boris and rishi partygate fines

[firlandsfarm]

It's not against the rules, but as I keep telling you, the glass of wine had nothing to do with it.

I'm sorry it's still not clear ... if the wine (booze) has nothing to do with it why is it referred to as "Partygate" and why do people keep raising the question of booze, by the suitcase or otherwise? I'm not wanting to re-open this, I'm just looking for a definitive explanation why a group in a closed space is OK but that same group in the open is not.

[Derek27]

It's not against the rules, but as I keep telling you, the glass of wine had nothing to do with it.

I'm sorry it's still not clear ... if the wine (booze) has nothing to do with it why is it referred to as "Partygate" and why do people keep raising the question of booze, by the suitcase or otherwise? I'm not wanting to re-open this, I'm just looking for a definitive explanation why a group in a closed space is OK but that same group in the open is not.

If a man crashes his car after drinking 15 pints, a judge/barrister would describe him as a defendant charged with driving whilst under the influence of alcohol, driving without due care and attention, etc. But the family of the guy he ran over would call him a pissed-up selfish wanker!

Likewise, if we're discussing BJ's wrongdoings and making comparisons to others, you have to look at the law and the rules. The glass of wine in itself was irrelevant but it was a single piece of evidence that along with the quantity, music, number of people, etc. suggests it wasn't reasonably necessary. Whether it's called a party or not doesn't matter.

But there are rules and there is a spirit to the rules. You wouldn't expect somebody who was unable to be with their parent when they died and unable to attend the funeral of a close relative to carefully examine the rules and quote exactly what BJ did wrong. You can forget about the rules. BJ decided that they were not allowed to visit dying relatives but it was okay for him and people under his watch to party all night and is completely unapologetic (apologising after you've been cornered and caught isn't apologetic). You must understand, even if you don't agree, why people absolutely despise the man?

[greenmark]

It's not against the rules, but as I keep telling you, the glass of wine had nothing to do with it.

I'm sorry it's still not clear ... if the wine (booze) has nothing to do with it why is it referred to as "Partygate" and why do people keep raising the question of booze, by the suitcase or otherwise? I'm not wanting to re-open this, I'm just looking for a definitive explanation why a group in a closed space is OK but that same group in the open is not.

If a man crashes his car after drinking 15 pints, a judge/barrister would describe him as a defendant charged with driving whilst under the influence of alcohol, driving without due care and attention, etc. But the family of the guy he ran over would call him a pissed-up selfish wanker!

Likewise, if we're discussing BJ's wrongdoings and making comparisons to others, you have to look at the law and the rules. The glass of wine in itself was irrelevant but it was a single piece of evidence that along with the quantity, music, number of people, etc. suggests it wasn't reasonably necessary. Whether it's called a party or not doesn't matter.

But there are rules and there is a spirit to the rules. You wouldn't expect somebody who was unable to be with their parent when they died and unable to attend the funeral of a close relative to carefully examine the rules and quote exactly what BJ did wrong. You can forget about the rules. BJ decided that they were not allowed to visit dying relatives but it was okay for him and people under his watch to party all night and is completely unapologetic (apologising after you've been cornered and caught isn't apologetic). You must understand, even if you don't agree, why people absolutely despise the man?

Nobody should despise anybody else unless they have stood face to face and have them explain their behaviour.
But when it comes to first strike military agression it's hard not to see the perpetrator as despicable.
BJ has not done that so far. Be careful what you wish to cast aside. And while I'm on a roll suggest a replacement.

[Derek27]

I'm sorry it's still not clear ... if the wine (booze) has nothing to do with it why is it referred to as "Partygate" and why do people keep raising the question of booze, by the suitcase or otherwise? I'm not wanting to re-open this, I'm just looking for a definitive explanation why a group in a closed space is OK but that same group in the open is not.

If a man crashes his car after drinking 15 pints, a judge/barrister would describe him as a defendant charged with driving whilst under the influence of alcohol, driving without due care and attention, etc. But the family of the guy he ran over would call him a pissed-up selfish wanker!

Likewise, if we're discussing BJ's wrongdoings and making comparisons to others, you have to look at the law and the rules. The glass of wine in itself was irrelevant but it was a single piece of evidence that along with the quantity, music, number of people, etc. suggests it wasn't reasonably necessary. Whether it's called a party or not doesn't matter.

But there are rules and there is a spirit to the rules. You wouldn't expect somebody who was unable to be with their parent when they died and unable to attend the funeral of a close relative to carefully examine the rules and quote exactly what BJ did wrong. You can forget about the rules. BJ decided that they were not allowed to visit dying relatives but it was okay for him and people under his watch to party all night and is completely unapologetic (apologising after you've been cornered and caught isn't apologetic). You must understand, even if you don't agree, why people absolutely despise the man?

Nobody should despise anybody else unless they have stood face to face and have them explain their behaviour.
But when it comes to first strike military agression it's hard not to see the perpetrator as despicable.
BJ has not done that so far. Be careful what you wish to cast aside. And while I'm on a roll suggest a replacement.

BJ has explained his behaviour: Gatherings never took place; gatherings did take place and I attended but no rules were broken; rules were broken and I'm horrified - the culprits have resigned; I broke the rules but I wasn't aware that I was breaking the rules, even though I set them. Doesn't matter though, because there's a war going on and I'm sure Derek isn't interested in petty squabbles over whether rules were broken and would rather I lead the country and deal with more important matters!!

[Derek27]

I'm just looking for a definitive explanation why a group in a closed space is OK but that same group in the open is not.

Have you got that the right way around? The rules have always been more relaxed outdoors in open spaces?

[firlandsfarm]

I'm just looking for a definitive explanation why a group in a closed space is OK but that same group in the open is not.

Have you got that the right way around? The rules have always been more relaxed outdoors in open spaces?

I got it very much the right way round, why should you wonder otherwise? It's straight forward ... in a closed space (an office) you are sharing the same air and the 'rules' allow that whereas outside with the same group you are most likely not sharing the same air because of wind and breezes but the 'rules' seem not to allow that! Where is the common-sense in that?

I used the reference as 'rules' because the article here explains the actual legal arguments behind this and in particular the difference between "regulations" and "guidance". It's not just a matter of how many people and where (booze or not). I dug that article up because an interview with a leading barrister last week explained that Boris could not have lied if he had been advised that 'rules' were not broken ... a point I had made previously. And to hear the media rabbit on about "In No.10, his own home" just goes to show how little they know about the matter they are reporting on. The PM used to live in No.10 but Tony Blah made the swap with The Chancellor (Gordon Brown) who lived in No.11 because No.11 has larger living accommodation, Blah had a family and Brown didn't so they swapped. Shame the media didn't realise that before they went shouting about how ignorant they are of facts.

As for breaking his own rules ... do you really think he proof reads every bit of text that leaves his office and approves it? The only 'crime' he may have committed was to (have to) rely on people who were not up to scratch when it came to putting the intended 'rules' into words for others to act upon. By necessity it was hastily put together (by civil servants he did not appoint) and as a result had some errors and omissions. That's why 'normal' law is read and debated many times in Parliament (both Commons and Lords) so that errors and omissions are avoided as much as possible.

[Derek27]

I'm just looking for a definitive explanation why a group in a closed space is OK but that same group in the open is not.

Have you got that the right way around? The rules have always been more relaxed outdoors in open spaces?

I got it very much the right way round, why should you wonder otherwise? It's straight forward ... in a closed space (an office) you are sharing the same air and the 'rules' allow that whereas outside with the same group you are most likely not sharing the same air because of wind and breezes but the 'rules' seem not to allow that! Where is the common-sense in that?

I used the reference as 'rules' because the article here explains the actual legal arguments behind this and in particular the difference between "regulations" and "guidance". It's not just a matter of how many people and where (booze or not). I dug that article up because an interview with a leading barrister last week explained that Boris could not have lied if he had been advised that 'rules' were not broken ... a point I had made previously. And to hear the media rabbit on about "In No.10, his own home" just goes to show how little they know about the matter they are reporting on. The PM used to live in No.10 but Tony Blah made the swap with The Chancellor (Gordon Brown) who lived in No.11 because No.11 has larger living accommodation, Blah had a family and Brown didn't so they swapped. Shame the media didn't realise that before they went shouting about how ignorant they are of facts.

As for breaking his own rules ... do you really think he proof reads every bit of text that leaves his office and approves it? The only 'crime' he may have committed was to (have to) rely on people who were not up to scratch when it came to putting the intended 'rules' into words for others to act upon. By necessity it was hastily put together (by civil servants he did not appoint) and as a result had some errors and omissions. That's why 'normal' law is read and debated many times in Parliament (both Commons and Lords) so that errors and omissions are avoided as much as possible.

There was never any common sense in the rules or anything that BJ is responsible for. I don't accept that BJ can drive on a public road at 100mph without breaking the law simply because he's been advised it's legal, he should know. However complicated the rules are there is absolutely no excuse for the idiot who made them breaking them. If he's in any doubt he should not have a gathering and there was clearly doubt about whether the gathering was within the rules.

But the important issue is, did he lie to parliament. He is as guilty as the child whose face is covered in chocolate, no question whatsoever. Don't know why people bother debating it or trying to defend him.

[Archery1969]

Have you got that the right way around? The rules have always been more relaxed outdoors in open spaces?

I got it very much the right way round, why should you wonder otherwise? It's straight forward ... in a closed space (an office) you are sharing the same air and the 'rules' allow that whereas outside with the same group you are most likely not sharing the same air because of wind and breezes but the 'rules' seem not to allow that! Where is the common-sense in that?

I used the reference as 'rules' because the article here explains the actual legal arguments behind this and in particular the difference between "regulations" and "guidance". It's not just a matter of how many people and where (booze or not). I dug that article up because an interview with a leading barrister last week explained that Boris could not have lied if he had been advised that 'rules' were not broken ... a point I had made previously. And to hear the media rabbit on about "In No.10, his own home" just goes to show how little they know about the matter they are reporting on. The PM used to live in No.10 but Tony Blah made the swap with The Chancellor (Gordon Brown) who lived in No.11 because No.11 has larger living accommodation, Blah had a family and Brown didn't so they swapped. Shame the media didn't realise that before they went shouting about how ignorant they are of facts.

As for breaking his own rules ... do you really think he proof reads every bit of text that leaves his office and approves it? The only 'crime' he may have committed was to (have to) rely on people who were not up to scratch when it came to putting the intended 'rules' into words for others to act upon. By necessity it was hastily put together (by civil servants he did not appoint) and as a result had some errors and omissions. That's why 'normal' law is read and debated many times in Parliament (both Commons and Lords) so that errors and omissions are avoided as much as possible.

There was never any common sense in the rules or anything that BJ is responsible for. I don't accept that BJ can drive on a public road at 100mph without breaking the law simply because he's been advised it's legal, he should know. However complicated the rules are there is absolutely no excuse for the idiot who made them breaking them. If he's in any doubt he should not have a gathering and there was clearly doubt about whether the gathering was within the rules.

But the important issue is, did he lie to parliament. He is as guilty as the child whose face is covered in chocolate, no question whatsoever. Don't know why people bother debating it or trying to defend him.

Be interesting to see what the Privileges Committee make of it all. Apparently the bar for wrong doing is set very high.

The committe consists of two Labour MPs, one Lib Dem and four Conservatives. Would love to be a fly on the wall.

[firlandsfarm]

There was never any common sense in the rules or anything that BJ is responsible for. I don't accept that BJ can drive on a public road at 100mph without breaking the law simply because he's been advised it's legal, he should know. However complicated the rules are there is absolutely no excuse for the idiot who made them breaking them. If he's in any doubt he should not have a gathering and there was clearly doubt about whether the gathering was within the rules.

But the important issue is, did he lie to parliament. He is as guilty as the child whose face is covered in chocolate, no question whatsoever. Don't know why people bother debating it or trying to defend him.

Well you have your view Derek and I have mine. Sorry but I take a barrister's interpretation of the full legal position with more weight than that of a lay person with an axe to grind! It never ceases to amaze me the ability of people totally unconnected to an issue to foretell what someone was thinking, what they had been advised (when not party to the advice) and why they said what they said. Some people are very gifted.

[Derek27]

There was never any common sense in the rules or anything that BJ is responsible for. I don't accept that BJ can drive on a public road at 100mph without breaking the law simply because he's been advised it's legal, he should know. However complicated the rules are there is absolutely no excuse for the idiot who made them breaking them. If he's in any doubt he should not have a gathering and there was clearly doubt about whether the gathering was within the rules.

But the important issue is, did he lie to parliament. He is as guilty as the child whose face is covered in chocolate, no question whatsoever. Don't know why people bother debating it or trying to defend him.

Well you have your view Derek and I have mine. Sorry but I take a barrister's interpretation of the full legal position with more weight than that of a lay person with an axe to grind! It never ceases to amaze me the ability of people totally unconnected to an issue to foretell what someone was thinking, what they had been advised (when not party to the advice) and why they said what they said. Some people are very gifted.

The barrister said it could be, not was lawful. Putin will have a barrister at the Hague arguing that he didn't commit war crimes.

I'm not talking about what he's thinking but what he actually says and you don't have to be gifted to tell when someone's lying through their teeth - contradictions in evidence are a giveaway. There were no parties, there were parties and I'm horrified, I was at the parties but I didn't know it was a party, etc.

What sort of idiot do you think the PM is firlandsfarm? Even I don't think he's so stupid he doesn't know what a party is. The last time you were at a party and somebody asked you what you did with your weekend, what did you say? I went to a gathering, 20 people bringing their own booze to the host's house, who was playing loud music, not sure what you call it.

[alexmr2]

But the important issue is, did he lie to parliament. He is as guilty as the child whose face is covered in chocolate, no question whatsoever. Don't know why people bother debating it or trying to defend him.

Politicians lie, usually every day. Instead of asking did a politician lie...

Shouldn't the important issue be why did they decimate the country, push millions of people into poverty and tens of millions into a lower quality of life (whilst multiplying their own wealth) for a virus that none of those closest to the science were scared of?

One that the data has indicated has a death rate equal to a moderate flu for the last 2 years. At what point do people look around and say hmm, 2.5 years in and everything still seems normal, no life insurance companies going bust from excess deaths, roads busier than ever, demand and waiting lists for houses higher than ever... I think those conspiracy theorists may just have been right

[Derek27]

But the important issue is, did he lie to parliament. He is as guilty as the child whose face is covered in chocolate, no question whatsoever. Don't know why people bother debating it or trying to defend him.

Politicians lie, usually every day. Instead of asking did a politician lie...

Shouldn't the important issue be why did they decimate the country, push millions of people into poverty and tens of millions into a lower quality of life (whilst multiplying their own wealth) for a virus that none of those closest to the science were scared of?

One that the data has indicated has a death rate equal to a moderate flu for the last 2 years. At what point do people look around and say hmm, 2.5 years in and everything still seems normal, no life insurance companies going bust from excess deaths, roads busier than ever, demand and waiting lists for houses higher than ever... I think those conspiracy theorists may just have been right

This thread is about partygate. The Covid thread's been locked.

[alexmr2]

elephant.png

[firlandsfarm]

The barrister said it could be, not was lawful. Putin will have a barrister at the Hague arguing that he didn't commit war crimes.

Yes but Boris has been found guilty without a trial.

The rest we should just accept that we have different views.

[firlandsfarm]

Shouldn't the important issue be why did they decimate the country ...[etc.]

Why? Because the media forced them to by telling the public they were going to die. Sensationalist media coverage has a price!