Reply With QuoteSome whatterboutry
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ces.thinktanks
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Ha ha, I LURV your final paragraph 👍Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
Some whatterboutry
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ces.thinktanks
Ok, I'll play. Whatabout posting this in the whatabouttery thread you started called Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution where you said David Blunkett proposed the same idea 20 years agoinvolving a third party off shore immigration solution and Eric Cartman said he didn't. You asked him to google it to prove you right.
He said it didn't presumably because the Blunkett thing involved trying to get a pan-EU position where asylum seekers were processed in safety and those accepted allowed to go to the country of their choice rather than the Patel/Get Johnson out of jail card which involves deporting people from the UK and getting them to seek asylum in Rwanda.
Still what's that about?
https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/ar...cret-barrister
I do enjoy the Secret Barrister, although he does generally approach things from one angle. I totally agree that the media are complicit in things, although this goes for nearly every topic going unfortunately
That dangerous lefty the Archbishop of Canterbury has his say on the Government’s Rwanda proposals.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ays-archbishop
Pinched from Twitter. This sums this Tory’s policy on refugees up perfectly.
The Rwanda plan is NOT offshore processing of claims.
It IS human trafficking.
Our Govt effectively trading in vulnerable people. It is selling asylum seekers to Rwanda for them to work there.
Except if people are seeking genuine asylum from tyranny they need not worry. If they are seeking immigration there are legal ways to do it and we will be paying the Rwandan government not criminal people smugglers. Apart from that, it's identical.
He can part the English Channel and then feed each boat with five loaves and two fish.
Does the fact that there was not one mention of Johnson’s statement to the Commons yesterday on here mean people are no longer interested in Partygate any more or that they have made up their minds on the subject and nothing the PM does or says will make a difference?
Thought Rees-Mogg comparing Johnson’s fine to the DRS system in cricket was equally funny and desperate.
I have made up my mind and there is nothing that Johnson could say that would make any difference. He should have gone when these things were disclosed but has since added lying to Parliament and the first sitting Prime Minister to be charged and convicted of breaking the law to this.
Now, as then, the only people who have the power to remove him show no sign of doing so, with a good number of them coming up with ever more implausible reasons to justify their inaction. Meanwhile, the rest of us wait around watching the fish rot from the head.
I see the diversion tactics this time apply to the COE and the BBC - the latter, apparently, are softer on Putin than they are on Johnson
I don't doubt that people care about this story, but it does have to be said, there is only so far you can go with it, and as political scandals it isnt that juicy. That's not to say it's not important, I just think there's only so much people can say about whether someone had a slice of cake, or a glass of wine after a meeting etc etc etc
They'll use every trick in the book to fleece our gullible public. In answer to your question there is absolutely nothing any Tory could weasel out of this which would change my mind.I see the diversion tactics this time apply to the COE and the BBC - the latter, appare our gullible publicntly, are softer on Putin than they are on Johnson
See, I just don’t get that, the issue as I see it is the Prime Minister has been found to have broken his own law, it’s not about cakes or glasses of wine.
Agreed and I’d be saying the same about a Labour PM and Government if they had done the same.
It's a good line, that's why the apologists keep using it, but the furore is not about cake and wine.
It's about Johnson making a law, being on television (it seemed like every day) telling people not to break it as lives were at stake, and people following the law to the extent that family members died alone - then lying about having broken that same law multiple times to parliament, refusing to resign for lying in breach of the ministerial code, and becoming the first PM to get sanctioned by the police in office.
It's not that juicy? It's the juiciest scandal involving a Prime Minister in history! It's got death, criminality and moral bankruptcy.
Or it's about cake.
No I get it, and I've said numerous times he should have resigned. I don't think it's juicy, because whilst I agree with you in many respects, the indescretions fundementally are in any time of history very trivial. I just don't have an enormous issue with people who had to work together having a cake or whatever before a meeting. It was wrong, but I'm not that bothered by it and we are just talking about the same damned thing.
What absolutely f****d me over was lockdown and WFH. What worries me is the absense of recognition of how bad that is for mental health and I do hear more recognition of that from him rather than from Starmer.
We are just going round in circles really. The Tories are damaging themselves more by him staying anyway
The prime minister lying to parliament about something he was later fined by the police for doing is absolutely not trivial.
Different topic, but I was furious about people trying to overturn a referendum result - that wasnt trivial for me, but many were okay with it and even supported it. Maybe you did?
The reality is, we can all accept something is wrong, but hes been fined and apologised and I've said he should have resigned, but honestly I just don't know how much more there is to talk about it - personally it doesnt impact on my life and there are bigger issues that aren't being discussed.
You do still talk about Brexit though so not a great example of 'moving on'.
I agree with your last sentence. The Tories should have lanced this boil weeks ago, and if the Metropolitan police had either acted sooner or waited until after the Sue Gray report he may well have gone by now.
It certainly isn't the juiciest scandal in history though. I also think those who are saying it is affecting our international standing are talking nonsense as well
The guy in charge of implementing the lockdowns but didn't stick to his rules and repeatedly lied about it in Parliament (this seems to be the part that you have repeatedly, conveniently ignored) gets a pass from you because he has, apparently, given more recognition to how much damage lockdown and WFH has caused for people's mental health than his opponent.
Can you explain why this recognition has helped you?
All 10s from the judges for your performance in the mental gymnastics on this topic, James.
James didn't givd him a pass.
He said he should have resigned.
I think the accusation might be that if this was someone who James had an inherent dislike of then he wouldn't be so keen to move past it. A call to resign doesn't have a use by date.
Posting Permissions
