Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

PM Boris Johnson - monster thread for a monster twat

Wilf said:
At one level plod will be desperate to avoid giving johnson or other ministers/senior civil servants a FPN. Aside from not giving anyone a fine - quite possible - the route to doing that is presumably quite difficult (if you fine clerk X, you have to fine civil servant Y, given that they both organised/attended a party etc.). However, just as both the Met and johnson's lot have been cornered into this inquiry, I also think that creative minds will find a way through it for them. Or, to put it another way, what is the likely outcome of a process the Met didn't want to conduct and the politicians didn't want to happen?

The above aside, it's always worth reminding ourselves of the hubris and stupidity that lead to all this: members of a government who created lockdown laws, holding parties in the buildings where the laws were made, in at least one case round the table where those laws were made. How hard would it have been not to have had those parties? And how recklessly stupid in an era of camera phones, with journalists actually attending some of the parties?
Click to expand...
If the met don't give him something then it's worse news for them as the court of public opinion has already convicted Johnson and the met as a whole seen as complicit in a cover-up
 
I am in the wait and see bracket, but it is apposite to keep reminding these bastards what the population was experiencing, and to continue publishing that photograph of the Queen when possible.
Then there is the matter of misleading or lying to Parliament, which as I understand it if proved theoretically leads to consequences.
Eventually the strimmer tackles the long grass.
 
philosophical said:
I am in the wait and see bracket, but it is apposite to keep reminding these bastards what the population was experiencing, and to continue publishing that photograph of the Queen when possible.
Then there is the matter of misleading or lying to Parliament, which as I understand it if proved theoretically leads to consequences.
Eventually the strimmer tackles the long grass.
Click to expand...
One of the things this episode and johnson's wider premiership shows is how weak notions like you can't lie to parliament have become. It still has a degree of resonance and the speaker will manage to at once 'uphold the standards of this house' while doing fuck all to punish johnson when this all comes to a head. It's become nothing more than a thing you have to steer round - and drag the bulk of your backbenchers with you as you do so.

By the by, I'm not really disagreeing with you, I think the combination of all this will probably push his backbenchers into action at some point. But that will ultimately be a political decision on their behalf. They are just as complicit in the lying to parliament thing as he is.
 
Supine said:
Lots of people got fined for having smaller and less frequent parties. If they can get fined why shouldn’t politicians. It’s the spirit of the law that has been ignored and that has rightly pissed people off.
Click to expand...
Sure and I don't think anyone is saying otherwise, but all those people where fined at the time. If me or you had a party 12 months ago, the police would not give a crap about it now. If reported at the time yes, but not now.

For the record I do think they should be done for it. But if this was not in he media the police would do nothing, to suggest the the police are letting them off with it because of who they are is just wrong. It may have be that the police knew at time and did nothing, I don't know. I am also sure the police would like to do nothing now. The only reason this is being investigated this long after is because it was Downing Street and because it is in the media.
 
emanymton said:
She is clearly suggesting he should not be able to get assistance form a lawyer.

"PM now has a week to fill in his police questionnaire - with the help of his lawyers."
Click to expand...
If I had to fill out this questionnaire, I probably wouldn't have access to legal aid, and there's no way I could afford a solicitor. So he has a much greater chance of getting reasonable legal support than the vast majority of people in the UK.

But, yeah. It's all side show. Wake me up when someone shoots the cunt.
 
Wilf said:
One of the things this episode and johnson's wider premiership shows is how weak notions like you can't lie to parliament have become. It still has a degree of resonance and the speaker will manage to at once 'uphold the standards of this house' while doing fuck all to punish johnson when this all comes to a head. It's become nothing more than a thing you have to steer round - and drag the bulk of your backbenchers with you as you do so.

By the by, I'm not really disagreeing with you, I think the combination of all this will probably push his backbenchers into action at some point. But that will ultimately be a political decision on their behalf. They are just as complicit in the lying to parliament thing as he is.
Click to expand...
I think that as soon as the first shot is fired in the Ukraine, those backbenchers will completely forget about it. Suddenly, we'll be told that Ukraine is such a long-standing and important ally to the UK that we can't not get involved and we'll be at war.

With war as a backdrop, a few FPNs won't make it past page 5 of the papers.
 
nogojones said:
If I had to fill out this questionnaire, I probably wouldn't have access to legal aid, and there's no way I could afford a solicitor. So he has a much greater chance of getting reasonable legal support than the vast majority of people in the UK.

But, yeah. It's all side show. Wake me up when someone shoots the cunt.
Click to expand...
Very true. And this of course brings up the issue of having a right to something doesn't mean nuchal if you can't afford it. But still the principle is important and we should not reject just because someone is a cunt. This is playing into the hands of people who would want to cut it back even more.

This all sounds a bit grand it really is a minor thing overall. Just annoyed me.
 
Chilli.s said:
Speaker does a piss poor job as chair of what is supposed to be debate and opinion. Laughably so, wouldn't cut in in a college or school debate. Must have his eye on the possible self aggrandising that could happen if you toe the establishment line
Click to expand...
Fwiw, bercow was equally dreadful. Entirely partial on the remainer side and (almost) as keen as johnson to ignore parliamentary rules and conventions. Added to which, he was a complete show pony and bully. The current one embodies the sad sack idea of what a speakers should be. Does hardly anything to hold the executive to account, whilst getting (literally) misty eyed about the traditions of 'this place'.
 
The speakers only fucking role is that he stops them stabbing each other and cursing at each other. Oh and he’s got the agenda.


That’s it.
 
two sheds said:
If he gets fined for it he'll have less of a defence to the lying to parliament accusations (i.e. none at all).
Click to expand...
Tend to agree with this, but on the actual issue of the ministerial code/Commons conduct, I think that the problem he faces is one of (intentionally) misleading the house, rather than lying.

His answer in PMQs on 08/12/21, despite being lawyered up, looks like it contains the most obvious contender for breaching the code:

1644674840157.png
eta: weaselly words, but the meaning was obvious that he, personally, was unaware of any parties/rules broken...which we now know to be misleading.
 
brogdale said:
Tend to agree with this, but on the actual issue of the ministerial code/Commons conduct, I think that the problem he faces is one of (intentionally) misleading the house, rather than lying.

His answer in PMQs on 08/12/21, despite being lawyered up, looks like it contains the most obvious contender for breaching the code:

View attachment 309748
eta: weaselly words, but the meaning was obvious that he, personally, was unaware of any parties/rules broken...which we now know to be misleading.
Click to expand...
It's the 'I was assured' bit that almost got him off the hook there. If he was there are the party it hardly matters if someone assured him or not.

Which was Theresa May's point. He either broke the rules or didn't understand them. Which would be odd, given they were his rules.

This could be one epic squirm. :D
 
Don't think he, or anyone else, will get a fpn. The whole purpose of the mets investigation was to gum up the sue gray report.
But when that finally comes out there will surely be enough to unequivocally state he went to multiple parties and, by extension, lied about it.
At that point the mps will have to piss or get off the pot.
 
Kaka Tim said:
Don't think he, or anyone else, will get a fpn. The whole purpose of the mets investigation was to gum up the sue gray report.
But when that finally comes out there will surely be enough to unequivocally state he went to multiple parties and, by extension, lied about it.
At that point the mps will have to piss or get off the pot.
Click to expand...
That's my guess as to how it will play out. When that happens is probably the key issue in terms of whether they act or not and whether they have been hammered in May or not.
 
Yep, they will get off the pot. Now is not the time to have all this disruption, leadership contest. Et cetera. The fucking maggots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jeff Robinson
Thread to document institutional animal abuse
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
bcuster
bcuster
teuchter
  • Poll
Do you want Boris Johnson to win or lose the confidence vote?
2 3 4 5
Replies
149
Views
6K
Wilf
Wilf
tim
Filth by name; thick by nature. A thread for banal police stupidity
2 3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
6K
likesfish
likesfish
DaveCinzano
Undercover Policing Inquiry: SPYCOPS Mini Thread #1 - Trevor Morris AKA ‘Bobby McGee’ AKA ‘Anthony Lewis’
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
TopCat
TopCat
marty21
Jeremy Hunt Chancellor/Next PM , your time is up.
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
196
Views
11K
DotCommunist
D
Back
Top Bottom