Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

[ianch99]

The Met police investigation comes across as a sham. Reported in April before the Met concluded its findings:

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Boris Johnson has got to go because I seriously dislike what the political state of our nation has become if he doesn’t.

Agreed.

The trouble is, Johnson saw that lashings of hypocrisy, knowingly issuing incorrect information, false equivalence and what aboutery served him very well in his political campaigns. So he has seen no need to change course from this campaigning style even when he's in power.

[1andrew1]

Johnson's two little helpers in action again here I see. The Express journalists must be cringing as they report the story as stating that the Met found Johnson broke no rules. Meanwhile, the Mail pretends nothing happened as it focuses on the implications of a possible rail strike.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Agreed.

The trouble is, Johnson saw that lashings of hypocrisy, knowingly issuing incorrect information, false equivalence and what aboutery served him very well in his political campaigns. So he has seen no need to change course from this campaigning style even when he's in power.

I’m not so sure it’s the state country will have become as much as the state it is in.

Johnson has been rewarded his entire life for lying and having no integrity. The fact that he could ascend to the highest political office in the land despite obvious limited capabilities is embarrassing in and of itself.

A TV quiz show panellist buffoon who was enabled by the media and elements of his own party throughout. Purging from the party any sensible factions that remained to give of a reactionary, populist Government with neither the capability nor credibility to govern.

[1andrew1]

A source present at the 13 November party claims that Johnson instigated it. (That's the party featured in yesterday's ITV photos.)
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/bo...-toast-1647160

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Chris

The phrase “I was told” is standard ministerial weasel wording, used precisely when said minister is saying stuff they know could well be untrue, so that if it eventually hits the fan they can claim they weren’t lying because they were misled.

There is, however, no way any sane person could have been credulous enough to believe that event wasn’t a party even if directly told it wasn’t one. You can take your pick out of lying, insanity or gullibility (or a combo, I’m not bothered - but at least one of them applies).

Getting bogged down in the technicalities of what constitutes a lie to parliament is precisely the smoke-screen that’s meant to fool us. As they say in Australia, Blind Freddie could see that was a party. That it occurred while people were forced to stay away from their dying loved ones is a national outrage. I can’t think of any senior minister, of any colour, who would have tried to brass out something even half as awful as this. Boris Johnson has got to go because I seriously dislike what the political state of our nation has become if he doesn’t.

[1andrew1]

More straw-clutching that falls apart when it meets the facts. This time it's the hapless Shapps who steps forwards to bat for BoJo.

Grant Shapps says 'not partying' Boris Johnson 'lost his mum' - but she died a year later

Cabinet Partygate ally Grant Shapps said Boris Johnson was "clearly not partying" when he raised a glass of fizz and pointed out "he lost his mum during the period", despite the fact she died 10 months after the party.

Tory Grant Shapps has bizarrely claimed Boris Johnson was “clearly not partying” when he raised fizz surrounded by booze at a No10 party.

The Cabinet ally said the Prime Minister "lost his mum during the period", despite the fact Charlotte Johnson Wahl died “suddenly” 10 months after the party happened.

The Transport Secretary came up with the eye-popping excuses today after ITV News revealed photos of the PM giving a speech at aide Lee Cain’s leaving do, next to a table groaning with alcohol.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...tying-27047663

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If you think that table of booze did not suggest a party was imminent or in progress, I would have difficulty in trusting in your eyesight or common sense.

Don't be ridiculous, Andrew. It is quite normal for organisations to have a fairwell presentation with alcohol to send them off. As such, it would have been regarded as a work event, but clearly once doneand with the speeches over, a number of them appear to have stayed on and it became a social event, which explains why only some of them were fined. Certainly, by all accounts, the PM made his 20 minute speech and then returned to his work.

I know that you are looking for any excuse to see the PM stripped of his office, but a little bit of logic and perspective would not go amiss in your posts on this subject.

If the Gray report findings are different to what I have described, I will certainly reassess, but you have already made up your mind. In your desperation, you will be calling for an inquiry into the police investigation next.

---------- Post added at 12:28 ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Let’s face it, if 4 bottles of wine, 3 bottles of champagne and a bottle of gin on your desk shouts “normal day at the office” to you, you have a whole other set of problems.

Weren't there quite a few people at this event - about 60, I believe? So, no, that was not an excessive amount of alcohol.

So, given that the PM wasn't fined, the police are wrong now, are they?

---------- Post added at 12:30 ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

The phrase “I was told” is standard ministerial weasel wording, used precisely when said minister is saying stuff they know could well be untrue, so that if it eventually hits the fan they can claim they weren’t lying because they were misled.

I don't care what you call it, that is what he told parliament, and if he took that advice on board, how did he lie?

---------- Post added at 12:33 ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Johnson's two little helpers in action again here I see. The Express journalists must be cringing as they report the story as stating that the Met found Johnson broke no rules. Meanwhile, the Mail pretends nothing happened as it focuses on the implications of a possible rail strike.

The Mail is right to be reporting the real news.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Weren't there quite a few people at this event - about 60, I believe? So, no, that was not an excessive amount of alcohol.

This is definitely the argument Johnson should use.

---------- Post added at 12:34 ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The Mail is right to be reporting the real news.

They did 14 front pages on Starmer having a beer and curry.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Don't be ridiculous, Andrew. It is quite normal for organisations to have a fairwell presentation with alcohol to send them off.

Not during the height of the pandemic it wasn't!

You will soon be on the wrong side of history if you continue to defend the indefensible.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

A source present at the 13 November party claims that Johnson instigated it. (That's the party featured in yesterday's ITV photos.)
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/bo...-toast-1647160

And as Grant Schapps is quoted as saying in that report:

"Sometimes, occasionally things get reported which aren’t entirely accurate.”

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

This is definitely the argument Johnson should use.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

They did 14 front pages on Starmer having a beer and curry.

Maybe they thought that was proportionate when weighed against all the nonsense being spoken about the PM.

But the reality is, neither was a big story. This shows how easy it is to wind people up, and Starmer will live to regret that he made such a fuss about this.

---------- Post added at 12:44 ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Not during the height of the pandemic it wasn't!

You will soon be on the wrong side of history if you continue to defend the indefensible.

Not where most people were working from home, of course not. But government officials were required to be present for duty and run the country.

I'm not on the wrong side of history for saying we should hear all the evidence before rushing to judgement. That rule should always apply.

Things are not always as they first seem. That's what juries are reminded of before they start hearing cases.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Maybe they thought that was proportionate when weighed against all the nonsense being spoken about the PM.

But the reality is, neither was a big story. This shows how easy it is to wind people up, and Starmer will live to regret that he made such a fuss about this.

---------- Post added at 12:44 ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 ----------



Not where most people were working from home, of course not. But government officials were required to be present for duty and run the country.

I'm not on the wrong side of history for saying we should hear all the evidence before rushing to judgement. That rule should always apply.

Things are not always as they first seem. That's what juries are reminded of before they start hearing cases.

Proportionate whataboutery.

Reporting to deceive the public rather than inform.

[Julian]

Another Final Nail in the Johnson Coffin As if one was needed.

BBC2 7pm tonight.