Reply With QuoteYes but they work very very hard.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-01-10/...ht-of-lockdown
Sorry, just realised I wasn’t on the politics board when I posted this.
Yes but they work very very hard.
Incredibly hard.Originally Posted by Dave Blue
Corrupt to the core the lot of them. Johnson should resign immediately.
I predict 10 pages from JamesWales saying its not right but hes not bothered about.😂
Yes, they lie and take the piss time and again.
But there are children starving in Africa.
For me, this is sufficiently topical and not a wall of text. That said, I don't want to sound like the board Stasi or anything like that or some sort of deviant politics-posting-shamer. It was just something that resonated with me in a post The Boss made over Christmas (I think) where he mentioned this kind of thing.
Anyway, back to the topic.....
Proven liars are proven to be liars. Self-entitled hypocrites the lot of them.
.
Great bit of whatabouttery there.
Tony ****wit-Member of the public giving his opinion on the news while walking down some depressing high St 'Can't blame him really, if i had a pad like that and a few quid like Boris, then i reckon i'd be on the piss as well'
OK, I thought it was pretty obvious that was my point.
The tweet explains what Johnson said at his press conference a couple of days after the party.
https://twitter.com/pippacrerar/stat...904208897?s=21
Sue Gray is on case , she's no fool.
Yeah right, pull the bloody other one.
This government are a bunch of shisters and you know it.
For the Tory boys on here. Bodger is a compulsive liar. If he’s lying to us about the parties what else is he lying to us about?
https://twitter.com/iainoverton/stat...646235649?s=21
Quite right. We can often tell when it’s blatant lying but how do we know when it’s a subject that is a little more complex? There is no trust.
Pure hypocrisy and lies from Johnson when you are reminded of what he was saying a month ago;-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL42...annel=euronews
Don't forget as well that the Cabinet Secretary mentioned by the PM had to step down from conducting the inquiry into Christmas "gatherings" in 2020 because he had hosted parties of his own!
Anyone who is still defending Johnson can only be some sort of forelock tugger who truly believes that the rules should not apply to their "betters" like heads of state and Royalty.
They broke the rules because they knew they were bullshit
They broke the rules because they knew the people at the party would not be at risk. (The P.M’s Personal protection would have vetoed it otherwise)
They broke the rules because they had total contempt for the public.
I hope that is reciprocated at the ballot box - but it probably won't be.
There is no way that party ( or any others ) would have taken place without a thorough risk assessment before hand. Clearly the P.M’s advisors, medical staff , bodyguards, thought he and other high ranking government members were ok to attend.
There was no vaccine at the time either .
How on earth can you know that? Even if you're right, it's an absolutely terrible look because 99 per cent of the population did not have such risk assessments beforehand, they were just told they could not do it. It's being reported that there were widespread misgivings among many in Downing Street about the party going ahead.
It still went ahead regardless of misgivings, and the people who had these misgivings kept quiet about it until it was leaked yesterday.
And your point is? You said there would have been risk assessments carried out, you're only guessing that and, frankly, with this Government under this Prime Minister, I would not be the least bit surprised if there wasn't. Even if there was, it was still a flagrant breaking of the rules which cannot be fobbed off this time as a work meeting - you need to cast your mind back to what it was like in May 2020, bring a bottle parties were not allowed if I remember rightly.
Bollox! The party took place because Bodger wanted a piss up.
Sage, at this time, were predicting a reasonable worst-case planning scenario, of 250,000 deaths which was why the public didn’t require to have a risk assessment.
Those who attended the gathering must have had a risk assessment, based on the modelling. If they didn’t I personally couldn’t see how the party would have been authorised. But that is my take on it, unless they thought the SAGE modelling was questionable?
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-29-march-2020
I have read your first sentence a number of times and still don't have a scooby what it means. That's notwithstanding the fact that the document you attached says nothing whatsoever about 250k deaths, which I presume you got from Imperial College's initial analysis of what would happen if no restrictions were imposed.
Witter on about risk analysis all you like. This is about the people who made the rules living by a completely different set. Pure and simple!
Posting Permissions