boris and rishi partygate fines

[Derek27]

Then don’t, you have control over your behaviour, not me. I was asking a genuine question, without intent of being disruptive or disrespectful. If you can’t trust yourself to respond without getting into a spat then that’s on you.

If me asking you question makes you feel uncomfortable or on the verge of having a spat then you clearly haven’t moved on & that is for you to deal with.

It was probably easier to answer the question rather than dredging our past… but obviously you chose to latter.

My behaviour!! What a short memory you've got.

I was referring to any future behaviour but further proof that you haven’t moved on by more digging. Not a problem for me Derek, your head is obviously rent free & I’m in there.

Don't kid yourself James. Your future behaviour = your past behaviour, as you never change.

After taking some time to reflect I'd like to apologise to the forum for my recent behaviour. Two people in particular, SB & TraderFred I'm sincerely sorry for the way I behaved towards you both, I'm not sure if SB will be back on the forum or even see my apology but I'll make it anyway.

I don't want to turn an apology into an excuse but I feel that I got deeply lost in the moment, dragging the forum into a place that's it's not intended for, I felt there was justification in reaction and simply put I was just wrong for doing so.

I know that we can all have differing opinions and sometimes it causes clashes but my actions of mocking people were vile and uncalled for. I said things that people won't be able to forgive or forget, I did so just to stir others emotions & I understand the negative perception I was creating.

I want to keep this short & sweet, I'm not expecting SB or TraderFred to forgive & forget but I hope firstly you see my apology and also see it as genuine.

Going forward I'm going to make an effort to stay away from controversial topics and conversations. [Bullshit!] I've realised there is simply no need to involve myself... the forum has plenty of useful areas where kind & knowledgeable people share their trading related thoughts. I think that's where I'll hang out. [Even more bullshit!]

Again I apologise to you all.

I'm hardly the best person to post this as I'm undeniably one of the worst offenders but..

In recent months we've (& if you like, i) have become wrapped up in forum debates, endlessly one after the other.

It's got to the point where I believe that, I & others are literally looking for opportunities to direct negativity towards others, maybe we've become so stale? Although there is some great times too!

My point is, nobody really cares about our spats, we do maybe, but looking in from the perspective of someone just joining the forum, we're not helping. I love seeing fresh faces, fresh conversations & i honestly believe we're stunting that growth.

Pat, Derek & the countless others I've purposely offended (gone out of my way to do so), fuck you & long may it continue.... JUST JOKING! Sorry boys, let's bury it & be mindful of how intimidating we can come across in an environment that should be welcoming.

[jamesg46]

My behaviour!! What a short memory you've got.

I was referring to any future behaviour but further proof that you haven’t moved on by more digging. Not a problem for me Derek, your head is obviously rent free & I’m in there.

Don't kid yourself James. Your future behaviour = your past behaviour, as you never change.

After taking some time to reflect I'd like to apologise to the forum for my recent behaviour. Two people in particular, SB & TraderFred I'm sincerely sorry for the way I behaved towards you both, I'm not sure if SB will be back on the forum or even see my apology but I'll make it anyway.

I don't want to turn an apology into an excuse but I feel that I got deeply lost in the moment, dragging the forum into a place that's it's not intended for, I felt there was justification in reaction and simply put I was just wrong for doing so.

I know that we can all have differing opinions and sometimes it causes clashes but my actions of mocking people were vile and uncalled for. I said things that people won't be able to forgive or forget, I did so just to stir others emotions & I understand the negative perception I was creating.

I want to keep this short & sweet, I'm not expecting SB or TraderFred to forgive & forget but I hope firstly you see my apology and also see it as genuine.

Going forward I'm going to make an effort to stay away from controversial topics and conversations. I've realised there is simply no need to involve myself... the forum has plenty of useful areas where kind & knowledgeable people share their trading related thoughts. I think that's where I'll hang out.

Again I apologise to you all.

I'm hardly the best person to post this as I'm undeniably one of the worst offenders but..

In recent months we've (& if you like, i) have become wrapped up in forum debates, endlessly one after the other.

It's got to the point where I believe that, I & others are literally looking for opportunities to direct negativity towards others, maybe we've become so stale? Although there is some great times too!

My point is, nobody really cares about our spats, we do maybe, but looking in from the perspective of someone just joining the forum, we're not helping. I love seeing fresh faces, fresh conversations & i honestly believe we're stunting that growth.

Pat, Derek & the countless others I've purposely offended (gone out of my way to do so), fuck you & long may it continue.... JUST JOKING! Sorry boys, let's bury it & be mindful of how intimidating we can come across in an environment that should be welcoming.

Derek I literally said that I don’t control your behaviour, meaning that any spat is completely in your control but somehow you’ve managed to spin that into dredging my past behaviour while at the same time telling me that you’ve moved on and have nothing to deal with.

I asked a question, a genuine one & you’ve turned that into a spat. You’ve managed to fail your original objective of no spats pretty quickly.

This spat is only a one way street Derek, I’ve not got any intention of being nasty or disrespectful towards you.

I’m obviously not gonna get an answer to the question I asked and this isn’t a very productive way of spending our time.

Have a good day & for the record, I’ll comment on what I want, you stay bitter if you like.

[Derek27]

Derek I literally said that I don’t control your behaviour, meaning that any spat is completely in your control but somehow you’ve managed to spin that into dredging my past behaviour while at the same time telling me that you’ve moved on and have nothing to deal with.

I asked a question, a genuine one & you’ve turned that into a spat. You’ve managed to fail your original objective of no spats pretty quickly.

This spat is only a one way street Derek, I’ve not got any intention of being nasty or disrespectful towards you.

I’m obviously not gonna get an answer to the question I asked and this isn’t a very productive way of spending our time.

Have a good day & for the record, I’ll comment on what I want, you stay bitter if you like.

This will be my last post on the subject. This isn't a spat, I'm just (trying to) explain why I'd rather not waste my time getting into topical discussions with you.

You asked a genuine question with no malicious intent, true. But you've done that countless times before, turned nasty, apologised, then asked more genuine questions, rinse and repeat...

You have a very short memory and you're deluded into thinking everybody is bitter just because they don't want to have discussions with you and that any argument you get into is always the other person's fault.

This is the best example of bitterness on this forum: viewtopic.php?p=296522#p296522

Finally, I never said you can't comment on anything you like, I said I'm not getting into discussions with you.

[jamesg46]

Derek I literally said that I don’t control your behaviour, meaning that any spat is completely in your control but somehow you’ve managed to spin that into dredging my past behaviour while at the same time telling me that you’ve moved on and have nothing to deal with.

I asked a question, a genuine one & you’ve turned that into a spat. You’ve managed to fail your original objective of no spats pretty quickly.

This spat is only a one way street Derek, I’ve not got any intention of being nasty or disrespectful towards you.

I’m obviously not gonna get an answer to the question I asked and this isn’t a very productive way of spending our time.

Have a good day & for the record, I’ll comment on what I want, you stay bitter if you like.

This will be my last post on the subject. This isn't a spat, I'm just (trying to) explain why I'd rather not waste my time getting into topical discussions with you.

You asked a genuine question with no malicious intent, true. But you've done that countless times before, turned nasty, apologised, then asked more genuine questions, rinse and repeat...

You have a very short memory and you're deluded into thinking everybody is bitter just because they don't want to have discussions with you and that any argument you get into is always the other person's fault.

This is the best example of bitterness on this forum: viewtopic.php?p=296522#p296522

Not everybody, just you. I’ve only said it to you & it’s true, you couldn’t manage to engage without bringing up our past spats & more specifically things I’ve previously wrote.

The only risk of a potential spat is coming from your end of this conversation, you seem hell bent on taking things into past engagement while pointing your finger at things I’ve said & done… I reckon that’s bitterness your end Derek.

It’s all good though Derek I can live with it… honestly it won’t ruin my day, it’s you that has to deal with me commenting on whatever I like.

[Derek27]

It’s all good though Derek I can live with it… honestly it won’t ruin my day, it’s you that has to deal with me commenting on whatever I like.

This is exactly what I mean when I refer to you as deluded. It's not just you that can comment on what you like. So can I, so can everybody, it's nothing to deal with.

You've got, as I've previously said, a very short memory. You've probably forgotten all about what you said about the Queen's husband and just think of it as in the past. In the real world, people are as likely to ignore what you said in the past as a punter would ignore a horse's previous form.

[jamesg46]

It’s all good though Derek I can live with it… honestly it won’t ruin my day, it’s you that has to deal with me commenting on whatever I like.

This is exactly what I mean when I refer to you as deluded. It's not just you that can comment on what you like. So can I, so can everybody, it's nothing to deal with.

You've got, as I've previously said, a very short memory. You've probably forgotten all about what you said about the Queen's husband and just think of it as in the past. In the real world, people are as likely to ignore what you said in the past as a punter would ignore a horse's previous form.

Thought your post previous to this was your last post?

What I mean by me posting on whatever I like is that I’ll comment on your posts, regardless of you telling me that it’s best we don’t engage… that is what you have to deal with, not me. You don’t want to engage & I don’t care if we do or don’t, it’s your problem, not mine… I thought that was pretty simple when I wrote it’s you that has to deal with me commenting on whatever I like. Didn’t think I’d have to go granular for you.

[Derek27]

It’s all good though Derek I can live with it… honestly it won’t ruin my day, it’s you that has to deal with me commenting on whatever I like.

This is exactly what I mean when I refer to you as deluded. It's not just you that can comment on what you like. So can I, so can everybody, it's nothing to deal with.

You've got, as I've previously said, a very short memory. You've probably forgotten all about what you said about the Queen's husband and just think of it as in the past. In the real world, people are as likely to ignore what you said in the past as a punter would ignore a horse's previous form.

Thought your post previous to this was your last post?

What I mean by me posting on whatever I like is that I’ll comment on your posts, regardless of you telling me that it’s best we don’t engage… that is what you have to deal with, not me. You don’t want to engage & I don’t care if we do or don’t, it’s your problem, not mine… I thought that was pretty simple when I wrote it’s you that has to deal with me commenting on whatever I like. Didn’t think I’d have to go granular for you.

Commenting on my posts is not engaging, engaging is a two way thing.

Everybody who's ever used a forum knows others can comment on their posts. You don't need to tell me that. You don’t need my permission and I never said you can't. It's not a problem or anything to deal with.

Most narcissists think when somebody doesn't do what they want, that person has a problem, when in reality, the narcissist has a problem. You think when I don’t want to engage with you I have a problem to deal with. There's a clear similarity there.

Enjoy commenting on my posts.

[jamesg46]

This is exactly what I mean when I refer to you as deluded. It's not just you that can comment on what you like. So can I, so can everybody, it's nothing to deal with.

You've got, as I've previously said, a very short memory. You've probably forgotten all about what you said about the Queen's husband and just think of it as in the past. In the real world, people are as likely to ignore what you said in the past as a punter would ignore a horse's previous form.

Thought your post previous to this was your last post?

What I mean by me posting on whatever I like is that I’ll comment on your posts, regardless of you telling me that it’s best we don’t engage… that is what you have to deal with, not me. You don’t want to engage & I don’t care if we do or don’t, it’s your problem, not mine… I thought that was pretty simple when I wrote it’s you that has to deal with me commenting on whatever I like. Didn’t think I’d have to go granular for you.

Commenting on my posts is not engaging, engaging is a two way thing.

Everybody who's ever used a forum knows others can comment on their posts. You don't need to tell me that. You don’t need my permission and I never said you can't. It's not a problem or anything to deal with.

Most narcissists think when somebody doesn't do what they want, that person has a problem, when in reality, the narcissist has a problem. You think when I don’t want to engage with you I have a problem to deal with. There's a clear similarity there.

Enjoy commenting on my posts.

Wow, some change that. From you not wanting to spat to insinuation. I won’t bite Derek, I’ll just leave you to it before your insinuation game goes any further. Obviously you’re struggling to control yourself from getting personal with me.

[firlandsfarm]

BJ got booed as he turned up to, whatever he turned up to.

My understanding is that he was booed at the Queen's Platinum Thanksgiving Service at St. Paul's. The service was about our monarch, not BJ and to 'boo' him at such an event just goes to show how uncouth the anti-Boris brigade are!

[firlandsfarm]

I'm sorry Derek but your apparent inability to understand simple English is really becoming tiresome and it makes it impossible to communicate with you in a meaningful way. I will make one further attempt to point out where you are choosing to 'misunderstand' what I say.

So how does that indicate that Johnson DID NOT lie, as you claimed? The dictionary only gives a definition of lie, it doesn't tell you what Johnson was thinking.

I have never claimed I know what BJ was thinking it is you who has always claimed that. I have also never said he didn't lie, I have just said you cannot prove he was lying. My whole point has always been that without clear 'intent' it cannot be proven he was lying.

The fact that the two dictionaries have different definitions suggests that there is no clear definition ...

The two (and more) have very clear and similar definitions. A lie must have two factors ... 1. be untrue and, 2. be told with intent (or any other word with similar meaning).

Johnson stated that parties didn't take place. Then he said there are dozens of rooms and hundreds of people at No. 10 and he can't be aware of everything that's happening. If that's the case he couldn't possibly have known that no parties have taken place, therefore it was a lie to give an unequivocal assurance that they didn't take place.

I recall he said he was advised no parties took place so his answer was qualified as you require and not unequivocal as you claim ... and therefore does not fit your stretched definition of a lie.

Then he said no rules were broken. That's rather like saying you didn't break the speed limit after a long drive on the motorway. He couldn't possibly have known if any rules were broken, he didn't qualify it with "as far as I'm aware", more importantly, he didn't care. He lied.

Again, I recall he said he was advised no rules had been broken. You have no proof, evidence, that he didn't care just the biased opinion of an anti-Boris. Without the evidence of Intent he only lied in accordance with the Derek Dictionary. According to authorities in greater regard than that non-published work he cannot be accused of lying without intent.

Derek I tried to close this down before but unfortunately succumbed to your response. As I said at the start of this post I'm finding your attempts to continually twist and distort what I say tiresome therefore I will not join in this discussion any longer should you continue with these tactics for it will just go around in time wasting circles.

[Derek27]

BJ got booed as he turned up to, whatever he turned up to.

My understanding is that he was booed at the Queen's Platinum Thanksgiving Service at St. Paul's. The service was about our monarch, not BJ and to 'boo' him at such an event just goes to show how uncouth the anti-Boris brigade are!

I presume he was booed because of partygate and it only demonstrates the anger people have and the gravity of his callousness.

By the way, The Times claim an opinion poll suggests BJ will suffer a humiliating defeat in Wakefield. If true, I'd suspect more letters will come in and the party might even have the sense to get rid of him.

[Derek27]

I'm sorry Derek but your apparent inability to understand simple English is really becoming tiresome and it makes it impossible to communicate with you in a meaningful way. I will make one further attempt to point out where you are choosing to 'misunderstand' what I say.

So how does that indicate that Johnson DID NOT lie, as you claimed? The dictionary only gives a definition of lie, it doesn't tell you what Johnson was thinking.

I have never claimed I know what BJ was thinking it is you who has always claimed that. I have also never said he didn't lie, I have just said you cannot prove he was lying. My whole point has always been that without clear 'intent' it cannot be proven he was lying.

You claimed (in a poorly worded post) that the English dictionary says BJ didn't lie when you actually meant that it doesn't confirm that he did lie.

I have never said he didn't break the law but you have always said he lied which according to authorities of the English language he clearly did not.

The fact that the two dictionaries have different definitions suggests that there is no clear definition ...

The two (and more) have very clear and similar definitions. A lie must have two factors ... 1. be untrue and, 2. be told with intent (or any other word with similar meaning).

I've known a few people who are deluded into thinking they're honest people because they think they can get around lying by playing with words, being economical with the truth, etc. But the real question is, did he mislead parliament? Emphatically denying parties and breaking rules without giving it a thought, knowing that he can't know for certain is both, misleading parliament and lying.

Johnson stated that parties didn't take place. Then he said there are dozens of rooms and hundreds of people at No. 10 and he can't be aware of everything that's happening. If that's the case he couldn't possibly have known that no parties have taken place, therefore it was a lie to give an unequivocal assurance that they didn't take place.

I recall he said he was advised no parties took place so his answer was qualified as you require and not unequivocal as you claim ... and therefore does not fit your stretched definition of a lie.

Right, so he turned up to a party and was advised that he's not really there or everybody's a figment of his imagination.

He actually said no parties took place. When he was caught lying his excuse was that he'd been advised that no parties took place. Given he was at a party he knew the advice was wrong.

Then he said no rules were broken. That's rather like saying you didn't break the speed limit after a long drive on the motorway. He couldn't possibly have known if any rules were broken, he didn't qualify it with "as far as I'm aware", more importantly, he didn't care. He lied.

Again, I recall he said he was advised no rules had been broken. You have no proof, evidence, that he didn't care just the biased opinion of an anti-Boris. Without the evidence of Intent he only lied in accordance with the Derek Dictionary. According to authorities in greater regard than that non-published work he cannot be accused of lying without intent.

Again, he said no rules were broken and later said that was the advice given. I know he's an idiot but do you really believe he can't count how many people are in his flat, besides himself and Carrie?

A hitman won't escape justice by claiming he'd been advised by his client that putting a bullet through someone's head is not breaking any rules.

Proof is a very misunderstood word and is meaningless without reference to level of proof. If this was a civil court or tribunal the panel would be making a decision on the balance of probabilities. But even in a criminal court where it needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, I reckon Johnson would be toast.

Remember there was a karaoke machine at one of the parties so there was no doubt that was a social event. Although Johnson wasn't at that one, he was at the Abba party held in his own flat which the police fined people for but Sue Gray dropped from her report after having a secret meeting with Johnson. How could the lying git possibly not know that a party was taking place in his own flat while he was present? It's way beyond reasonable doubt.

Derek I tried to close this down before but unfortunately succumbed to your response. As I said at the start of this post I'm finding your attempts to continually twist and distort what I say tiresome therefore I will not join in this discussion any longer should you continue with these tactics for it will just go around in time wasting circles.

The only person doing the twisting and distorting is you. But don't worry firlandsfarm, when details of Starmer's lockdown drug parties come to light you'll have your field day.

[Derek27]

You have no proof, evidence, that he didn't care just the biased opinion of an anti-Boris.

This is what the two-faced git said 13 days before the Abba party at his residential flat above 10 Downing St.

No one wants to be imposing these kinds of measures anywhere.

...

And so now is the time to take action because there is no alternative.

From Thursday until the start of December, you must stay at home.

You may only leave home for specific reasons, including:

For education; For work, say if you cannot work from home; For exercise and recreation outdoors, with your household or on your own with one person from another household; For medical reasons, appointments and to escape injury or harm; To shop for food and essentials; And to provide care for vulnerable people, or as a volunteer.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... tober-2020

So what are you suggesting? He thought a piss-up in his flat with loud music was a work event? He was advised the guests who were there were robots? He forgot that they must stay at home?

Stop trying to defend the indefensible firlandsfarm.

[Derek27]

BJ got booed as he turned up to, whatever he turned up to.

My understanding is that he was booed at the Queen's Platinum Thanksgiving Service at St. Paul's. The service was about our monarch, not BJ and to 'boo' him at such an event just goes to show how uncouth the anti-Boris brigade are!

Lee Mack joined in the fun, cracking a joke about partygate, right in front of the PM and royal family. It feels as though we have an Oliver Hardy prime minister where cracking jokes about him anywhere and in front of anyone is acceptable.

[Archery1969]

Vote of no confidence this week by the conservatives in BJ.

Problem with that is the chancellor didn’t want to help the people and BJ made him.

Therefore, with BJ gone it could be even more dark days ahead unless the chancellor goes too.