UK General Election 2024 (or 25)
It's pretty amazing. Jeffery Archer went to prison (
), but when he came out, as well as being invited back by the Tories to give a speech, he even talked about prison reform!Seems like the Committee has decided that relying on media advisors to define what a PM should say to the Commons is a bad idea.
So BJ may say "he" didn't mislead Parliament, but his team made a mistake by providing the advice they did.
Is that a defence?
Even if it is, do you want the country run by someone that is incapable of directing his team to operate with 100% integrity?
So BJ may say "he" didn't mislead Parliament, but his team made a mistake by providing the advice they did.
Is that a defence?
Even if it is, do you want the country run by someone that is incapable of directing his team to operate with 100% integrity?
Harrit Herman put it succinctly when she said, if you're travelling at 100mph on the motorway, your speedometer records 100mph, but you're "told" by your passenger that you're travelling at 70mph...greenmark wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 2:00 pmSeems like the Committee has decided that relying on media advisors to define what a PM should say to the Commons is a bad idea.
So BJ may say "he" didn't mislead Parliament, but his team made a mistake by providing the advice they did.
Is that a defence?
Even if it is, do you want the country run by someone that is incapable of directing his team to operate with 100% integrity?
I used to have a narcissistic girlfriend who kept making rules and agreements, but as soon as they inconvenienced her and stopped her from doing something she felt entitled to, she'd take the view that the rules must be wrong and change, make exceptions or re-interpret them.
That's exactly the mentality of that narcissistic bum and former PM. He's not even capable of recognising that he's done something wrong, only the world goes wrong when it conflicts with him!
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.
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.Derek27 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 2:42 pm14. 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.
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.greenmark wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 3:03 pmNone 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.Derek27 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 2:42 pm14. 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.
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.
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.
-
Archery1969
- Posts: 4478
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
With hindsight, if I had been the PM then I would have argued from the beginning that my home, place of work and government are one in the same and means the same rules do not apply. You can’t run a government during a national disaster on your own.Derek27 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:59 pmIt 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.greenmark wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 3:03 pmNone 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.Derek27 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 2:42 pm14. 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.
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.
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.
I know of at least one large organisation who had lockdown parties on top of a building encompassing a very large penthouse. Security staff were given explicit instructions that nobody without a pass was allowed past the front desk. If the police turned up then they were told to press a silent buzzer.