Alexandole Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

johnnytapia said:
He could lose the leadership and still remain PM under our constitution. The only person with the legal authority to remove him is the monarch. If it were anyone else, I’d agree with you, and he’d be gone. But with this **** we may well need Her Maj to pull the metaphorical trigger.
Click to expand...

The PM position is held by the leader of the party.
If he didn't acquiesce (for whatever reason), I could see the whips throwing him out to prevent dragging the queen into it.

He must have some ambitions left though, and it would burn him forever if he refused to go. The Knight of the Garter position that comes in time to ex-prime ministers would never come his way.
 
west didsblue said:
Seems Johnson’s client press will happily tear apart every candidate for PM in the hope that MPs will accept a half arsed apology from Johnson and let him stay on. If they don’t get rid of him in the next week it might even work.
Click to expand...

He'll certainly be trying to rig who remains in the race - they get to give honours out!
 
MillionMilesAway said:
The PM position is held by the leader of the party.
If he didn't acquiesce (for whatever reason), I could see the whips throwing him out to prevent dragging the queen into it.

He must have some ambitions left though, and it would burn him forever if he refused to go. The Knight of the Garter position that comes in time to ex-prime ministers would never come his way.
Click to expand...
All true but constitutionally, only the monarch has the legal authority to remove him. Not been exercised for over 200 years but this **** could change that. Never knew that about Knight of Garter. We have some great, arcane rules!
 
johnnytapia said:
All true but constitutionally, only the monarch has the legal authority to remove him. Not been exercised for over 200 years but this **** could change that. Never knew that about Knight of Garter. We have some great, arcane rules!
Click to expand...

KG is a custom, rather than rule.
It's the monarch's choice, but previous ones have got it, and in order. The time it takes to get them varies though - Major got his in 2005 (8 years after), Blair got his this year (14 years on), Thatcher was 5 years on.

Although it still has to go through Brown (presumably), Cameron, May - so it could be a long time yet - I'd think it may count against him. Theoretically, the monarch could fill the remaining places beforehand (there are 4 of the 24 free).

I don't know for certain, but I'd think the constitutional position is arguable, having not been tested recently. I'd think a refusal to leave is unlikely, and would be catastrophic for him and his party.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
KG is a custom, rather than rule.
It's the monarch's choice, but previous ones have got it, and in order. The time it takes to get them varies though - Major got his in 2005 (8 years after), Blair got his this year (14 years on), Thatcher was 5 years on.

Although it still has to go through Brown (presumably), Cameron, May - so it could be a long time yet - I'd think it may count against him. Theoretically, the monarch could fill the remaining places beforehand (there are 4 of the 24 free).

I don't know for certain, but I'd think the constitutional position is arguable, having not been tested recently. I'd think a refusal to leave is unlikely, and would be catastrophic for him and his party.
Click to expand...
Which 24 places? Knights of Garter?
 
MillionMilesAway said:
KG is a custom, rather than rule.
It's the monarch's choice, but previous ones have got it, and in order. The time it takes to get them varies though - Major got his in 2005 (8 years after), Blair got his this year (14 years on), Thatcher was 5 years on.

Although it still has to go through Brown (presumably), Cameron, May - so it could be a long time yet - I'd think it may count against him. Theoretically, the monarch could fill the remaining places beforehand (there are 4 of the 24 free).

I don't know for certain, but I'd think the constitutional position is arguable, having not been tested recently. I'd think a refusal to leave is unlikely, and would be catastrophic for him and his party.
Click to expand...
The only KG he'll get is a Kick in the Goolies.
 
bobmcfc said:


Only just seen this. Slimy bastard
Click to expand...

Misconduct in public office? This might be relevant for the CPS...

(1) A public officer has requested or demanded sexual acts in exchange for using their position or power to benefit (or avoid detriment) to another person. For example, an immigration official requesting sexual favours from an asylum seeker in exchange for granting them refugee status.

(2) A public officer has engaged in sexual activity with someone they have met or gained access to in the course of their work and, while “consensual”, the sexual conduct is considered to amount to a breach of public trust in the office holder due to the misuse of the position and the particular vulnerability of that person.

If consent was not freely given, then the possibility of a rape charge arises:

The CPS publishes a document entitled “What is consent”, which breaks down some of the key issues for police and prosecutors to consider in interpreting the law, and challenges some common myths and stereotypes. Among the factors highlighted in relation to “freedom to consent” are: Where the suspect was in a position of power where they could abuse their trust, especially because of their position or status – e.g. a family member, teacher, religious leader, employer, gang member, carer, doctor.

References culled from:
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.