Police called to disturbance at UK PM candidate Johnson's home

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Boris Johnson is a public figure standing for the highest public office, regardless off protestations to the contrary his personal life is of interest to the general public.

 

The personal lives of TVF members discussing this issue are not the topic of or at all relevant to the discussion.

Agreed! On the final point, at least.

 

But don't you understand that sensationalising and thus focusing on issues as trivial & far removed from the public's concern such as what he was having a tiff with his girlfriend about only detracts from the REAL questions about his political ability, intellectual aptitude and strategem for exiting the EU etc.?

 

It's a case of voyeurism vs rigourous political debate. What do you think is more important / worth concentrating on? And do you or anyone else really think that him having passionate arguments with partners really undermines his ability as a PM?

Edited June 24, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[JonnyF]

Sounds like some nosy neighbours with a grudge.

 

Or maybe it's the anti-democrat lunatic who ruins every interview outside Westminster by shouting "Stoppppppppppppp Brexxxitttttttttttttttt". Either way, I'm not sure an argument with your partner precludes you from being PM. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

43 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

The "highest public office" in the UK is the Crown, surely?

I'm glad you included a question mark to that. 

[ThaiBunny]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

I'm glad you included a question mark to that. 

I did it especially for you, as you've responded to a couple of posts of mine in this thread with the Confused emoji, which pretty much sums you up as far as I'm concerned

[Chomper Higgot]

34 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Agreed! On the final point, at least.

 

But don't you understand that sensationalising and thus focusing on issues as trivial & far removed from the public's concern such as what he was having a tiff with his girlfriend about only detracts from the REAL questions about his political ability, intellectual aptitude and strategem for exiting the EU etc.?

 

It's a case of voyeurism vs rigourous political debate. What do you think is more important / worth concentrating on? And do you or anyone else really think that him having passionate arguments with partners really undermines his ability as a PM?

My view is this incident adds to broader view of who and what Boris Johnson is. 

 

As PM he would have control over life and death issues, with that in mind his emotional behaviour in a domestic is of great interest.

 

I understand others would rather he not face public scrutiny. 

 

 

[ThaiBunny]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

I understand others would rather he not face public scrutiny. 

Others think it's utterly irrelevant. C'mon then, who's your preferred candidate out of the two, and why?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, ThaiBunny said:

Others think it's utterly irrelevant. C'mon then, who's your preferred candidate out of the two, and why?

I'm not in the least bit bothered, they'll both fail to deliver on their Brexit Promises. 

 

But let's discuss that when the topic comes up. 

[geoffbezoz]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

Who are you to decide whether abortions are right or wrong, the amount of anger that appears in your posts would suggest that you have an axe to grind, that axe being Brexit, if Mother Theresa was going for the PMs job I'm sure you'd find some morsal of gossip if you thought she'd take us out of the EU.

That would be a miracle indeed, she's been dead 22 years

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

My view is this incident adds to broader view of who and what Boris Johnson is. 

 

As PM he would have control over life and death issues, with that in mind his emotional behaviour in a domestic is of great interest.

 

I understand others would rather he not face public scrutiny. 

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Others think it's utterly irrelevant. C'mon then, who's your preferred candidate out of the two, and why?

 

I, and I think most level headed people, realise that decisions you make whils holding the top public office is not tempered with the same emotion, intimacy or history as reactions / behaviour displayed in a marital argument - so the two are basically unrelated, unless the person in question is perhaps psychotic or of unsound mind in some other serious way. I can guarantee you that EVERY PM and other high ranking official in the country's history will have at some point had regrettable moments in their personal life as they're all human. We, the public, have no idea about the vaaaaast majority of these, because if it doesn't affect their capacity to make tough decisions and deal with the rigours of government etc. then we have no need and indeed no right to know - even people in public office are entitled to a private life after all! 

Edited June 24, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

That would be a miracle indeed, she's been dead 22 years

Maybe she could do it posthumously, if she can remainers will find it from somewhere on the net.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I'm not in the least bit bothered

Hahahahaha, really!? Juding from the last few pages of comments you could have fooled me!

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

 

I, and I think most level headed people, realise that decisions you make / general behaviour of anyone who has risen to the top public office is not tempered with the same emotion, intimacy or history as reactions / behaviour displayed in a marital argument - so the two are basically unrelated, unless the person in question is perhaps psychotic or of unsound mind in some other serious way. I can guarantee you that EVERY PM and other high ranking official in the country's history will have at some point had regrettable moments in the personal life - and we have no idea about the vaaaaast majority of these, because if it doesn't affect their capacity to make tough decisions and deal with the rigours of government etc. then we have no need and indeed no right to know - even people in public office are entitled to a private life after all! 

You are of course entitled to your view on the matter, the basis that you share this with 'most level headed people' is left as a belief you have. 

 

If everything you say is true, then this is more reason for Johnson to engage the public in a  frank and honest discussion on the matter, it is certainly no argument against this incident being open for discussion and examination.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Hahahahaha, really!? Juding from the last few pages of comments you could have fooled me!

Then you can find the bit where I expressed a preference. 

 

Off you go, search away. 

[ThaiBunny]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

engage the public in a  frank and honest discussion on the matter

Should he perhaps broadcast his side of the argument on Twitter in real time, as the domestic argument unfolds?

[ThaiBunny]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Then you can find the bit where I expressed a preference.

You are quite right, it's been an entirely one-sided rant by you against someone you clearly despise

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are of course entitled to your view on the matter, the basis that you share this with 'most level headed people' is left as a belief you have. 

 

If everything you say is true, then this is more reason for Johnson to engage the public in a  frank and honest discussion on the matter, it is certainly no argument against this incident being open for discussion and examination.

 

 

 

Again, I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion, if you have read and understood mine and many other people's similar comments, then surely you'd see the point we're making runs counter to that.

 

Should he perhaps inform us all of the size, colour and viscocity of his recent bowel movements? Or his opinion on the latest series of Game of Thrones? Or perhaps what sexual position he and his partner favour most?

 

I made the point in an earlier remark that he hasn't had a lot of time to give a statement about it and that he may still - AND - that even if he did it's highly unlikely people who have a bias against him (well represented here) would believe whatever statement he made anyway. So, what would the point be? ESPECIALLY when as many of us 'level headed types' ???? have iterated many times, it's a private matter that has little to no bearing on any issues that concern the public. I'd have thought it was a simple enough concept to wrap one's head around?

Edited June 24, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[evadgib]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Then you can find the bit where I expressed a preference. 

 

Off you go, search away. 

Make it easy for us please Stomper. How many times show up in you profile re the use of 'Confused'?

Edited June 24, 2019 by evadgib

[ThaiBunny]

3 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

it's a private matter that has little to no bearing on any issues that concern the public. I'd have thought it was a simple enough concept to wrap one's head around?

I'm more exercised by the notion that he explain what's going on. Should this happen every time he and his mistress have an argument, or only the times when it gets into the papers?

Edited June 24, 2019 by ThaiBunny

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

Make it easy for us Stomper. How many times show up in you profile re the use of 'Confused'?

Once again evadgib, I am not the topic of discussion.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, ThaiBunny said:

I'm more exercised by the notion that he explain what's going on. Should this happen every time he and his girlfriend have an argument, or only the times when it gets into the papers?

Let's start with whenever the police attend one of his domestics. 

[ThaiBunny]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Let's start with whenever the police attend one of his domestics. 

I think you need to explain why you're limiting it to those occurrences. Should the police make a public statement that they were called to his house every time it happens, or only when it's reported by non-police (as happened in this case)? Where do the laws on privacy come into play if you're expecting the police to volunteer the information?

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Again, I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion, if you have read and understood mine and many other people's similar comments, then surely you'd see the point we're making runs counter to that.

I made the point in an earlier remark that he hasn't had a lot of time to give a statement about it and that he may still - AND - that even if he did it's highly unlikely people who have a bias against him (well represented here) would believe whatever statement he made anyway. So, what would the point be? ESPECIALLY when as many of us 'level headed types' ???? have iterated many times, it's a private matter that has little to no bearing on any issues that concern the public. I'd have thought it was a simple enough concept to wrap one's head around?

You assert it's a private matter that has little to no bearing on any issues of concern to the public. 

 

I disagree. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I think you need to explain why you're limiting it to those occurrences. Should the police make a public statement that they were called to his house every time it happens, or only when it's reported by non-police (as happened in this case)? Where do the laws on privacy come into play if you're expecting the police to volunteer the information?

I'm limiting it to those occurrences because, the topic under discussion is a domestic incident involving Boris Johnson to which the police were called and attended. 

 

I hope that is clear.

[ThaiBunny]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I'm limiting it to those occurrences because, the topic under discussion is a domestic incident involving Boris Johnson to which the police were called and attended. I hope that is clear.

As I said, you need to explain why, especially with regard to the law of privacy which even you might admit is the law of the land

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

9 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I think you need to explain why you're limiting it to those occurrences. Should the police make a public statement that they were called to his house every time it happens, or only when it's reported by non-police (as happened in this case)? Where do the laws on privacy come into play if you're expecting the police to volunteer the information?

Quite right!

 

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let's start with whenever the police attend one of his domestics. 

 

'“There were no offences or concerns apparent to the officers and there was no cause for police action,” the statement said.'

 

So - firstly, there was no police report made, so it was simply a loud argument (not a crime is it!?) that has been reported by their neighbours blown out of proportion by factions the media - for obvious reasons.

 

Secondly, you are in danger of sounding pretty disingenuous here - 'one of his domestics', this isn't a regular occurence - even with what must be rather nosey neighbours, and he has no record of battery, assault or offences against women of any kind. 

 

You were, just a couple of comments back arguing that you were totally impartial here - I'd say nearly every comment you've made belies that pretty clearly ???? 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You assert it's a private matter that has little to no bearing on any issues of concern to the public. 

 

I disagree. 

But I'm pretty sure if Boris was a remainer and he was advocating staying in the European Union we would probably not be having this discussion. Your morals seem to be tied to your biases.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

But I'm pretty sure if Boris was a remainer and he was advocating staying in the European Union we would probably not be having this discussion. Your morals seem to be tied to your biases.

Yup. I think that is pretty clear - I've never seen anyone with the same views of Brexit as CH ever come close to impartiality regarding Brexiteers / Remainers.

 

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You assert it's a private matter that has little to no bearing on any issues of concern to the public. 

 

I disagree. 

So you keep saying, what you're wholly unable to explain is how you justify that disagreement.

[ThaiBunny]

If we go right back to the genesis of this, as reported by the BBC:

1. The police were called to the premises occupied by Boris and his mistress by a neighbour
2. The neighbour had already recorded the disturbance
3. The police decided there were no issues for them and departed
4. The neighbour contacted the newspapers with his recording
5. The police denied they had been called out
6. The police were then played the recording
7. The police subsequently admitted they had been called out and there was nothing to detain them

And now we are where we are

[evadgib]

3 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

If we go right back to the genesis of this, as reported by the BBC:

1. The police were called to the premises occupied by Boris and his mistress by a neighbour
2. The neighbour had already recorded the disturbance
3. The police decided there were no issues for them and departed
4. The neighbour contacted the newspapers with his recording
5. The police denied they had been called out
6. The police were then played the recording
7. The police subsequently admitted they had been called out and there was nothing to detain them

And now we are where we are

Here:

 

[evadgib]

Farage on Boris and brexit this morning.

 

And here's Piers Morgan:

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by evadgib