Johnson continues to cry foul - but it's the relatives of COVID victims that'll be nauseated by his protests

[Kwasaki]

9 minutes ago, chalawaan said:

The politburo of China would LOVE you. It's truly chilling to grasp you're genuinely ok with this level of entitlement and dystopia. 

 

Give us a single example where putting any human above the law, especially a moral vacuum like Johnson, ended well for humanity. 

 

 

Give your Halo a polish and keep away from a piece of cake and a glass with a drink.

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

This thread is not about Blair - it's about the second most incompetent Prime Minister of the last century.

Wrong. Please read the OP. 

 

It's about Boris Johnson.

[James105]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

They essentially were. Where other people were prosecuted for relatively minor infractions, the government were having bacchanalian extravaganzas which they were allowed to document by questionnaire. 

I thought he was punished.  Didn't he get a fine for his cake eating crime?  Obviously because of who he is this would be something the left would happily bring back the death penalty for so a meagre fine will never be enough for people like him.

 

I can't stand the guy.  I thought his handling of Covid was weak and he was bullied into locking the country down when he should have been stronger.   He knew that the rules and lockdowns were stupid, costly and pointless (hence his infractions) but he wasn't strong enough to not impose them anyway due to pressure from the fearful.   I would like to see him face consequences (as I would for most other world leaders) for the crime of pointlessly taking away peoples freedoms and plunging their economies into debt that will probably take generations to pay back.  

 

There are 2 types of people in this world.  Those who admit to breaking at least one rule during covid lockdowns or those who did but lie about it and want to persecute those who got caught.   

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, James105 said:

I thought he was punished.  Didn't he get a fine for his cake eating crime?  Obviously because of who he is this would be something the left would happily bring back the death penalty for so a meagre fine will never be enough for people like him.

 

I can't stand the guy.  I thought his handling of Covid was weak and he was bullied into locking the country down when he should have been stronger.   He knew that the rules and lockdowns were stupid, costly and pointless (hence his infractions) but he wasn't strong enough to not impose them anyway due to pressure from the fearful.   I would like to see him face consequences (as I would for most other world leaders) for the crime of pointlessly taking away peoples freedoms and plunging their economies into debt that will probably take generations to pay back.  

 

There are 2 types of people in this world.  Those who admit to breaking at least one rule during covid lockdowns or those who did but lie about it and want to persecute those who got caught.   

The issue is Johnson’s response to being held account for lying to Parliament, by a majority Tory committee, empaneled by a Tory Government.

 

 

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Wrong. Please read the OP. 

 

It's about Boris Johnson.

Yes, saved from the ignominy of the top spot by his successor.

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

Yes, saved from the ignominy of the top spot by his successor.

I guess, due to the lack of a link from a credible source, that's just a personal opinion.

[RuamRudy]

5 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I guess, due to the lack of a link from a credible source, that's just a personal opinion.

Of course it is. Or have I missed the official UK chart of worst prime ministers?

But by the same (lack of) logic, if you disagree then you must be also relying upon personal opinion.

[youreavinalaff]

8 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Of course it is. Or have I missed the official UK chart of worst prime ministers?

But by the same (lack of) logic, if you disagree then you must be also relying upon personal opinion.

I didn't disagree.

 

I pointed out this topic is about a named ex prime minister. Not someone who has been officially ranked in an imaginary league of best or worst. Just a fact. That's all.

[James105]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The issue is Johnson’s response to being held account for lying to Parliament, by a majority Tory committee, empaneled by a Tory Government.

 

 

Just to be clear.   He is being held to account for lying about eating cake on his birthday, and not for lying to parliament about weapons of mass destruction that led to 100s of thousands of deaths?   

 

I'm all for MPs being held to account for lying, but this is ridiculous.   

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, James105 said:

Just to be clear.   He is being held to account for lying about eating cake on his birthday, and not for lying to parliament about weapons of mass destruction that led to 100s of thousands of deaths?   

 

I'm all for MPs being held to account for lying, but this is ridiculous.   

Really?  He's being held accountable for eating cakes on his birthday? Had he abstained from eating cakes but still attended the venue, there would have been no problem? Any more blatant falsehoods you'd like to share with us?

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, James105 said:

Just to be clear.   He is being held to account for lying about eating cake on his birthday, and not for lying to parliament about weapons of mass destruction that led to 100s of thousands of deaths?   

 

I'm all for MPs being held to account for lying, but this is ridiculous.   

‘Eating cake on his birthday’ = Johnson excuser speak for breaking COVID laws and regulations at a time when ordinary people in the UK were being arrested, fined for doing likewise and when families were denied visitation to dying relatives or to even attend funerals of lost family members.

 

Of course he lied to Parliament about that, he can’t stomach being questioned, let alone held to account for his own actions.

[Slip]

Well the committee were unimpressed.  Ouch.  Fully deserved of course.  May we never have to put up with this waste of oxygen again.

 

 

 

[Jai Dee]

A baiting troll post has been removed.

[James105]

51 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Really?  He's being held accountable for eating cakes on his birthday? Had he abstained from eating cakes but still attended the venue, there would have been no problem? Any more blatant falsehoods you'd like to share with us?

"attended the venue".   The venue in this case of course being 10 Downing street which was his home/workplace and as a key worker he was obliged to be at along with everyone else there.  He was "mingling" with the same people he worked with so I'm struggling to see how this is any different to Keir Starmer having a beer and curry with his colleagues.   If that far more egregious breach was not deemed to break the rules then it's not surprising that Boris saw his own eating of cake in his workplace with his colleagues also within the rules.    

 

It's not like he went to Stringfellow's and mingled with strangers and had a lap dance.  

[James105]

55 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

‘Eating cake on his birthday’ = Johnson excuser speak for breaking COVID laws and regulations at a time when ordinary people in the UK were being arrested, fined for doing likewise and when families were denied visitation to dying relatives or to even attend funerals of lost family members.

 

Of course he lied to Parliament about that, he can’t stomach being questioned, let alone held to account for his own actions.

Please enlighten me how Keir Starmer having a beer and curry with his colleagues was deemed to be within the rules and Boris having cake with is colleagues in his workplace was breaking the rules.   

[Chomper Higgot]

23 minutes ago, James105 said:

Please enlighten me how Keir Starmer having a beer and curry with his colleagues was deemed to be within the rules and Boris having cake with is colleagues in his workplace was breaking the rules.   

Firstly let me answer your whataboutary question:

 

Because the rules applied at the time Starmer had his beer were different.

 

Now let me explain something you seem not to have grasped, or are refusing to grasp:

 

The inquiry Johnson is whinging and whining about is not an inquiry into his attendance at parties and social gatherings in contravention with laws and regulations in place at the time. It’s an inquiry into his lies to parliament regarding his attendance at parties and social gatherings in contravention with laws and regulations in place at the time.

 

Starmer did not break any laws or regulations and he did not lie to Parliament.

 

Johnson did break laws and regulations and he repeatedly lied to Parliament.

 

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, James105 said:

Please enlighten me how Keir Starmer having a beer and curry with his colleagues was deemed to be within the rules and Boris having cake with is colleagues in his workplace was breaking the rules.   

Starmer was having a meal with his colleagues. whilst working. The work continued after the meal.

"Labour says it has evidence that staff continued working after eating a takeaway at an event being investigated as a potential lockdown breach.

A party source says "documentary evidence" shows Sir Keir Starmer's team were working until 01:00 BST.

Durham police are investigating reports of a gathering where the Labour leader ate a curry and drank a beer at an MP's office during an election visit."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-61389100

[James105]

25 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Starmer was having a meal with his colleagues. whilst working. The work continued after the meal.

"Labour says it has evidence that staff continued working after eating a takeaway at an event being investigated as a potential lockdown breach.

A party source says "documentary evidence" shows Sir Keir Starmer's team were working until 01:00 BST.

Durham police are investigating reports of a gathering where the Labour leader ate a curry and drank a beer at an MP's office during an election visit."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-61389100

A party source says "documentary evidence"....

 

The only documentary evidence was leaked stating that there was no work scheduled after the meal.  

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10793159/Keir-Starmers-Beergate-story-blown-apart-leaked-Labour-memo.html

 

Anyways, some people will believe whatever their lefty overlords tell them to believe so there is little point arguing with a metaphorical brick wall.    If you take your blinkers off you will come to the conclusion that:

 

1. Everyone broke the rules at some point including Starmer, Sturgeon, you, me and everyone else.  

2. Lockdowns were stupid and pointless.   Stupid and pointless laws are broken all the time.  

 

I want Boris to be investigated for the harm he did to the country by imposing lockdowns and Starmer to be raked over the coals for not opposing them.   I could care less about the fact that MPs tell lies as unless I am somewhat mistaken, they always have done and always will do, from both sides.   I'm presuming here that people are just pretending to be outraged about an MP that lies as though this is the first time its ever happened.  

[placeholder]

28 minutes ago, James105 said:

A party source says "documentary evidence"....

 

The only documentary evidence was leaked stating that there was no work scheduled after the meal.  

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10793159/Keir-Starmers-Beergate-story-blown-apart-leaked-Labour-memo.html

 

Anyways, some people will believe whatever their lefty overlords tell them to believe so there is little point arguing with a metaphorical brick wall.    If you take your blinkers off you will come to the conclusion that:

 

1. Everyone broke the rules at some point including Starmer, Sturgeon, you, me and everyone else.  

2. Lockdowns were stupid and pointless.   Stupid and pointless laws are broken all the time.  

 

I want Boris to be investigated for the harm he did to the country by imposing lockdowns and Starmer to be raked over the coals for not opposing them.   I could care less about the fact that MPs tell lies as unless I am somewhat mistaken, they always have done and always will do, from both sides.   I'm presuming here that people are just pretending to be outraged about an MP that lies as though this is the first time its ever happened.  

Maybe where you come from, time flows backwards. But the Labour party offered evidence subsequent to that claim. Apparently, it satisfied the Durham police.

[RayC]

36 minutes ago, James105 said:

If you take your blinkers off you will come to the conclusion that:

 

1. Everyone broke the rules at some point including Starmer, Sturgeon, you, me and everyone else.  

Quite possibly but that doesn't make it right.

 

This - together with your final paragraph - suggests that you do not care if our politicians are honest? I do. Moreover, given that they are our lawmakers, then imo they should be held to the highest moral standards (more so than 'Joe Public').

 

36 minutes ago, James105 said:

2. Lockdowns were stupid and pointless.   

With the benefit of hindsight that might be a valid conclusion (although it depends what the purpose of the lockdown was in the first place).

 

If memory serves wrt the first lockdown; the government was dealing with an unknown virus, where the rate of infection and fatalities were increasing exponentially, where the method of transmission was not fully understood and where the measures imposed up to then (worldwide) had proved ineffective.

 

Given all that, imo a lockdown didn't seem so pointless and stupid at the time.

 

36 minutes ago, James105 said:

Stupid and pointless laws are broken all the time.  

Who defines what laws are stupid and pointless? Imo you can't leave it to the individual to decide. For example, I have friends who insist that they are fully capable of driving - and do so - after a few drinks. 

 

36 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

I want Boris to be investigated for the harm he did to the country by imposing lockdowns and Starmer to be raked over the coals for not opposing them.   

Hopefully, the Covid inquiry will address these - and other - issues.

 

36 minutes ago, James105 said:

I could care less about the fact that MPs tell lies as unless I am somewhat mistaken, they always have done and always will do, from both sides.   I'm presuming here that people are just pretending to be outraged about an MP that lies as though this is the first time its ever happened.  

See my first paragraph.

[James105]

10 hours ago, RayC said:

If memory serves wrt the first lockdown; the government was dealing with an unknown virus, where the rate of infection and fatalities were increasing exponentially, where the method of transmission was not fully understood and where the measures imposed up to then (worldwide) had proved ineffective.

Hindsight was not needed.  Decades of scientific research had been undertaken prior to this virus on exactly the action to be taken in the event of a virus like this being released into the wild.  Lockdowns and masks were never considered as a solution and it was obvious that it would do more harm than good.  Boris had it correct in the first few weeks and then was bullied into changing his mind by the media, his own party, narcissistic attention seeking scientists and the opposition.   

 

If he was a stronger character then he would have followed the science established previously and stood his ground.    There were ample opportunities following the first lockdown to change tack once the severity of the illness on healthy folks was established to be minimal and take a Sweden like approach.

 

11 hours ago, RayC said:

Who defines what laws are stupid and pointless? Imo you can't leave it to the individual to decide. For example, I have friends who insist that they are fully capable of driving - and do so - after a few drinks. 

We are not talking about drink driving though are we?  The fine he was given for eating cake at work was equivalent to a minor speeding offence or parking ticket which reflects the severity of the 'crime'.   He not only paid the fine but then forced to resign for it and yet this still is not enough punishment. 

 

To be very clear I do not like Boris Johnson and I think he was/is a coward who bowed far too quickly to media frenzy about taking away peoples freedoms for their "safety" so he remained popular instead of accepting short term unpopularity.  We just seem to be following (once again) in the footsteps of the USA and using means other than democratic votes to ensure that a candidate that is not 'liked' by the establishment is prevented from serving.    I do not like this direction of travel.   

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, James105 said:

Hindsight was not needed.  Decades of scientific research had been undertaken prior to this virus on exactly the action to be taken in the event of a virus like this being released into the wild.  Lockdowns and masks were never considered as a solution and it was obvious that it would do more harm than good.  Boris had it correct in the first few weeks and then was bullied into changing his mind by the media, his own party, narcissistic attention seeking scientists and the opposition.

Really? Feeling inventive, are you?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23404-5#Fig1

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, James105 said:

Hindsight was not needed.  Decades of scientific research had been undertaken prior to this virus on exactly the action to be taken in the event of a virus like this being released into the wild.  Lockdowns and masks were never considered as a solution and it was obvious that it would do more harm than good.  Boris had it correct in the first few weeks and then was bullied into changing his mind by the media, his own party, narcissistic attention seeking scientists and the opposition.   

 

If he was a stronger character then he would have followed the science established previously and stood his ground.    There were ample opportunities following the first lockdown to change tack once the severity of the illness on healthy folks was established to be minimal and take a Sweden like approach.

 

We are not talking about drink driving though are we?  The fine he was given for eating cake at work was equivalent to a minor speeding offence or parking ticket which reflects the severity of the 'crime'.   He not only paid the fine but then forced to resign for it and yet this still is not enough punishment. 

 

To be very clear I do not like Boris Johnson and I think he was/is a coward who bowed far too quickly to media frenzy about taking away peoples freedoms for their "safety" so he remained popular instead of accepting short term unpopularity.  We just seem to be following (once again) in the footsteps of the USA and using means other than democratic votes to ensure that a candidate that is not 'liked' by the establishment is prevented from serving.    I do not like this direction of travel.   

It might be an idea to wait for the outcome of the COVID inquiry before banging on about what was the correct/incorrect response.

And quit with the ‘for eating cake’ gaslighting already.

 

 

 

[RayC]

6 hours ago, James105 said:

Hindsight was not needed.  Decades of scientific research had been undertaken prior to this virus on exactly the action to be taken in the event of a virus like this being released into the wild.  Lockdowns and masks were never considered as a solution and it was obvious that it would do more harm than good. 

Really? We already had a plan for dealing with the Covid pandemic? Then it rather begs the question why the vast majority of governments throughout the world simply disregarded all this scientific evidence and pre-planning and have caused countless problems for themselves. To what end?

 

Wrt masks specifically, I remember being surprised at the time (early 2020) that there was so little research conducted into their effectiveness, so I don't know on what basis you reach your conclusion.

 

6 hours ago, James105 said:

 

Boris had it correct in the first few weeks and then was bullied into changing his mind by the media, his own party, narcissistic attention seeking scientists and the opposition.   

 

If he was a stronger character then he would have followed the science established previously and stood his ground. 

Whether the scientists - whose views you casually disregard - were "narcissistic and attention seeking" is besides the point. The fact remains that there was no indisputable "previously established" science on which decisions could have been made in early 2020.

 

Personally, I was appalled by Johnson's cavalier, flippant attitude at the start of the pandemic. It was only his own brush with death that seemed to bring home the gravity of the situation to him.

 

6 hours ago, James105 said:

 There were ample opportunities following the first lockdown to change tack once the severity of the illness on healthy folks was established to be minimal and take a Sweden like approach.

That is an altogether different matter. Imo the case for the second and third lockdowns was less strong. It will be interesting to (eventually) read the findings of the Covid inquiry.

 

6 hours ago, James105 said:

 

We are not talking about drink driving though are we?  The fine he was given for eating cake at work was equivalent to a minor speeding offence or parking ticket which reflects the severity of the 'crime'.   He not only paid the fine but then forced to resign for it and yet this still is not enough punishment. 

Which neatly avoids addressing my comment about whether the individual should be permitted to decide what laws they follow.

 

Nevertheless, you completely miss the point regarding Johnson. He is not being punished (again) for eating cake and having a drink at a gathering. He has been found guilty by his peers of lying to parliament. 

 

6 hours ago, James105 said:

 

To be very clear I do not like Boris Johnson and I think he was/is a coward who bowed far too quickly to media frenzy about taking away peoples freedoms for their "safety" so he remained popular instead of accepting short term unpopularity. 

That Johnson has a need to be loved and cannot handle being unpopular would appear to the case.

 

6 hours ago, James105 said:

 

We just seem to be following (once again) in the footsteps of the USA and using means other than democratic votes to ensure that a candidate that is not 'liked' by the establishment is prevented from serving.    I do not like this direction of travel.   

Johnson (Eton, Oxford, Tory) is the very embodiment of the establishment so I find it hard to accept that they would want rid of him simply because he was not liked, especially as he delivered a resounding victory in the 2019 election.

 

I don't know whether it was due to arrogance and/or nativity but Johnson acted in a way that put himself 'above the law'. Imo if he had simply admitted that events took place which shouldn't have under his watch, and then taken full accountability and responsibility for these events then he would still be PM today. Yes, he would have had a rough ride for a while, but imo the parliamentary Tory party would have rallied round him.

 

Imo Johnson has no one but himself to blame for his political demise.

[ozimoron]

On 6/15/2023 at 2:01 PM, RuamRudy said:

Yes, saved from the ignominy of the top spot by his successor.

I thought the reference was about Thatcher.