UK General Election 2024 (or 25)

[greenmark]

14. We came to the view that some of the buffoon's denials and explanations were so disingenuous that they were by their very nature deliberate attempts to mislead the Committee and the House, while others demonstrated deliberation because of the frequency with which he closed his mind to the truth.

It really beggers belief that people try to defend a man who's as guilty as a child with a face covered in chocolate, denying eating the chocolate cake.

None of that matters. Did he deiberately mislead the House is the accusation, I don't see that from the evidence except for Cummings. Even though he would have been under oath (Statement of truth) I suspect Cummings may have a personal agenda here and he's as slippery as a slug.
But all round should we accept this judgement just because we want BJ excluded from politics? Or should we as individuals weigh the published evidence?
My view is that BJ is blaming his advisors, knowing that if they accept the blame he can revive his career and fettle some nice jobs for them. But that's pure speculation.

It could be argued that the buffoon's capable of believing anything he wants, in which case, it's not even possible for him to lie. But I don't think that was the context of the enquiry. If someone on means-tested benefit was found to have substantial savings hidden away, a criminal court would ask not whether he knew he was breaking the law, but whether he could reasonably be expected to know.

That's what the scope of the enquiry should have been, if it wasn't. The question should be can a PM be expected to know that attending a piss-up in a crowded room with loud music and wall-to-wall vomiting was a breach of the rules.

So you are redefining the scope of a cross-party Parliamentary committee?

[Derek27]

None of that matters. Did he deiberately mislead the House is the accusation, I don't see that from the evidence except for Cummings. Even though he would have been under oath (Statement of truth) I suspect Cummings may have a personal agenda here and he's as slippery as a slug.
But all round should we accept this judgement just because we want BJ excluded from politics? Or should we as individuals weigh the published evidence?
My view is that BJ is blaming his advisors, knowing that if they accept the blame he can revive his career and fettle some nice jobs for them. But that's pure speculation.

It could be argued that the buffoon's capable of believing anything he wants, in which case, it's not even possible for him to lie. But I don't think that was the context of the enquiry. If someone on means-tested benefit was found to have substantial savings hidden away, a criminal court would ask not whether he knew he was breaking the law, but whether he could reasonably be expected to know.

That's what the scope of the enquiry should have been, if it wasn't. The question should be can a PM be expected to know that attending a piss-up in a crowded room with loud music and wall-to-wall vomiting was a breach of the rules.

So you are redefining the scope of a cross-party Parliamentary committee?

No, I said that's what the scope of the enquiry should have been. Otherwise, it could be argued that the buffoon doesn't have the mental capacity to tell a lie because he's mentally deranged to the point where he genuinely believes anything he says must be true.

[Derek27]

Normally, calling a member a liar in the house and refusing to withdraw the remark would result in being kicked out of the chamber. Calling someone a buffoon, even though he is would result in similar treatment, but now that it's official, everybody's free to call the buffoon a liar and they're making the most of it.

[Derek27]

About 20 Tory MPs are expected to support the buffoon on Monday. Most of them are expected to abstain/find something better to do with their time. But the motion is amendable. There could be amendments to stop the taxpayer from funding the buffoon's legal fees and even removing his £115K p.a. allowance.

[greenmark]

It could be argued that the buffoon's capable of believing anything he wants, in which case, it's not even possible for him to lie. But I don't think that was the context of the enquiry. If someone on means-tested benefit was found to have substantial savings hidden away, a criminal court would ask not whether he knew he was breaking the law, but whether he could reasonably be expected to know.

That's what the scope of the enquiry should have been, if it wasn't. The question should be can a PM be expected to know that attending a piss-up in a crowded room with loud music and wall-to-wall vomiting was a breach of the rules.

So you are redefining the scope of a cross-party Parliamentary committee?

No, I said that's what the scope of the enquiry should have been. Otherwise, it could be argued that the buffoon doesn't have the mental capacity to tell a lie because he's mentally deranged to the point where he genuinely believes anything he says must be true.

So you are redefining what the scope should have been? He's blaming his advisors - it's that simple.And he will get away with it because that's a nice new concept for any politician.

[Derek27]

So you are redefining the scope of a cross-party Parliamentary committee?

No, I said that's what the scope of the enquiry should have been. Otherwise, it could be argued that the buffoon doesn't have the mental capacity to tell a lie because he's mentally deranged to the point where he genuinely believes anything he says must be true.

So you are redefining what the scope should have been? He's blaming his advisors - it's that simple.And he will get away with it because that's a nice new concept for any politician.

No. I'm not redefining the scope of the enquiry, I don't have that power. I'm just giving my opinion (and the reasons behind it) on the question they should be addressing.

In essence, if a benefit claimant can't get away with doing a bit of paid work for someone who tells him he doesn't need to inform the DWP, an enquiry to decide whether the biggest and most well-known liar in the UK is a liar should at the very least be equally as robust. It shouldn't allow him to get away with simply being told by someone at a party that it's not against the rules

[Archangel]

Jacob Rees Mogg, now SIR Jacob Rees Mogg says the findings against BoJo are overblown !

[Derek27]

I've just realised, enquiry/enquire should be used in a less formal context, for more formal government or police investigations I should have used inquiry/inquire.

[Derek27]

Jacob Rees Mogg, now SIR Jacob Rees Mogg says the findings against BoJo are overblown !

He also said, "The Prime Minister [Truss] has acted decisively to provide the economic stability our country needs".

[Archangel]

Jacob Rees Mogg, now SIR Jacob Rees Mogg says the findings against BoJo are overblown !

He also said, "The Prime Minister [Truss] has acted decisively to provide the economic stability our country needs".

Must have been Knighted for ability to talk absolute bollox

[Derek27]

Tomorrows papers:-

i: He lied and lied and lied

Metro: Is proper whopper a career stopper?

Financial Times: Buffoon's repeated lies to MPs condemned in searing report

Guardian: *Misled parliament *Undermined democracy *Complicit in abuse of MPs

Daily Mail: Tory revolt over 'Vindictive' bid to banish buffoon

Daily Telegraph: Buffoon allies vow to oust MPs who vote for his censure

Daily Express: The most spiteful stitch-up in history of politics

Daily Mirror: He'll tell you it's a witch-hunt... He'll tell you it's democracy betrayed... He'll tell you he did nothing wrong... But just one word tells his story... LIAR

The Times: End of the road for Buffoon Boris

Daily Star:-

Daily-Star-13.jpg

[Derek27]

Buffoon Boris has asked his supporters not to oppose the committee report - all seven of them.

[Derek27]

The Daily Mail has just recruited the biggest liar in the UK to write for them.

[Archery1969]

The Daily Mail has just recruited the biggest liar in the UK to write for them.

Who's launghing though as they giving him a £1 million contract.

[Derek27]

I didn't quite catch the small print on the Daily Mirror front page.

A liar sacked from previous jobs for lying has been found guilty of lying as PM. But the liar claims people who call him a liar are liars. The big liar.