You are here: Home | Forum | Updated: Boris resigns as party leader
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,929
Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
On the first question, yes. On the second, the penalty is a fine. Anything over and above that is spite.
Well that’s interesting, because neither of my questions addresses the strict letter of the law. Both my questions address the moral issues around what we expect of our leaders and the moral consequences of their failure. Yet while you’re prepared to accept the higher moral standard implicit in my first question, you dodge it in the second question by flipping over to the issue of strict legal liability and penalty.
The issue in strictly legal terms is that he broke the same law as many other people have done and received the same penalty. In terms of his obligations under law, case closed. However, what I’d love you to do is to set that aside and address the issue purely in terms of what we as a society expect of our leaders and how we expect them to act when they fall short of those expectations.
There are innumerable examples of senior government ministers - even prime ministers - resigning due to serious errors of judgment even where those incidents fell short of criminality. I’m curious to hear your reasons why you think Boris Johnson is not under a moral obligation to resign, given the extremely serious context in which his criminal behaviour occurred.
Carrie Johnson also being fined, i wonder if Rishi's wife will also be fined.
__________________
To be or not to be, woke is the question Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous wokedome, Or to take arms against a sea of wokies. And by opposing end them.
I don’t know. Can you be non-domiciled for covid fine purposes … ?
Was wondering that myself, if she is fined she can probably deduct it from the £20,000,000 she avoided paying in tax to hubby.
---------- Post added at 14:40 ---------- Previous post was at 14:33 ----------
I suppose they could contest [That it was a party]and have their day in court, it is a grey area.
__________________
To be or not to be, woke is the question Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous wokedome, Or to take arms against a sea of wokies. And by opposing end them.
Well that’s interesting, because neither of my questions addresses the strict letter of the law. Both my questions address the moral issues around what we expect of our leaders and the moral consequences of their failure. Yet while you’re prepared to accept the higher moral standard implicit in my first question, you dodge it in the second question by flipping over to the issue of strict legal liability and penalty.
The issue in strictly legal terms is that he broke the same law as many other people have done and received the same penalty. In terms of his obligations under law, case closed. However, what I’d love you to do is to set that aside and address the issue purely in terms of what we as a society expect of our leaders and how we expect them to act when they fall short of those expectations.
There are innumerable examples of senior government ministers - even prime ministers - resigning due to serious errors of judgment even where those incidents fell short of criminality. I’m curious to hear your reasons why you think Boris Johnson is not under a moral obligation to resign, given the extremely serious context in which his criminal behaviour occurred.
I was merely referring to the legal situation.
Yes, of course it was morally wrong, and it is also expected that he should offer his resignation if he lied to Parliament, as it now appears he did.
However, I still think that in the scheme of things, this is trivial, but of course his detractors would not agree. Whether this is the end of his Prime Ministership, we will have to wait and see, but he will certainly be damaged by this.
You think it’s trivial for a Prime Minister to lie to Parliament?
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,929
Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I was merely referring to the legal situation.
Yes, of course it was morally wrong, and it is also expected that he should offer his resignation if he lied to Parliament, as it now appears he did.
However, I still think that in the scheme of things, this is trivial, but of course his detractors would not agree. Whether this is the end of his Prime Ministership, we will have to wait and see, but he will certainly be damaged by this.
The grand scheme of things is a global pandemic that resulted in unprecedented curbs on our freedom which we are only now, more than 2 years later, properly seeing the back of. There are many ways I would describe the behaviour of those who imposed those rules, only to then deliberately break them. ‘Trivial’ is not one of them.
Any politician, of any party, in any previous generation, would be preparing their resignation speech at this point. If Boris is not doing so, then that is extraordinary.
I It isn’t just the fines. It isn’t just the behaviour that has led to the Prime Minister being issued a fixed penalty notice by the Metropolitan police. It isn’t just the lies told about that behaviour, lies issued with the most sweeping confidence inside and outside the House of Commons. It isn’t just the fines and the indifference to the rules he and his ministers set for everyone else and demanded they follow – on pain of arrest – and the lying about that behaviour and the cavalier assumption that public opinion can go hang. It is all of those things wrapped together.
All of this makes the Prime Minister’s position intolerable and a fellow possessing a greater amount of self-awareness or – to employ an old-fashioned term – honour, would read the room and do the decent thing. That there are ample grounds for doubting this Prime Minister will do the appropriate thing is itself a further reminder of how standards in public life have been corroded...
… The behaviour is bad enough but might have been survivable had the Prime Minister and his allies not treated the public as fools. Do not believe the evidence of your own eyes and ears, they said, for what you see and what you hear is untrue. There were no parties. The rules were followed. These were work events. And if the rules were not followed, well, it was only junior members of the team letting off a little steam in a time of national emergency. The Prime Minister was not present and if he was present he was not involved. Others may have sinned but the Prime Minister, ex officio, cannot have been among them. He was at home.
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
The grand scheme of things is a global pandemic that resulted in unprecedented curbs on our freedom which we are only now, more than 2 years later, properly seeing the back of. There are many ways I would describe the behaviour of those who imposed those rules, only to then deliberately break them. ‘Trivial’ is not one of them.
Any politician, of any party, in any previous generation, would be preparing their resignation speech at this point. If Boris is not doing so, then that is extraordinary.
It's a fixed penalty notice not murder.
__________________
To be or not to be, woke is the question Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous wokedome, Or to take arms against a sea of wokies. And by opposing end them.
You think it’s trivial for a Prime Minister to lie to Parliament?
It is a trivial matter to break lockdown rules.
---------- Post added at 15:12 ---------- Previous post was at 15:07 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
The grand scheme of things is a global pandemic that resulted in unprecedented curbs on our freedom which we are only now, more than 2 years later, properly seeing the back of. There are many ways I would describe the behaviour of those who imposed those rules, only to then deliberately break them. ‘Trivial’ is not one of them.
Any politician, of any party, in any previous generation, would be preparing their resignation speech at this point. If Boris is not doing so, then that is extraordinary.
I guess it depends what you call ‘trivial’. It would not be trivial if it was an imprisonable offence.
The global pandemic was not trivial, I agree, but I don’t think partygate caused any deaths, do you?
I can only refer you to my earlier comments about the moral responsibilities of leadership.
The police think it was a party, Boris still may not think it was, rishi didn't think he had done anything wrong, personally i would have my day in court with a good lawyer on my side.
__________________
To be or not to be, woke is the question Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous wokedome, Or to take arms against a sea of wokies. And by opposing end them.
Join CF
You are here: 
