Jump to content
Section_31

Boris Johnson

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, skend04 said:

Tories are paralysed by this. It's crazy that no one is willing to pull the trigger on him and they've painted themselves into a corner saying they'd wait for the report to be published.

Mad isnt it?

He has done massive harm to them and it's an absolute nap  another disaster is just around the corner, yet he retains huge chunks of support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, skend04 said:

Tories are paralysed by this. It's crazy that no one is willing to pull the trigger on him and they've painted themselves into a corner saying they'd wait for the report to be published.

They’ve circled the wagons. The theme within the party tonight is “we are not going to let Cummings, the BBC and Twitter bring down our pm. If we give him up to this baying mob then we’re all fucked”. 

 

The other big theme is to blame Carrie, “new immature wife, led him astray, he was too busy running the country whilst she was stuck bored in the flat planning birthday  parties and interior decoration, wouldn’t have happened with Marina etc” 

 

These are the 2 narratives being played out tonight which is why I think he’ll survive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Section_31 said:

How does it prejudice a police investigation anyway @Anubis if no charges have yet been brought? Something smells here, and it ain't my balls.

The report in its full form may cover evidence that would be used in a criminal trial, and mass reporting would prejudice that trial and allow the defence to say that no trial is fair because of the exposure it’s received. 
 

To be honest, they should have stuck with the decision not to investigate and left it to Gray and Parliament.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anubis said:

The report in its full form may cover evidence that would be used in a criminal trial, and mass reporting would prejudice that trial and allow the defence to say that no trial is fair because of the exposure it’s received. 
 

To be honest, they should have stuck with the decision not to investigate and left it to Gray and Parliament.

The met have made clear their are not going to be any criminal trials, at worst only fixed penalty notices (see my Sam Coates link in response to Spanner above) Also the Gray investigation was set up to unearth facts not pass judgment, so it does smell fishy. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

The met have made clear their are not going to be any criminal trials, at worst only fixed penalty notices (see my Sam Coates link in response to Spanner above).

You don’t have to accept a fixed penalty. You can take it to court, plead not guilty, and have a trial if you dispute the reason behind it being issued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprisingly, the Mail have spun the Mets intervention as bad for Johnson, saying it leaves his government in limbo and stops him from moving on from what it considers to be a nothing issue.

 

The Daily Mail 29 January

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Experts have warned that Boris Johnson's administration is more corrupt "than any UK government since the Second World War".

Researchers at Sussex University's Centre for the Study Corruption warned that the "absolute failure of integrity at No 10" could have potentially serious consequences for the UK if allowed to fester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anubis said:

The report in its full form may cover evidence that would be used in a criminal trial, and mass reporting would prejudice that trial and allow the defence to say that no trial is fair because of the exposure it’s received. 
 

To be honest, they should have stuck with the decision not to investigate and left it to Gray and Parliament.

 

That being the case, why did the Met wait until this week, on the eve of the publication of gray's report, to announce they were going to investigate? For weeks the line from them was that they were going to wait for the report before making any decision about investigating. Surely they would've known during those weeks that any investigation would be compromised by the publication of the report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they’re sending him East to save the world and have his photo taken.

 

Luckily our voting public are known for their intelligence so won’t be taken in by this in any way. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anubis said:

You don’t have to accept a fixed penalty. You can take it to court, plead not guilty, and have a trial if you dispute the reason behind it being issued.

Ahh true, didnt think of that, shows I'm obviously not a lawyer.

 

If it was a fixed notice being contested dosn't that indicate the offence is relatively minor?  And as I believe the punishment is hundred quid and doesn't leave you with a criminal record what would be the point of contesting it? Also I'd be surprised if the police handed out notices in this case without strong evidence, but again I'm using guesswork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, YorkshireRed said:

So they’re sending him East to save the world and have his photo taken.

 

Luckily our voting public are known for their intelligence so won’t be taken in by this in any way. 

Speak for yourself, i was a lifelong communist until I saw a picture of Liz Truss in a tank.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YorkshireRed said:

So they’re sending him East to save the world and have his photo taken.

 

Luckily our voting public are known for their intelligence so won’t be taken in by this in any way. 


Anyone else terrified by the idea of these bumbling moron heading into a delicate situation with the sole intention of causing a distraction? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PestiRed said:


Anyone else terrified by the idea of these bumbling moron heading into a delicate situation with the sole intention of causing a distraction? 

“Yes yes I hear well I don’t want to speculate but erm I heard he called you a pansy” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PestiRed said:


Anyone else terrified by the idea of these bumbling moron heading into a delicate situation with the sole intention of causing a distraction? 

Nah, when he was foreign secretary, he navigated the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe issue perfectly.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/12/boris-johnson-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PestiRed said:


Anyone else terrified by the idea of these bumbling moron heading into a delicate situation with the sole intention of causing a distraction? 

 

Why, he's just meeting old friends and backers, they'll have plenty to keep the conversation flowing...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, PestiRed said:


Anyone else terrified by the idea of these bumbling moron heading into a delicate situation with the sole intention of causing a distraction? 

Tbf during a major world crises in a situation which requires diplomacy and skill,the ideal person you would send in,is someone who doesnt know the names of his own children. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jack the Sipper said:

Not surprisingly, the Mail have spun the Mets intervention as bad for Johnson, saying it leaves his government in limbo and stops him from moving on from what it considers to be a nothing issue.

 

The Daily Mail 29 January

 

 

How dare you question why the man who set the rules and was dishing out millions in fines,to those who broke it,consistently broke them himself?

How dare you question why people couldnt even visit dying relatives, when this man was having piss ups on a nightly basis?

How dare you question why he then denied any knowledge of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×