UK General Election 2024 (or 25)
This is the buffoon's argument.
6. Notwithstanding the clear evidential picture that has emerged, the
Committee appears to be mounting a case that, despite the absence
of any evidence of warnings or advice, it should have been “obvious”
to me that the Rules and Guidance were not being followed, because
of the gatherings that I attended. It is important to be frank: this
amounts to an allegation that I deliberately lied to Parliament. But it
is also an allegation that extends to many others. If it was “obvious”
to me that the Rules and Guidance were not being followed, it would
have been equally obvious to dozens of others who also attended the
gatherings I did. The vast majority of individuals who have given
evidence to the Committee and the Cabinet Office investigation have
not indicated that they considered that their attendance at the events
contravened the Rules or the Guidance.
6. Notwithstanding the clear evidential picture that has emerged, the
Committee appears to be mounting a case that, despite the absence
of any evidence of warnings or advice, it should have been “obvious”
to me that the Rules and Guidance were not being followed, because
of the gatherings that I attended. It is important to be frank: this
amounts to an allegation that I deliberately lied to Parliament. But it
is also an allegation that extends to many others. If it was “obvious”
to me that the Rules and Guidance were not being followed, it would
have been equally obvious to dozens of others who also attended the
gatherings I did. The vast majority of individuals who have given
evidence to the Committee and the Cabinet Office investigation have
not indicated that they considered that their attendance at the events
contravened the Rules or the Guidance.
It was self-evidently reasonable for me to rely on assurances that I
received from my advisers [to organise a piss-up]. The suggestion to the
contrary would have profound and debilitating implications for the future
of debate in the House, and for the ability of Ministers to rely on the
advice of their officials when answering questions in Parliament.
Who advises you about wiping your arse Boris?
received from my advisers [to organise a piss-up]. The suggestion to the
contrary would have profound and debilitating implications for the future
of debate in the House, and for the ability of Ministers to rely on the
advice of their officials when answering questions in Parliament.
Who advises you about wiping your arse Boris?
You'll need your largest vomit bucket to get through the buffoon's 52-page dossier. From what I've read so far, the essence of his defence is that the committee has no documentary evidence that he was advised that he was in breach of the law or guidance, both of which he created himself.
It beggars belief that a buffoon who needs adults to hold his hand and tell him what to do because he's not mature enough to take adult responsibility or make decisions himself, was made PM with an 80-seat majority.
It beggars belief that a buffoon who needs adults to hold his hand and tell him what to do because he's not mature enough to take adult responsibility or make decisions himself, was made PM with an 80-seat majority.
29. It is important to understand the context in which people were
working in No. 10 throughout the pandemic. These were people on
the frontline of the Government’s fight against Covid-19, working
closely together around the clock. The nature and importance of the
work meant that, unlike many other workplaces at the time, the
building had considerable movement of people at regular intervals,
and people were often at work very late into the night to keep the
country running. Meetings with multiple advisers, Ministers and
officials often were called at short notice [, as were urgent trips to the off-licence for a suitcaseful of wine].
People did their best to socially distance, but it was inevitable, given
the nature of the work, and the nature of the building (which has lots of
small rooms and narrow corridors), that full social distancing was
not always possible. [Nor was it possible to keep vomit off the walls given the amount of wine consumed].
working in No. 10 throughout the pandemic. These were people on
the frontline of the Government’s fight against Covid-19, working
closely together around the clock. The nature and importance of the
work meant that, unlike many other workplaces at the time, the
building had considerable movement of people at regular intervals,
and people were often at work very late into the night to keep the
country running. Meetings with multiple advisers, Ministers and
officials often were called at short notice [, as were urgent trips to the off-licence for a suitcaseful of wine].
People did their best to socially distance, but it was inevitable, given
the nature of the work, and the nature of the building (which has lots of
small rooms and narrow corridors), that full social distancing was
not always possible. [Nor was it possible to keep vomit off the walls given the amount of wine consumed].
TBH f that was his principal defence I might agree.Derek27 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:51 pm29. It is important to understand the context in which people were
working in No. 10 throughout the pandemic. These were people on
the frontline of the Government’s fight against Covid-19, working
closely together around the clock. The nature and importance of the
work meant that, unlike many other workplaces at the time, the
building had considerable movement of people at regular intervals,
and people were often at work very late into the night to keep the
country running. Meetings with multiple advisers, Ministers and
officials often were called at short notice [, as were urgent trips to the off-licence for a suitcaseful of wine].
People did their best to socially distance, but it was inevitable, given
the nature of the work, and the nature of the building (which has lots of
small rooms and narrow corridors), that full social distancing was
not always possible. [Nor was it possible to keep vomit off the walls given the amount of wine consumed].
Does any sane person believe that the govt wasn't running around in a blind panic at the time.
The issue is in the question of honesty when speaking in Parliament.
This is important.
Hitler described parliament as a talking shop full of hot air.
Although, annoyingly, I can't find a reference for that memory. If i find it I will post. But my point is that honesty of ministers in Parliament is paramount.
It really is important. It's a foundation of our civilisation.
His main defence is that nobody told him! If he gets away with that we should let out all prisoners that didn't have a solicitor with them at the time of their crime to advise. In addition, he argues if it was obvious to him he was breaking the rules it should have been obvious to everybody else.greenmark wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 4:45 pmTBH f that was his principal defence I might agree.Derek27 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:51 pm29. It is important to understand the context in which people were
working in No. 10 throughout the pandemic. These were people on
the frontline of the Government’s fight against Covid-19, working
closely together around the clock. The nature and importance of the
work meant that, unlike many other workplaces at the time, the
building had considerable movement of people at regular intervals,
and people were often at work very late into the night to keep the
country running. Meetings with multiple advisers, Ministers and
officials often were called at short notice [, as were urgent trips to the off-licence for a suitcaseful of wine].
People did their best to socially distance, but it was inevitable, given
the nature of the work, and the nature of the building (which has lots of
small rooms and narrow corridors), that full social distancing was
not always possible. [Nor was it possible to keep vomit off the walls given the amount of wine consumed].
Does any sane person believe that the govt wasn't running around in a blind panic at the time.
The issue is in the question of honesty when speaking in Parliament.
This is important.
Hitler described parliament as a talking shop full of hot air.
Although, annoyingly, I can't find a reference for that memory. If i find it I will post. But my point is that honesty of ministers in Parliament is paramount.
It really is important. It's a foundation of our civilisation.
It was obvious to every adult outside of No.10 that partying is breaking the rules so it was either obvious to them or they thought the rules didn't apply to No.10.
The whole domestic political arena has become wokist, canceliist and febrile.Derek27 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 7:07 pmHis main defence is that nobody told him! If he gets away with that we should let out all prisoners that didn't have a solicitor with them at the time of their crime to advise. In addition, he argues if it was obvious to him he was breaking the rules it should have been obvious to everybody else.greenmark wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 4:45 pmTBH f that was his principal defence I might agree.Derek27 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:51 pm29. It is important to understand the context in which people were
working in No. 10 throughout the pandemic. These were people on
the frontline of the Government’s fight against Covid-19, working
closely together around the clock. The nature and importance of the
work meant that, unlike many other workplaces at the time, the
building had considerable movement of people at regular intervals,
and people were often at work very late into the night to keep the
country running. Meetings with multiple advisers, Ministers and
officials often were called at short notice [, as were urgent trips to the off-licence for a suitcaseful of wine].
People did their best to socially distance, but it was inevitable, given
the nature of the work, and the nature of the building (which has lots of
small rooms and narrow corridors), that full social distancing was
not always possible. [Nor was it possible to keep vomit off the walls given the amount of wine consumed].
Does any sane person believe that the govt wasn't running around in a blind panic at the time.
The issue is in the question of honesty when speaking in Parliament.
This is important.
Hitler described parliament as a talking shop full of hot air.
Although, annoyingly, I can't find a reference for that memory. If i find it I will post. But my point is that honesty of ministers in Parliament is paramount.
It really is important. It's a foundation of our civilisation.
It was obvious to every adult outside of No.10 that partying is breaking the rules so it was either obvious to them or they thought the rules didn't apply to No.10.
Johnson is a liar IMO. He should never be allowed access to high office ever again.
But we seem to be in an era where even innocent acts can be spun to damage people in the public eye.