advertisement


A thread to catalogue the eloquence, dignity, diplomacy and wisdom of Boris Johnson III

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheDecameron said:
It appears the Russians got through to Priti Patel and the Defence Secretary on the phone pretending to be Zelensky and they conversed with the sock puppet. Now saying their words might be edited and used by Russian propaganda.

Another appalling embarrassment after Truss’s disastrous visit to Moscow and that’s just the security breach. God knows what Patel said…
Click to expand...
Like Israel she had nothing good to say
 
Breaking the law is just what the Tory Party does. There will be no repercussions. Johnson may well sack a couple more token Allegra Stratons as a meat shield for the tabloids, but no Tory elites or millionaires will be impacted.
 
This is just the first wave, the little people that put their hands up for wrongdoing. The bigger fish, who’ve denied or lied are still under investigation. They should have their day in open court.
 
ks.234 said:
Is anonymity given to all recipients of a fixed fine penalty notice?
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be, IMHO. The principle of open justice requires, for the most part, that the judicial process is visible and transparent. It's why hearings are usually in open court and in-camera sessions are minimal, and why sentences and outcomes of cases are published. Not sure what happens with other fixed penalty cases, such as motoring, but the open justice requirement should for the most part override considerations like privacy. There are, of course, special cases, such as rape, or national security matters, but they don't apply here obvs.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
It shouldn't be, IMHO. The principle of open justice requires, for the most part, that the judicial process is visible and transparent. It's why hearings are usually in open court and in-camera sessions are minimal, and why sentences and outcomes of cases are published. Not sure what happens with other fixed penalty cases, such as motoring, but the open justice requirement should for the most part override considerations like privacy. There are, of course, special cases, such as rape, or national security matters, but they don't apply here obvs.
Click to expand...
As some of those people who have broken the law might be our elected representatives, don’t we have a right to know who they are? As a matter of democratic principle shouldn’t we know if someone we might vote for is dishonest?
 
ks.234 said:
As some of those people who have broken the law might be our elected representatives, don’t we have a right to know who they are? As a matter of democratic principle shouldn’t we know if someone we might vote for is dishonest?
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed. Even if there were a normal presumption of privacy for, eg, minor offences, you could make a good case for overriding that in the circumstances here. If the Met declines to name those issued with penalties, that's another demerit to log on the Cressida Dick thread, IMHO.
 
ks.234 said:
As some of those people who have broken the law might be our elected representatives, don’t we have a right to know who they are? As a matter of democratic principle shouldn’t we know if someone we might vote for is dishonest?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there are a sizeable number supposed to uphold the law, who have also broken it. Positive vetting for potential police recruits was seen as an expensive waste of time, resources and an infringement of personal liberty.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Yes, indeed. Even if there were a normal presumption of privacy for, eg, minor offences, you could make a good case for overriding that in the circumstances here. If the Met declines to name those issued with penalties, that's another demerit to log on the Cressida Dick thread, IMHO.
Click to expand...
I’d argue that even minor offences should be transparent, someone seeking public office and professing a public duty have to be open and honest. The presumption behind privacy is that the electorate are too thick to decide that, say a parking ticket, is a serious offence or not. Likewise a speeding fine might be considered insignificant, but if the person seeking off has previously made pronouncements calling for those caught speeding to be hung, drawn and quartered, then the electorate might take a different view. My point being that any criminal offence should be declared and the electorate should decide if it is relevant to their vote, or not.
 
Last edited:
Interesting suggestion in the Guardian that after the truly shameful sight of most of the Tory government shuffling into the voting booths to support blatant corruption it seems some might just have a spine not to do the same regarding Johnson’s ignoring security services advice in placing Russian oligarch Lebadev into the HoL. I’m obviously expecting very few to act with any integrity or in the national interest, they are Tories after all, but maybe just enough will that we get to see the report. Abstaining obviously isn’t acting with honour or decency, but it is a small step in the right direction…
 
Seeker_UK said:
That would be in contravention of how spent convictions are dealt with under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. (https://assets.publishing.service.g...5449/rehabilitation-of-offenders-guidance.pdf)

As it happens, anyone who has been sentenced to 12 months or more in prison cannot stand as an MP.
Click to expand...
Is it even possible that Johnson can be rehabilitated? I’m convinced that after his political career is over, he’ll go on grifting, deceiving and poncing off of others as is his custom.
 
TheDecameron said:
Is it even possible that Johnson can be rehabilitated? I’m convinced that after his political career is over, he’ll go on grifting, deceiving and poncing off of others as is his custom.
Click to expand...

He won't need to, the job's already done. All those favours will be repaid in what has become the standard way, via absurdly over-remunerated after dinner speeches. It is a circuit upon which BJ will be very busy.
 
Who’s going to have him? Take a look at the pariah status he enjoys among our allies.

https://www.indy100.com/politics/boris-johnson-nato-world-leaders

There will be fringe contrarian elements and far right disrupters in those countries who’ll host his blathering post dinner reminiscences- Marjorie Taylor Green, Viktor Orban, Marine Le Pen. Contrary to appearances, he’s actually due a lap of honour in Moscow, probably at the Diplomatic Academy.

There is of course the emerging right wing stand up circuit.
 
"A thread to catalogue the eloquence, dignity, diplomacy and wison of Boris Johnson" ... and his Tory colleagues.

I'll put this here as probably the best place. It seems to be where most of the vomit goes. John Crace gave Bill Wiggin, our local MP, a quick mention at the end of his piece yesterday.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-as-backbenchers-cheer-whatever-lies-he-tells

Bill's been to Qatar, and wants Qataris to have better access to the UK. He outdid himself yesterday at the Liaison Committee Meeting.

https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/20032770.herefordshire-mp-says-uk-gets-wrong-sort-immigrants/

"North Herefordshire MP Sir Bill Wiggin has asked the Prime Minister why Britain lets in “the wrong sort” if immigrants, rather than “the right ones”.
Boris Johnson was taking questions on a range of topics during the Parliamentary Liaison Committee this afternoon (Wednesday).


“At the other end of the spectrum, we have on at least three occasions promised the Qataris visa-free access,” Sir Bill said.
“These are very wealthy people who are unlikely to stay and yet despite saying we would do it three times we still haven't delivered.
“I am really worried, Prime Minister, that everything you have said to us today I actually want to happen. But it isn't happening, and the only people who are turning up turned up in rubber boats.
“Why can't we get the right people through our immigration system instead of the wrong ones?”

Mr Johnson asked in return: “If I understand you correctly, Bill, what you are saying is, why can't the Qataris and other Gulf countries have visa-free access?”
To which Sir Bill replied: “We wanted Ukrainians, we want Qataris, we don't want people in rubber boats. And we’re not getting it.”

In his regular Hereford Times column last month Sir Bill contrasted the plight of Ukrainians with what he called economic migrants.

He said of the Ukrainians, "facing this overwhelmingly powerful neighbour must be truly terrifying, yet we are getting reports of ordinary men and women volunteering to undergo basic training in order to fight back.
"One cannot help but contrast this with the economic migration from Syria and other troubled states.
"The Ukrainians want to stand and fight, and it is therefore right that the Government is doing everything sensible to support them."

What a vile man he is. Newly knighted by Johnson, too.

For once, I think even Johnson looks a bit embarrassed.
 
I guess we should document Johnson’s endless flip-flopping/u-turning on the repugnant right-wing anti-science practice of “conversation therapy”. Initially he (rightly) pledged a ban, then tried to wiggle-out (I assume due to religious bigotry and fundamentalism on his own benches), then reversed out due to public opinion, but still appears to be hanging trans folk out to dry (Guardian).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top