News27 mins ago
Attempts At Under-Bus Throwing.
Johnson today blamed his excellent civil servants and advisers and the current PM and Ms Gray and Dominic Cummings and everybody he's ever met, for everything bad that's ever happened to him. Do you feel sorry for him?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Atheist. 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.
[email protected]
Yes, 'I believed guidance was being followed at all times'.
And there's no point your claiming the usual rubbish that that it was a mistaken but genuinely-held belief. Remember you do live in the real world!
Yes, 'I believed guidance was being followed at all times'.
And there's no point your claiming the usual rubbish that that it was a mistaken but genuinely-held belief. Remember you do live in the real world!
Insofar as he’s the victim of a long-running witch hunt - his punishment, I believe, for daring to honour the result of a democratic referendum - yes, I do feel sorry for him. Yesterday’s kangaroo court was designed to humiliate and I’ve no doubt it succeeded but perhaps not as it intended. As a spectacle on the world stage, a stage upon which Boris has been an obvious leader not only in the rally against Covid but in support for Ukraine, that court made a spectacle of our government and that in turn humiliated this country. A shameful exhibition and certainly nothing to be proud of. The whole farce from start to finish has been a disingenuous nonsense manufactured by sour, baying nonentities fuelled by spite and bent on revenge. Witness the glee on these pages alone. Among Boris’s enemies the hatred is palpable - and that’s something that no one should be proud of.
All of that said, whatever the outcome of yesterday’s circus, as painful as it may be to some here, whether in or out of parliament, we haven’t seen the last of Boris. Sorry to disappoint.
All of that said, whatever the outcome of yesterday’s circus, as painful as it may be to some here, whether in or out of parliament, we haven’t seen the last of Boris. Sorry to disappoint.
Prudie's defence of Johnson seems to be based on a case that Johnson himself wouldn't dream of trying. Ditto, jourdain, when she refers to the restrictions as "idiotic" -- hardly a defence, especially when it was Johnson himself who helped shape them, approve them, and regularly defend them on national TV. Maybe the guidance was idiotic, but it matters not for this question. The fact is that there *was* this guidance; the fact is that staff at Number 10 did not follow it; the fact is that Johnson himself was fined for breaking the guidance and rules.
Even referring to this as a "witch hunt" misses the point spectacularly. Firstly, witches are generally entirely innocent; again, however, there is at least one part of the charge that Johnson is undoubtedly "guilty" of, namely that he misled Parliament by saying, on the record, that the guidance and rules were followed "at all times". He himself has conceded this point, mainly because it's undeniably true.
Secondly, the phrase "witch hunt" has been so horribly co-opted lately to reverse the power dynamic that properly defined witch hunts. Those accused of witches were the lonely old women, or the young and isolated, or those whom the village had taken a dislike to. The power dynamic, in other words, was stacked against the "witch". It's difficult to imagine someone further removed from this position than somebody who, until recently, held the highest office in the land, and who even today commands a pretty decent amount of public support, and who will enjoy a pretty lucrative career outside politics if it gets that far. The worst that will happen to Johnson is that he is forced to undergo a by-election. Since he would be allowed to stand in said election, it isn't even clear that he'd lose it, and all this would amount to is a minor interruption to his political career. Indeed, winning that by-election might prove quite the PR coup.
Backing up, anyway, the only question to address is this: did Johnson know (or, did he take adequate steps to know) that what he said to the House about the guidance/rules being followed at No.10 was not true?
It is not about the wisdom of that guidance. It is not about the role Johnson played, or didn't, in organising the rule-breaking events. It is not about whether the statement itself was true. It's not about any other issue. It's just about that. Did he wittingly mislead the House?
Even referring to this as a "witch hunt" misses the point spectacularly. Firstly, witches are generally entirely innocent; again, however, there is at least one part of the charge that Johnson is undoubtedly "guilty" of, namely that he misled Parliament by saying, on the record, that the guidance and rules were followed "at all times". He himself has conceded this point, mainly because it's undeniably true.
Secondly, the phrase "witch hunt" has been so horribly co-opted lately to reverse the power dynamic that properly defined witch hunts. Those accused of witches were the lonely old women, or the young and isolated, or those whom the village had taken a dislike to. The power dynamic, in other words, was stacked against the "witch". It's difficult to imagine someone further removed from this position than somebody who, until recently, held the highest office in the land, and who even today commands a pretty decent amount of public support, and who will enjoy a pretty lucrative career outside politics if it gets that far. The worst that will happen to Johnson is that he is forced to undergo a by-election. Since he would be allowed to stand in said election, it isn't even clear that he'd lose it, and all this would amount to is a minor interruption to his political career. Indeed, winning that by-election might prove quite the PR coup.
Backing up, anyway, the only question to address is this: did Johnson know (or, did he take adequate steps to know) that what he said to the House about the guidance/rules being followed at No.10 was not true?
It is not about the wisdom of that guidance. It is not about the role Johnson played, or didn't, in organising the rule-breaking events. It is not about whether the statement itself was true. It's not about any other issue. It's just about that. Did he wittingly mislead the House?
Clare, you're playing with words again.
https:/
https:/
I'm absolutely not. Firstly, I'm referring to the historical origins of the phrase, as I made clear. Secondly, since as a matter of fact Johnson *has* done something wrong, the question is now the extent to which it was wrong. This attempt to frame it as anything else, e.g. some punishment for Brexit, is just absolute nonsense and a deliberate distraction from the actual questions.
This article should be compulsory reading for those who still support the ex-PM.
https:/
https:/
Clare, The historical origin of the phrase is irrelevant. We all know what the term means in today's language and in normal circumstances you would be among the first to remind the reader that language changes and we have to accept that. Johnson has apparently done 'something wrong', and he paid a fine for that. Your opinion on the background to this farce disagrees with mine but that renders mine no less valid. This man has been hated by very many Remainers since the prospect of Brexit first reared its head, the result being that everything and anything he has done has invited very often unwarranted criticism. That is doubtless an inconvenient fact and one that should not be dismissed lightly - in my opinion.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles103 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles171 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles222 mins ago
Crosswords231 mins ago
Animals & Nature234 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.