Alexandole Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

BeerIsTheBest said:
Brewster
Thoughtful response, well crafted.
I can’t help drawing parallels with our investigation by the FA. The FA lower burden of proof with its element of ‘reasonable suspicion’
remains worrying to me.
I hate Johnson with a serious passion and do believe he is a compulsive liar and thoroughly unpleasant specimen, unfit for high office but…. the process to nail him is potentially the same sort that could be followed by the FA.
Sorry to deviate off track.
Click to expand...
Yes, I would agree with that.

Whatever anyone thinks of Johnson, I think it’s very dodgy to start making judgements, and censuring people, based on what they should have seen when they were walking back to their flat after what was probably a pretty exhausting day, mind on other matters. It should at least raise questions about the report, particularly as it ruled against Johnson on a number of marginal issues which I think were open to debate. In essence the report didn’t need to cite this evidence, as he still would have been found to have misled the House, but it’s inclusion is going to be controversial.

There’s also the issue of the 16 potential additional gatherings which the report cited, which in effect the Committee had no further evidence on, but which they still referenced in the document. Obviously this sort of thing wouldn’t be allowed in a court, and with good reason.

It’s the issue of what he should have seen on 18 December which is the controversial one though. I know that in money laundering cases, the prosecution can argue that somebody should have detected signs of criminality based on the evidence provided. But can the Committee really say with any certainty what was happening that evening at the precise moment he went upstairs, and whether Johnson should have seen it and in that split second judge whether a breach of guidance had occurred. I don’t really see how they could.
 
Brewster's millions said:
Whatever anyone thinks of Johnson, I think it’s very dodgy to start making judgements, and censuring people, based on what they should have seen when they were walking back to their flat after what was probably a pretty exhausting day, mind on other matters
Click to expand...

There you go again - deflecting. Who saw or didn't see what and where is nothing to do with it - I will make it as simple as I can for you

1/ Johnson set up the investigating committee
2/ Parliament OK'D the committee and its make
3/ The committee's - agreed by all parties to - INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON WHETHER JOHNSON LIED TO THE HOUSE.

Not parties not people going home - Johnson told the House on many occasions all the rules had been followed - later modified to he was repeatedly assured that they were. He gave evidence to that effect to the committee and when advisers and others gave their evidence NONE of them were prepared to perjure themselves for him and said they had never told him any such thing.

If you are gonna keep banging on about cake and what people may or may not have seen you just make yourself out to be ignorant or a WUM - he lied and when he tried to justify it the whole thing would not stand up in "court"
 
Gaudion M said:
It will be interesting. The majority of Tory MPs fall into the one nation camp. But they are spineless. They know the base and right wing press just want loony madness, anything that stands in the way of the small bracket of loonies is derided. So who amongst them will show their face?
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with that. The feral press cause people to not break ranks.

I think only the old heads will vocally condemn Johnson - presumably the 4 from the committee are safe votes - and a fair number will find pressing business elsewhere. I suspect some of the loudest (Patel for example) will just not show up.
Having said that, the amendments could be interesting. As he's already run away, there's not that much to question, although the members pass withdrawal will doubtlessly be one.
 
bluethrunthru said:
Try not to laugh but after the Sue Grey debacle turns out he can't just quit as an MP and go to the Mail without permission of Acoba ( you'd think he would remember that but hey rules and him...... ) so they have written to him asking for details lol
Click to expand...

Nope, failed.

I doubt they can do anything about it, so he'll just continue his trampling of behavioural standards.
 
bluethrunthru said:
There you go again - deflecting. Who saw or didn't see what and where is nothing to do with it - I will make it as simple as I can for you

1/ Johnson set up the investigating committee
2/ Parliament OK'D the committee and its make
3/ The committee's - agreed by all parties to - INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON WHETHER JOHNSON LIED TO THE HOUSE.

Not parties not people going home - Johnson told the House on many occasions all the rules had been followed - later modified to he was repeatedly assured that they were. He gave evidence to that effect to the committee and when advisers and others gave their evidence NONE of them were prepared to perjure themselves for him and said they had never told him any such thing.

If you are gonna keep banging on about cake and what people may or may not have seen you just make yourself out to be ignorant or a WUM - he lied and when he tried to justify it the whole thing would not stand up in "court"
Click to expand...
Not for the first time, and surely not the last, you’ve got the wrong end of the stick here and made another unnecessary intervention.

A few points before I depart for the day;

First, if you read my first post today again - properly this time - you will see that I don’t doubt that Johnson lied to and misled the house, or that he distorted or exaggerated the evidence on several issues. I’ve also stated why I believe the exact nature of the six gatherings investigated by the Committee is of central importance to the report’s findings. Again, if Johnson knew first hand that COVID rules and/or guidance were breached at the various gatherings, then he would have knowingly misled the House when later claiming that they were in fact compliant. This is why the first half of the report is dedicated to birthday cakes, number of attendees, so on and so forth. Where’s the deflection there?

Second, I would also add that I’ve come to this view after reading the report, something you clearly haven’t bothered to do given your ignorance of the evidence presented. My approach of wanting to actually read the report appeared - for whatever reason - to get you and others extremely animated last night. Extremely animated. According to the logic of this place, if that’s the right word (it isn’t), reading things for myself and trying to gain a fuller understanding of a complex matter makes me a twat and imbecile (not your words, I’m happy to report).

Further, if you read my second post again, you will see that the discussion does not alter my view that Johnson misled the house. It relates instead to a secondary issue, namely the controversy over some elements of the report and in particular the question of what Johnson should have been expected to see in relation to a particular event. Given that these issues will be discussed at length in the media over the next few days, and that they could set a precedent for future reports, I think that this is an issue which could be of interest to other people on the forum.

Finally, on a related theme, I think you should try to remember that other people should be allowed to have a discussion on the forum, particularly when that discussion isn’t actually referencing yourself, or being abusive to others. Not everything is an attempt to distort or distract - some people just like to have a discussion - but you seem intent on confronting and deterring this. I think it gets a bit tiresome after a while.
 
bluethrunthru said:
There you go again - deflecting. Who saw or didn't see what and where is nothing to do with it - I will make it as simple as I can for you

1/ Johnson set up the investigating committee
2/ Parliament OK'D the committee and its make
3/ The committee's - agreed by all parties to - INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON WHETHER JOHNSON LIED TO THE HOUSE.

Not parties not people going home - Johnson told the House on many occasions all the rules had been followed - later modified to he was repeatedly assured that they were. He gave evidence to that effect to the committee and when advisers and others gave their evidence NONE of them were prepared to perjure themselves for him and said they had never told him any such thing.

If you are gonna keep banging on about cake and what people may or may not have seen you just make yourself out to be ignorant or a WUM - he lied and when he tried to justify it the whole thing would not stand up in "court"
Click to expand...
Just like bullies defend bullying, racists defend racism so liars defend lying. Nothing else is of any relevance. He lied and lied and then lied some more. He sneered at us all down his privileged and entitled nose while we were all suffering and people were dying in complete and utter loneliness. I don’t use the C word but for Johnson I don’t really know of any other word that truly describes this absolutely disgrace of a human being.
 
Eccles Blue said:
I told you he’d get away with it. I knew he’d be back. I feel for every person who lost a loved one during Covid. That piece of dirt is as good as dancing on their graves!

Right I am banning myself from reading this thread because I can’t be responsible or sensible around it.

I am not a violent woman but if that turd was in front of me now I would punch him in the face and kick him in the place that hurts normal men the most.
Click to expand...
In Johnson's case that would be his wallet.
 
Brewster's millions said:
Not for the first time, and surely not the last, you’ve got the wrong end of the stick here and made another unnecessary intervention.

A few points before I depart for the day;

First, if you read my first post today again - properly this time - you will see that I don’t doubt that Johnson lied to and misled the house, or that he distorted or exaggerated the evidence on several issues. I’ve also stated why I believe the exact nature of the six gatherings investigated by the Committee is of central importance to the report’s findings. Again, if Johnson knew first hand that COVID rules and/or guidance were breached at the various gatherings, then he would have knowingly misled the House when later claiming that they were in fact compliant. This is why the first half of the report is dedicated to birthday cakes, number of attendees, so on and so forth. Where’s the deflection there?

Second, I would also add that I’ve come to this view after reading the report, something you clearly haven’t bothered to do given your ignorance of the evidence presented. My approach of wanting to actually read the report appeared - for whatever reason - to get you and others extremely animated last night. Extremely animated. According to the logic of this place, if that’s the right word (it isn’t), reading things for myself and trying to gain a fuller understanding of a complex matter makes me a twat and imbecile (not your words, I’m happy to report).

Further, if you read my second post again, you will see that the discussion does not alter my view that Johnson misled the house. It relates instead to a secondary issue, namely the controversy over some elements of the report and in particular the question of what Johnson should have been expected to see in relation to a particular event. Given that these issues will be discussed at length in the media over the next few days, and that they could set a precedent for future reports, I think that this is an issue which could be of interest to other people on the forum.

Finally, on a related theme, I think you should try to remember that other people should be allowed to have a discussion on the forum, particularly when that discussion isn’t actually referencing yourself, or being abusive to others. Not everything is an attempt to distort or distract - some people just like to have a discussion - but you seem intent on confronting and deterring this. I think it gets a bit tiresome after a while.
Click to expand...
Why should anyone be bothered about secondary issues in the report. The key points are that Johnson lied to the house, then lied to the committee to deny those lies, then attacked the integrity of the committee (and therefore parliament itself). What Johnson should be expected to see makes no difference to the thrust of the report which painstakingly spelt out the reasons for its conclusions.

As for your whine about not being allowed to post, you’ve written more words than practically anyone else on this subject, mostly in a vain attempt to minimise Johnson’s appalling behaviour by comparing it to unrelated events involving other people. Your agenda is totally transparent.
 
Brave Boris has told his attack dogs not to bother voting against on Monday. Reason? All he had was that 7 or 8 doing the "kangaroo court over cake" bollocks - he knew once again he can no longer muster the numbers but once again rather face the music he has run away again................ pretty basic rule in politics is count the numbers - have you enough? If not do you have an argument that can attract those numbers? If not its over before its started. He began agitating first then realised he had neither numbers nor a case to attract those numbers.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I watched that - it was excellent work at dismantling the obfuscation.
Click to expand...

BC-S at one stage looked like a boxer who had taken a few good combinations and was staring back at her with a dead eyed dazed expression. People like him just have not been used to being taken to task for a few years.
 
bluethrunthru said:
Brave Boris has told his attack dogs not to bother voting against on Monday. Reason? All he had was that 7 or 8 doing the "kangaroo court over cake" bollocks - he knew once again he can no longer muster the numbers but once again rather face the music he has run away again................ pretty basic rule in politics is count the numbers - have you enough? If not do you have an argument that can attract those numbers? If not its over before its started. He began agitating first then realised he had neither numbers nor a case to attract those numbers.
Click to expand...
Spot on.

If I was Sunak, now is where you go for the throat, agree with the report and tell anyone who doesn't to vote against it.

Johnson last chance was following Truss resignation, Sunak by been just a bit better than really shit looks like a giant compared to his last two predecessors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top