BreakTheLaw Boris

[JamesWales]

Should he/they resign? Yes I think so. Although that should have happened before.

Will they? Almost certainly not. The timing helps in that respect, with parliament not sitting etc - no doubt thats one for conspiracy theorists, not without reason if I'm honest.

Do I care? Not enormously. Partly due to the nature of it, and partly because in practice i don't think the parties/gatherings were a risk to public health and this was the epicentre of decision making. Also, I don't mind a fixed penalty notice. It's not the crime of the century, although I fully appreciate the people involved amplify any indiscretion. For me though, Covid, lockdowns, WFH and the rest have decimated our society and I think it all should have been challenged a little more.

It's unbelievably hypocritical though, and one of the most clear cut examples of 'one rule for them and one rule for the rest of us' you will ever come across.

He should resign, or offer the mother of apologies, including a strong apology for the extent of the lockdown.

[WJ99mobile]

It's unbelievably hypocritical though, and one of the most clear cut examples of 'one rule for them and one rule for the rest of us' you will ever come across.

He won't resign

When I look at Labour's past policies and Starmer I still might have to hold my nose and still vote for Boris next GE

However JamesWales is spot on with the above

[the other bob wilson]

He won't resign

When I look at Labour's past policies and Starmer I still might have to hold my nose and still vote for Boris next GE

However JamesWales is spot on with the above

So you’re going to vote for a convicted liar because of Labour’s past policies?

[cyril evans awaydays]

So you’re going to vote for a convicted liar because of Labour’s past policies?

Don't get ahead of yourself Bob, he has only been served a a notice. He will only be convicted if he fails to successfully challenge it in a court of law which is his right.

The passage of time seems to make his apologists most comfortable. I was one of only 9 others who attended my Father in Law's funeral with no wake because it was illegal whilst this gang were gathered around the Cabinet table singing Happy Birthday and lecturing others on what to do and why.

Once you accept that politicians no longer have to act with decency and honour (and many have been forced from office for far less until this recent crew took over) then you get what you deserve!

[Elwood Blues]

So you’re going to vote for a convicted liar because of Labour’s past policies?

This is not a defence of Boris Johnston but he is not a convicted liar.

A fine is not a conviction. As I undertand it he will only be guilty of a criminal offence if he appeals against the fine but is found guilty by the magistrates court.

It still doesn't look good though.

[Rjk]

This is not a defence of Boris Johnston but he is not a convicted liar.

A fine is not a conviction. As I undertand it he will only be guilty of a criminal offence if he appeals against the fine but is found guilty by the magistrates court.

It still doesn't look good though.

On the other hand, he has been sacked from 2 previous jobs for lying so...

[Elwood Blues]

On the other hand, he has been sacked from 2 previous jobs for lying so...

Granted, but it doesn't alter the fact that he is not a convicted liar

[the other bob wilson]

This is not a defence of Boris Johnston but he is not a convicted liar.

A fine is not a conviction. As I undertand it he will only be guilty of a criminal offence if he appeals against the fine but is found guilty by the magistrates court.

It still doesn't look good though.

Fair enough, but we’re talking about semantics. He’s been found guilty of breaking a law he and his Government instigated and then misleading Parliament about it - the notion that any other Prime Minister of the modern era would have not resigned under such circumstances is laughable.

[Elwood Blues]

Fair enough, but we’re talking about semantics. He’s been found guilty of breaking a law he and his Government instigated and then misleading Parliament about it - the notion that any other Prime Minister of the modern era would have not resigned under such circumstances is laughable.

I was going to use the word semantics but It is not really I don't think.The meaning of the word conviction is clear and a fine is by no definition included.

I agree though with the fact that he misled parliament.

If he does stay (and I suspect he will) then he and the conservative party will have to face the judgement of the electorate in two years time, which could well be damning, so the reckoning will only be delayed.

[the other bob wilson]

Should he/they resign? Yes I think so. Although that should have happened before.

Will they? Almost certainly not. The timing helps in that respect, with parliament not sitting etc - no doubt thats one for conspiracy theorists, not without reason if I'm honest.

Do I care? Not enormously. Partly due to the nature of it, and partly because in practice i don't think the parties/gatherings were a risk to public health and this was the epicentre of decision making. Also, I don't mind a fixed penalty notice. It's not the crime of the century, although I fully appreciate the people involved amplify any indiscretion. For me though, Covid, lockdowns, WFH and the rest have decimated our society and I think it all should have been challenged a little more.

It's unbelievably hypocritical though, and one of the most clear cut examples of 'one rule for them and one rule for the rest of us' you will ever come across.

He should resign, or offer the mother of apologies, including a strong apology for the extent of the lockdown.

When the majority of these parties (and can we please now see an end to all of that bollox about them not being parties please) were held, there was either no vaccine or hardly anyone had been vaccinated, so your comments about the parties not being a risk to public health are being made in hindsight and in circumstances that did not exist at the time - Johnson and the rest of them should be judged by the standards that applied at the time.

[TWGL1]

When the majority of these parties (and can we please now see an end to all of that bollox about them not being parties please) were held, there was either no vaccine or hardly anyone had been vaccinated, so your comments about the parties not being a risk to public health are being made in hindsight and in circumstances that did not exist at the time - Johnson and the rest of them should be judged by the standards that applied at the time.

If they were that a risk to public health, surely the public protection officers and health officials and advisors would have said so ?

In theory, the top table of government could have died by having this gathering…….. hmmmmmm

[the other bob wilson]

If they were that a risk to public health, surely the public protection officers and health officials and advisors would have said so ?

In theory, the top table of government could have died by having this gathering…….. hmmmmmm

I thought they did.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

The word 'party' is a bit of a distraction really. Certain gatherings we're illegal regardless of whether they could be categorised as parties.