Music2 mins ago
Surely Boris Has To Go Now?
Who is sticking up for Boris now? None of the papers as far as I can see.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by diddlydo. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// jim: //if Johnson is among those fined for a breach in Covid restrictions, I'm not sure how that's sustainable.//
It would be just & no worse than a speeding fine. //
It's surely true that Ministers who break laws, however comparatively small-scale, that they also happened to create and encourage others to follow, can't sustain their positions. The honourable thing to do in that instance would already be to resign. For example, if the Transport Secretary were caught speeding (or drink-driving), it would be rather a worse look than if, say, the Chancellor was.
In this case it's compounded, because Johnson has several times told the House that he did nothing wrong. To have been found to mislead Parliament, on anything, is also a resignation-level offence for a Minister, let alone the PM.
It would be just & no worse than a speeding fine. //
It's surely true that Ministers who break laws, however comparatively small-scale, that they also happened to create and encourage others to follow, can't sustain their positions. The honourable thing to do in that instance would already be to resign. For example, if the Transport Secretary were caught speeding (or drink-driving), it would be rather a worse look than if, say, the Chancellor was.
In this case it's compounded, because Johnson has several times told the House that he did nothing wrong. To have been found to mislead Parliament, on anything, is also a resignation-level offence for a Minister, let alone the PM.
“ On December 8 last year, Hornsey and Wood Green MP Catherine West asked Boris Johnson during Prime Minister’s Questions: “Will the prime minister tell the house whether there was a party in Downing Street on November 13?”
The prime minister answered: “No, but I am sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times.”
The Met are investigating … a party held in Downing St on Nov 13
The prime minister answered: “No, but I am sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times.”
The Met are investigating … a party held in Downing St on Nov 13
Spungle
Who actually gives a flying flamingo what the mainstream media or the short-tempered windbags north of the border think? Never in the field of human conflict was so much fuss made over so little.
——-
Yeah
I mean
We are only talking about repeatedly breaking the law when the country was in a pandemic lockdown and lying to/misleading parliament about it ?
Small beer eh ? Lol
Who actually gives a flying flamingo what the mainstream media or the short-tempered windbags north of the border think? Never in the field of human conflict was so much fuss made over so little.
——-
Yeah
I mean
We are only talking about repeatedly breaking the law when the country was in a pandemic lockdown and lying to/misleading parliament about it ?
Small beer eh ? Lol
Becoming more than a trickle now :
Another Tory MP has revealed he has submitted a letter of no confidence in the prime minister over his handling of partygate allegations - the third today.
Sir Gary Streeter, one of the Conservative Party's longest-serving MPs, is the latest to add his name to the list of those who have publicly announced they are, or have, handed in a letter of no confidence in Boris Johnson.
"I cannot reconcile the pain and sacrifice of the vast majority of the British public during lockdown with the attitude and activities of those working in Downing Street," the South West Devon MP said.
Sir Gary, who has been an MP since 1992, said he had been waiting for the Sue Gray report to be published and had "not come to this decision lightly".
No link yet, c & p from Sky News app
Another Tory MP has revealed he has submitted a letter of no confidence in the prime minister over his handling of partygate allegations - the third today.
Sir Gary Streeter, one of the Conservative Party's longest-serving MPs, is the latest to add his name to the list of those who have publicly announced they are, or have, handed in a letter of no confidence in Boris Johnson.
"I cannot reconcile the pain and sacrifice of the vast majority of the British public during lockdown with the attitude and activities of those working in Downing Street," the South West Devon MP said.
Sir Gary, who has been an MP since 1992, said he had been waiting for the Sue Gray report to be published and had "not come to this decision lightly".
No link yet, c & p from Sky News app
There’s a big point being missed here.
If the PM or any senior politicians and their aides have been found to have transgressed it is far worse than speeding. Everybody knows that speeding is illegal and that it has been for many years. It is not a fundamental right to travel in excess of the speed limit.
What happened in March 2020 was that draconian legislation was passed, virtually overnight and with no proper Parliamentary scrutiny. This was certainly the most restrictive legislation in peace time and arguably, certainly in some respects, more restrictive than any imposed in times of war. Suddenly, activities which were previously perfectly normal, legitimate and which were fundamental freedoms, became illegal. Transgressors were threatened with financial penalties (of increasing severity for repeat offences). Left unpaid, the miscreant would see action in the Magistrates’ Court. Wilful refusal to pay could ultimately end in custody.
Over the next few weeks The PM and other senior politicians appeared on the telly every evening, usually flanked by two “expert” minders, to solemnly lay down the gravity of the situation facing the country. “You must not go out. You must stay at home.” They uttered nightly. “Stay at home. Save Lives. Protect the NHS.” was the first of their many catchphrases.
Among the activities which were suddenly illegal was going to the pub for a pint with a few mates (the pubs were forcibly closed anyway); going to a café for a coffee with friends (closed); going to your favourite clothes shop for a new shirt or jumper (closed). Children were admonished by the police for playing in their front garden by officers (understandably) unaware that “the premises where they live” stretched to any “…other appurtenance of such premises.” Two young ladies faced a penalty for taking a stroll in the country whilst drinking a cup of coffee. You could walk across a golf course with a friend, but if you each had a set of golf clubs you could find yourself up before The Beak. Certainly off limits was meeting a few friends in your house or even in your garden for some wine, cheese and a bit of birthday cake. This was serious stuff. The Prime Minister and the rest of Her Majesty’s Government were asking us to take this seriously. It was certainly more serious than speeding. Or so we were led to believe.
If the PM or any senior politicians and their aides have been found to have transgressed it is far worse than speeding. Everybody knows that speeding is illegal and that it has been for many years. It is not a fundamental right to travel in excess of the speed limit.
What happened in March 2020 was that draconian legislation was passed, virtually overnight and with no proper Parliamentary scrutiny. This was certainly the most restrictive legislation in peace time and arguably, certainly in some respects, more restrictive than any imposed in times of war. Suddenly, activities which were previously perfectly normal, legitimate and which were fundamental freedoms, became illegal. Transgressors were threatened with financial penalties (of increasing severity for repeat offences). Left unpaid, the miscreant would see action in the Magistrates’ Court. Wilful refusal to pay could ultimately end in custody.
Over the next few weeks The PM and other senior politicians appeared on the telly every evening, usually flanked by two “expert” minders, to solemnly lay down the gravity of the situation facing the country. “You must not go out. You must stay at home.” They uttered nightly. “Stay at home. Save Lives. Protect the NHS.” was the first of their many catchphrases.
Among the activities which were suddenly illegal was going to the pub for a pint with a few mates (the pubs were forcibly closed anyway); going to a café for a coffee with friends (closed); going to your favourite clothes shop for a new shirt or jumper (closed). Children were admonished by the police for playing in their front garden by officers (understandably) unaware that “the premises where they live” stretched to any “…other appurtenance of such premises.” Two young ladies faced a penalty for taking a stroll in the country whilst drinking a cup of coffee. You could walk across a golf course with a friend, but if you each had a set of golf clubs you could find yourself up before The Beak. Certainly off limits was meeting a few friends in your house or even in your garden for some wine, cheese and a bit of birthday cake. This was serious stuff. The Prime Minister and the rest of Her Majesty’s Government were asking us to take this seriously. It was certainly more serious than speeding. Or so we were led to believe.
NJ //It was certainly more serious than speeding [cake & wine in the garden] Or so we were led to believe.//
That is a subjective, moral decision attempting to grade levels of misdemeanours, (which I shall nevertheless do). Speeding threatens the lives of the innocent, the 'party' didn't. Politicians & judges are, in the eyes of the law equal to everyone else, no more or no less special.
That is a subjective, moral decision attempting to grade levels of misdemeanours, (which I shall nevertheless do). Speeding threatens the lives of the innocent, the 'party' didn't. Politicians & judges are, in the eyes of the law equal to everyone else, no more or no less special.
I'm not trying to grade the seriousness of the misdemeanours, Khandro. I'm trying to emphasise the gravity and seriousness the government (led by the PM) tried to instil in the population and the restrictions they ordered to counter the pandemic, when it was quite clear that many of them had no intention of complying themselves.
You suggested it was no worse than speeding. I disagree. It is well known that speeding is illegal and none of the current government played any part in the introduction of speeding legislation. That legislation had proper Parliamentary scrutiny. The Covid restrictions criminalised overnight perfectly normal activities, examples of which I have pointed out. Without arguing over whether that was the correct strategy or not, it was nonetheless a draconian piece of legislation. The government told us it was necessary to save lives and protect the NHS. Most people complied as far as they could. But many politicians and their aides were obviously of the view that the law did not apply to them and it was equally clear that they believed (with some justification) that there would be no repercussions for them.
That is the issue here. Not what was done, but who did it and what part they played in framing and enacting the legislation and seeing its enforcement. This government scared the population witless so as to secure compliance but they clearly had no such fear themselves. The worst thing that leaders of any government can do is to impose laws that they are not prepared, as individuals, to comply with and that's exactly what's happened here.
You suggested it was no worse than speeding. I disagree. It is well known that speeding is illegal and none of the current government played any part in the introduction of speeding legislation. That legislation had proper Parliamentary scrutiny. The Covid restrictions criminalised overnight perfectly normal activities, examples of which I have pointed out. Without arguing over whether that was the correct strategy or not, it was nonetheless a draconian piece of legislation. The government told us it was necessary to save lives and protect the NHS. Most people complied as far as they could. But many politicians and their aides were obviously of the view that the law did not apply to them and it was equally clear that they believed (with some justification) that there would be no repercussions for them.
That is the issue here. Not what was done, but who did it and what part they played in framing and enacting the legislation and seeing its enforcement. This government scared the population witless so as to secure compliance but they clearly had no such fear themselves. The worst thing that leaders of any government can do is to impose laws that they are not prepared, as individuals, to comply with and that's exactly what's happened here.
Khandro
Speeding threatens the lives of the innocent, the 'party' didn't.
————-
So all those people at parties and gatherings potentially cross infecting one another and their families did not threaten lives ?
You do know how coronavirus works ?
You understand what a global pandemic is ?
What happened to ‘stop the spread’ ?
They certainly put a few on at Downing St !
You do recall that Boris was hospitalised with Covid ?
150,000 dead might testify that mingling with others in any capacity or facet of daily life was a major health risk !
Boris certainly found that out !
Speeding threatens the lives of the innocent, the 'party' didn't.
————-
So all those people at parties and gatherings potentially cross infecting one another and their families did not threaten lives ?
You do know how coronavirus works ?
You understand what a global pandemic is ?
What happened to ‘stop the spread’ ?
They certainly put a few on at Downing St !
You do recall that Boris was hospitalised with Covid ?
150,000 dead might testify that mingling with others in any capacity or facet of daily life was a major health risk !
Boris certainly found that out !
NJ //That is the issue here. Not what was done, but who did it and what part they played in framing and enacting the legislation and seeing its enforcement.//
Yes, we all know the story, but your judgement is surely a moral rather than a legal one.
Using speeding as an example; there are proscribed penalties imposed in relationship to the speed of the driven vehicle (here at least).
A traffic law-enforcement officer, who "should know better" driving at 60kmph in a 30km stretch, would be fined exactly the same as I would be.
Yes, we all know the story, but your judgement is surely a moral rather than a legal one.
Using speeding as an example; there are proscribed penalties imposed in relationship to the speed of the driven vehicle (here at least).
A traffic law-enforcement officer, who "should know better" driving at 60kmph in a 30km stretch, would be fined exactly the same as I would be.
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
News4 mins ago
Film, Media & TV5 mins ago
News10 mins ago
Singing By Chalicea ( The Crossword...
Crosswords11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.