boris and rishi partygate fines

[firlandsfarm]

elephant.png

[Derek27]

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.

So has Putin. When somebody punches you in the face you smack him back, you don't ask 12 bystanders to form a jury.

[Derek27]

elephant.png

What's so funny about 10 guys sitting around a table?

[Derek27]

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.

He's actually accepted the police investigation and FPN so he is guilty and accepts it.

[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.

He's actually accepted the police investigation and FPN so he is guilty and accepts it.

Two issues there ... when you accept the FPN you are not accepting guilt (in the eyes of the law), you are simply saying "OK, let's end this, I'll pay to save going to court". It's like a processed way of plea bargaining. And secondly to accept you broke the law does not mean that you knew you had at the time and (for the umpteenth time) that does not mean you had lied especially if you had been advised by legal brains far superior than yours that you had not. To have lied you would have had to know you had broken the law and denied it.

[greenmark]

Yes but Boris has been found guilty without a trial.

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

He's actually accepted the police investigation and FPN so he is guilty and accepts it.

Two issues there ... when you accept the FPN you are not accepting guilt (in the eyes of the law), you are simply saying "OK, let's end this, I'll pay to save going to court". It's like a processed way of plea bargaining. And secondly to accept you broke the law does not mean that you knew you had at the time and (for the umpteenth time) that does not mean you had lied especially if you had been advised by legal brains far superior than yours that you had not. To have lied you would have had to know you had broken the law and denied it.

But regardless of who you are, "Ignorance of the law is no defence". But I wish this harassment of the PM would stop. He's been landed with several crises (some of his own making) and I don't see any benefit in distracting him right now.

[Derek27]

Yes but Boris has been found guilty without a trial.

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

He's actually accepted the police investigation and FPN so he is guilty and accepts it.

Two issues there ... when you accept the FPN you are not accepting guilt (in the eyes of the law), you are simply saying "OK, let's end this, I'll pay to save going to court". It's like a processed way of plea bargaining. And secondly to accept you broke the law does not mean that you knew you had at the time and (for the umpteenth time) that does not mean you had lied especially if you had been advised by legal brains far superior than yours that you had not. To have lied you would have had to know you had broken the law and denied it.

He was asked if he accepted he broke the law but refused to answer, so I'm entitled to draw my own conclusions.

On your second point, I never said it's proof that he lied. Claiming he didn't know he was at a party is a claim that no judge in any court in the land would accept so it's a safe conclusion that he lied when he claimed not to have any knowledge of parties.

[Derek27]

To have lied you would have had to know you had broken the law and denied it.

Not true! To lie you just need to say something that you know isn't true or have no reason, to the best of your knowledge to think it's true. Breaking the law has absolutely nothing to do with it. Claiming that all rules were followed at a gathering that wasn't allowed under the rules is self-contradictory.

Each time BJ refuses to answer a question that's reasonable to ask a PM, he's failing to give an honest (or any) answer, which may not be lying but it's failing to tell the truth. I used to tell a former girlfriend who claimed to be honest, that there's not much point in being 100% honest if you're 0% accurate or refuse to answer questions as an alternative to lying. It's sort of: have you been shagging other blokes? Honest answer: no comment!!

[Derek27]

But I wish this harassment of the PM would stop. He's been landed with several crises (some of his own making) and I don't see any benefit in distracting him right now.

It needs to be stepped up a gear.

[firlandsfarm]

To have lied you would have had to know you had broken the law and denied it.

Not true! To lie you just need to say something that you know isn't true or have no reason, to the best of your knowledge to think it's true. Breaking the law has absolutely nothing to do with it. Claiming that all rules were followed at a gathering that wasn't allowed under the rules is self-contradictory.

Each time BJ refuses to answer a question that's reasonable to ask a PM, he's failing to give an honest (or any) answer, which may not be lying but it's failing to tell the truth. I used to tell a former girlfriend who claimed to be honest, that there's not much point in being 100% honest if you're 0% accurate or refuse to answer questions as an alternative to lying. It's sort of: have you been shagging other blokes? Honest answer: no comment!!

You comments do not take into account what I said! So being advised by those more knowledgeable than you does not constitute "to the best of your knowledge to think it's true". By your own definition f he was advised by others and therefore believed it to be true he wasn't lying! How many times do I have to remind you of that?

If "Breaking the law has absolutely nothing to do with it" why do you and others keep linking "Breaking the law" with lying?

There is nothing self-contradictory about what he has claimed when you factor in that he was told it was an OK meeting.

"Each time BJ refuses to answer a question that's reasonable to ask a PM, he's failing to give an honest (or any) answer" ... well I know of 629 other people in Westminster for whom refusing to answer a question that's reasonable to ask is part of the normal day. So you are now accusing him of not doing what his accusers don't do!

Get real Derek, this is real life not some fantasy "if I ruled the world" life where everybody does everything exactly as you say they should.

[Derek27]

To have lied you would have had to know you had broken the law and denied it.

Not true! To lie you just need to say something that you know isn't true or have no reason, to the best of your knowledge to think it's true. Breaking the law has absolutely nothing to do with it. Claiming that all rules were followed at a gathering that wasn't allowed under the rules is self-contradictory.

Each time BJ refuses to answer a question that's reasonable to ask a PM, he's failing to give an honest (or any) answer, which may not be lying but it's failing to tell the truth. I used to tell a former girlfriend who claimed to be honest, that there's not much point in being 100% honest if you're 0% accurate or refuse to answer questions as an alternative to lying. It's sort of: have you been shagging other blokes? Honest answer: no comment!!

You comments do not take into account what I said! So being advised by those more knowledgeable than you does not constitute "to the best of your knowledge to think it's true". By your own definition f he was advised by others and therefore believed it to be true he wasn't lying! How many times do I have to remind you of that?

He said parties didn't take place. He was at one - nobody's more knowledgeable than him about his attendance at the party, so he's lying.

If "Breaking the law has absolutely nothing to do with it" why do you and others keep linking "Breaking the law" with lying?

I can only speak for myself, I don't link the two. He's a lawbreaker and independently, he's a liar.

There is nothing self-contradictory about what he has claimed when you factor in that he was told it was an OK meeting.

So if you organise a party, invite 30 people and your wife tells you it's okay you're not breaking the law.

[Derek27]

Slightly off-topic but still on the subject of rule-breaking, Tory Minister is under investigation for watching porn on his phone in the House of Commons.

[firlandsfarm]

You know what Derek I can't be bothered anymore. Clearly you are always right and only your views can be right. It's like the woke brigades' approach to free speech, it's OK so long as you agree with them!

[Derek27]

You know what Derek I can't be bothered anymore. Clearly you are always right and only your views can be right. It's like the woke brigades' approach to free speech, it's OK so long as you agree with them!

There's no need to be childish firlandsfarm. Obviously I'm right when I say you can't be at a party with loud music and 30 drunks vandalising the swings and not know you're at a party or not be guilty of murder because somebody told you it's okay to kill the victim.

[firlandsfarm]

Slightly off-topic but still on the subject of rule-breaking, Tory Minister is under investigation for watching porn on his phone in the House of Commons.

Was it a video of Angela Rayner at PMQ's?!!