Genie Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 Just now, DCJonah said: My wife's a nurse and I know someone who worked in ICU in heartlands. What they went through was **** awful. It shouldn't be forgotten. It should go down in history the fact during a pandemic people died alone due to the rules and at the same time Boris Johnson held and attended multiple parties in Downing Street. He should be locked up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 23, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted March 23, 2023 His defence boils down to, the parties were NECESSARY and ESSENTIAL And because of how Number 10 is built, it was impossible to ensure social distancing Absolute horse shit 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 9 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: And because of how Number 10 is built, it was impossible to ensure social distancing And if this were true (I have no idea), is the suggestion that "well, we're all cramped in here, may as well crack open the wine"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 23, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted March 23, 2023 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Davkaus said: And if this were true (I have no idea), is the suggestion that "well, we're all cramped in here, may as well crack open the wine"? From listening to some of his evidence he's saying stuff like "it's impossible tp put electrified forcefields around people and ensure 2 metres was adhered to at all times, so of course not everything was socially distanced" (paraphrased) Which would be an absolutely valid point if he was in front of the committee for someone passing within 2metres of someone else in a hallway. But he's not. He's there because of parties. it couldn't be less relevant Again the insinuation is that these parties absolutely HAD to happen and were absolutely essential, which then gives him the defence of it was impossible to have those parties and maintain social distancing. And the more it's argued about the more that first point seems to be being slowly accepted. And it pisses me off Edited March 23, 2023 by Stevo985 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted March 23, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted March 23, 2023 15 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: From listening to some of his evidence he's saying stuff like "it's impossible tp put electrified forcefields around people and ensure 2 metres was adhered to at all times, so of course not everything was socially distanced" (paraphrased) Yet they literally had to put up gates to keep him at a distance; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 28 minutes ago, Davkaus said: And if this were true (I have no idea), is the suggestion that "well, we're all cramped in here, may as well crack open the wine"? His justification seems to be that the people at the parties were all working together all day in close proximity so it made no difference if they had a party or not. A couple of issues with that. 1) Nobody else was allowed to use that logic 2) Several people who weren’t working in number 10 attended the parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post blandy Posted March 23, 2023 Author Moderator Popular Post Share Posted March 23, 2023 34 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: His defence boils down to, the parties were NECESSARY and ESSENTIAL And because of how Number 10 is built, it was impossible to ensure social distancing Absolute horse shit From the "legal" perspective, it's quite interesting. I was sad enough to have the whole hearing thing play on my laptop yesterday. 4 hours of my life wasted, but anyway... I also read all of his legal submission document thing. I think it boils down to this: Because we know there were fines and "parties", we know (and the inquiry and Bunter know) that what he said in parliament was not true. They're investigating whether when he said it, he knew it was untrue, or not fully true. His lawyer has clearly told him, and based the defence around the US style libel law type approach - where if you say something you believe to be true, even if it isn't actually true, that's a 5th amendment right - you can't be sued for libel. In the UK, in terms of libel, it's what is true that matters, not what you believed to be true. So his defence in this case is basically "I claim I believed what I said was completely true, and you need to prove I didn't believe it, to find me guilty". Which people would say is a hard call to make for the Inquiry, because it can't be "proven". But in their favour are a few things: The questioning was generally very good - much better than I imagined it would be. And it got to several key points. He repeatedly (in the past) read out the guidance and the laws to the public and to Parliament, therefore he cannot claim not to have known what the guidance was, or what was permitted. Therefore when he saw events taking place which were not in accord with the rules, or with the guidance it is not credible to say "I thought it was OK". Secondly he was claiming that the events were "essential" for work purposes and everyone there was essential, and if he knew they were not, he wouldn't have had the official photographer there. This doesn't bear scrutiny - firstly the presence of a photographer could not be deemed "essential" at an event to thank someone for their work. Secondly, the photos taken were not put out to the public, which is the purpose of the official photographers role. So it looks bang to rights like another case of ignoring the guidelines, which are clear on that. Also people were in attendance that were not even workers. There was not social distancing of at least 2 meters and no mitigations were in place (screens etc.) in the photos of the events. So what he told parliament was untrue and he knew it was untrue. Thirdly his advisers told him not to say the guidance was adhered to at all times - they knew it wasn't true, too. But he said that anyway, despite being advised not to. He was also claiming that "while he was present" it was all fine (it clearly and verifiably wasn't), and he was told by people who were there that when he wasn't that it stayed fine. It clearly didn't, and the people who told him were his media folks, not civil servants or lawyers. So I think he's going to get a stiffer telling off than I thought he would after just reading his defence. Lastly, right at the end, he was asked to disown, or if he regretted his acolytes slagging off the inquiry as a politically motivated kangaroo court - he sort of did, but not really. When asked if he would accept the process was fair, he said if it exonerated him, yes. But what if it didn't? they asked - and he refused to answer the question, which was a massive mistake. He had to say "yes", but couldn't bring himself to say it. That'll count quite strongly against him, I think, because it reveals his attitude about "the rules don't apply to me" - it re-inforces a trait demonstrated by the situation being looked at - all the breaking of guidelines and rules. I guess, therefore he'll be found to have recklessly mislead the house and a punishment short of a 10 day suspension will ultimately be given - so no potential by-election and tory defeat. He absolutely has to be found guilty, not because I despise him, or because whoever else does, but because if he isn't, then the whole integrity of MPs stuff and the parliamentary rules they follow are void. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted March 23, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted March 23, 2023 16 hours ago, foreveryoung said: My biggest thought was, if they were having parties (on expenses no doubt) in Covid times. How many f****g parties do they actually have. None. They have celebrations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 23, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted March 23, 2023 If Boris faces no punishment (or the weakest of weak hand slaps) the parliamentary disciplinary system will be revealed to be completely worthless. We've already seen that this Tory government has pissed on parliamentary convention and it's basis in being honourable and with integrity, if they can hand wave away absolutely flagrant wrongdoing the entire thing needs to be binned. Obviously swiftly after you bin that you might as well bin the entire thing as it's completely shot as a system. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 There will never be a more obviously “guilty” party to ever be questioned like this. As @Chindie says, if the outcome is no punishment then there’s literally no point to them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 23, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 23, 2023 I think yesterdays vote on the Windsor Framework shows where the vast majority of Tory NMPs allegiances currently lie. I wouldn't be shocked if they did for him tbh, he's a spent force, he could only muster 22 Tory MPs to vote against the Framework He's currently a has been. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted March 23, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted March 23, 2023 4 hours ago, bickster said: I think yesterdays vote on the Windsor Framework shows where the vast majority of Tory NMPs allegiances currently lie. I wouldn't be shocked if they did for him tbh, he's a spent force, he could only muster 22 Tory MPs to vote against the Framework He's currently a has been. Yeah, that was an eye opener once he'd come out against it. Not sure why he's hanging about in all honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 (edited) 30 minutes ago, sidcow said: Yeah, that was an eye opener once he'd come out against it. Not sure why he's hanging about in all honesty. Me neither, he made £4m this year already. Why isn’t he retiring from politics to rake it in on the after dinner speech circuit? Does he get the £105k ex-PM “allowance” on top of his MP salary? Edited March 23, 2023 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted March 23, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted March 23, 2023 44 minutes ago, sidcow said: Yeah, that was an eye opener once he'd come out against it. Not sure why he's hanging about in all honesty. 14 minutes ago, Genie said: Me neither, he made £4m this year already. Why isn’t he retiring from politics to rake it in on the after dinner speech circuit? Does he get the £105k ex-PM “allowance” on top of his MP salary? And give up on reclaiming his birthright of ruling over us, after it was so unjustly taken from him by those who betrayed him in a manner that even the despicable Brutus would consider abhorrent? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 11 hours ago, DCJonah said: My wife's a nurse and I know someone who worked in ICU in heartlands. What they went through was **** awful. It shouldn't be forgotten. I agree - it must not be forgotten. Sadly though that is all we can threaten. Johnson will at worst not be allowed to be an MP again, yet he will make millions on his speaking circuits. In my mind the nearest we will get to justice on men like him is to forget them as quickly as possible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 24, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted March 24, 2023 18 hours ago, Chindie said: If Boris faces no punishment (or the weakest of weak hand slaps) the parliamentary disciplinary system will be revealed to be completely worthless. We've already seen that this Tory government has pissed on parliamentary convention and it's basis in being honourable and with integrity, if they can hand wave away absolutely flagrant wrongdoing the entire thing needs to be binned. Obviously swiftly after you bin that you might as well bin the entire thing as it's completely shot as a system. It'll basically make it so that it's impossible for anyone to mislead parliament, because as @blandy alluded to it's almost impossible to prove that someone didn't believe what they were saying, even if what they were saying can be proven to be false. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 24, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted March 24, 2023 2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: It'll basically make it so that it's impossible for anyone to mislead parliament, because as @blandy alluded to it's almost impossible to prove that someone didn't believe what they were saying, even if what they were saying can be proven to be false. “Wilfully” makes that read better, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 Why the **** is the tax payer paying boris legal fees for this investigation?? I was reading its something like 200k. Sickening 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bickster Posted March 25, 2023 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted March 25, 2023 Led by Donkeys, appear to have stepped up a gear 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 2 hours ago, bickster said: Led by Donkeys, appear to have stepped up a gear More for “lead with integrity” Rishi Sunak to consider then. It was hilarious seeing Kwarteng going through the motions after realising he sold himself far too cheap. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts