laserblue
Well-Known Member
Cue a re-run of his old favourites. Watermelon smiles, tank topped bumboys, letterbox veiled Muslim women and piccaninnies.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Alexandole Boris de Pfeffel Johnson
- Thread starter hilts
- Start date
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 32,298
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.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.
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.
johnnytapia
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 10,568
He’s skint
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
Derbyshire completely steamrollered the pathetic sycophantic twat
I watched that - it was excellent work at dismantling the obfuscation.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
I watched that - it was excellent work at dismantling the obfuscation.
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.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
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.
The Sharp effect?
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
That's just a bizarre waste of time. Is he writing parody columns now (or at least having someone else do it for him)?
Spot on.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.
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.