going to be fined because they're clearly jockeying for a leadership contest. Although by what mechanism Burnham thinks he'll get the job when he isn't a sitting MP is lost on me.

Originally Posted by Mick

If you an expert in criminology, enlighten me, if not. Not interested in your wild subversions.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...cdp-2022-0116/

Sentencing of repeat offenders

Published Monday, 20 June, 2022

When an offender is sentenced, there is a statutory requirement that the court treat any previous convictions as an aggravating factor, providing it considers that it is reasonable to do so. The court will consider the nature of the offence and its relevance to the current offence and how recently the offender was convicted of the previous offence. The presence of an aggravating factor can increase the severity of a sentence.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Not sure even if he was fined you could prove it was lying.

The issue of receiving a fine for a law you endorsed is hypocrisy. If Starmer gets fined then the issue goes away with him. And people are then entitled to ask, if Starmer did the decent thing, why not Johnson?

Did that apply to Johnson.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Did that apply to Johnson.

He's been sacked from two jobs for lying.

But in this instance I think the investigation begins later this month as to whether he mislead the House.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

I'm sure it's worth a point or two yes, but how many points would you give for writing both a leave and remain speech to help hedge your bets with public opinion?

Except that has been explained many times, Grim, but you simply don’t want to accept the explanation.

---------- Post added at 18:54 ---------- Previous post was at 18:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

What is taking Durham police so long? It's one event. Even the Met police didn't take this long per party.

Yes, and in their haste they incorrectly fined Boris. He would have appealed, but that would only have served to make the whole thing drag on for longer.

Yes, his wife and that designer chap were not expected to turn up with that cake, but Boris and the others were associating with them all the time anyway. Plus, it was between meetings, not after work.

---------- Post added at 18:59 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Not sure even if he was fined you could prove it was lying.

The issue of receiving a fine for a law you endorsed is hypocrisy. If Starmer gets fined then the issue goes away with him. And people are then entitled to ask, if Starmer did the decent thing, why not Johnson?

Why should BJ be bound by Starmer’s own follies? It is not a resigning matter. You’d be better sticking to the ‘lying to the House of Commons’ wheeze if you want to argue that he should resign because that would be the convention. However, that has yet to be proved.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, and in their haste they incorrectly fined Boris. He would have appealed, but that would only have served to make the whole thing drag on for longer.

Is this more guesswork or do you have a source you can link to?

---------- Post added at 19:42 ---------- Previous post was at 19:37 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Why should BJ be bound by Starmer’s own follies? It is not a resigning matter. You’d be better sticking to the ‘lying to the House of Commons’ wheeze if you want to argue that he should resign because that would be the convention. However, that has yet to be proved.

Nothing's a resigning matter for Johnson.

Misleading the House has not been investigated yet, that's for later in the month.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Except that has been explained many times, Grim, but you simply don’t want to accept the explanation.

---------- Post added at 18:54 ---------- Previous post was at 18:51 ----------



Yes, and in their haste they incorrectly fined Boris. He would have appealed, but that would only have served to make the whole thing drag on for longer.

Yes, his wife and that designer chap were not expected to turn up with that cake, but Boris and the others were associating with them all the time anyway. Plus, it was between meetings, not after work.

It's been explained to you many times Old Boy that Boris is a lying slimeball, but you simply don't want to accept the explanation.

Have you considered, for even a minute, that he didn't appeal because he was caught fair and square and the appeal may well have failed, ending up making him look even more stupid than he did? If you're so sure why he chose the cowards way out by claiming he wanted to expedite the process, feel free to share the evidence to back up your statement.

And as a point of order, last time I checked, Lulu Lytle is a woman not a chap. Maybe you need to dump Nadine's speech writer as they've been getting their codes confused a few times recently!

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...cdp-2022-0116/

So you’re not an expert then, your Google search and paste is irrelevant, as that is talking about repeat offenders who have attended court, Boris not under this repeating offender category as he’s paid his fine and not had need to attend court. Not aware of any other repeat offences he’s been found guilty of either.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mick

So you’re not an expert then, your Google search and paste is irrelevant, as that is talking about repeat offenders who have attended court, Boris not under this repeating offender category as he’s paid his fine and not had need to attend court. Not aware of any other repeat offences he’s been found guilty of either.

Adultery, many times. Lying, many times, Being crap at his job* ( and sacked), many times. All he's been found guilty of.

*When I say job, of course he never has had a real job, like the worthwhile and much needed job you do Mick. Just a life of entitlement and self indulgence.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Adultery, many times. Lying, many times, Being crap at his job* ( and sacked), many times. All he's been found guilty of.

*When I say job, of course he never has had a real job, like the worthwhile and much needed job you do Mick. Just a life of entitlement and self indulgence.

That pattern of behaviour sadly still persists:

On top of that, Number 10 insisted for three days that the prime minister didn't know of any allegations of misconduct against Mr Pincher before that complaint was made last week, only to admit on Monday that Mr Johnson was aware of "reports and speculation" about the behaviour of Mr Pincher, while insisting that there was no reason to block his appointment given that these were "unsubstantiated allegations".

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-joh...still-12645917

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

That pattern of behaviour sadly still persists:

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-joh...still-12645917

He's the Prime Minister who just keeps on giving.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

Wes Streeting and Andy Burnham clearly think he is going to be fined because they're clearly jockeying for a leadership contest. Although by what mechanism Burnham thinks he'll get the job when he isn't a sitting MP is lost on me.

Do you have to be an MP to be the leader of a Party?

Sturgeon isn’t.

It would be weird though, if Burnham was leader but Rayner did PMQs

Originally Posted by Pierre

Do you have to be an MP to be the leader of a Party?

Sturgeon isn’t.

It would be weird though, if Burnham was leader but Rayner did PMQs

I think it's in the Labour rule book.

It could work if Burnham leaned into the idea that he is the Labour leader based in the North. It would be spun as a sign Labour isn't London-centric. I just think it would be impractical. Can you be the leader of the opposition if you're in Parliament to oppose? How do you do both jobs of LOTO and Mayor of Manchester?

They would have to find him a safe seat pretty sharpish.

Originally Posted by Mr K

Adultery, many times. Lying, many times, Being crap at his job* ( and sacked), many times. All he's been found guilty of.

*When I say job, of course he never has had a real job, like the worthwhile and much needed job you do Mick. Just a life of entitlement and self indulgence.

But is any of that stuff illegal, because he’s been classed as a “repeat offender”?