So you are redefining the scope of a cross-party Parliamentary committee?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.![]()
UK General Election 2024 (or 25)
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.greenmark wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:15 pmSo you are redefining the scope of a cross-party Parliamentary committee?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 pm
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.
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.![]()

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.




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. 

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 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:24 pmNo, 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.greenmark wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:15 pmSo you are redefining the scope of a cross-party Parliamentary committee?Derek27 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:59 pm
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.![]()
![]()
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.greenmark wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 7:51 pmSo 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 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:24 pmNo, 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.![]()
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

Must have been Knighted for ability to talk absolute bollox
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:-


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:-
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Posts: 4478
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am