Boris stands down as MP with immediate effect

[sunnydaytoday0]

Just breaking now on BBC.

Same day as Nadine.

Do you, like me, think it is likely that he has resigned because a committee mainly composed of colleagues from his party found that he had lied in parliament? @Janiie

Does your partner, not employed in your place of work, often come to work with you @Janiie?

What about your interior designer?

If my dh lived adjacent to my place of work I'd expect to see them, ditto any tradespeople carrying out work there. We've discussed this before though haven't we 🥱.

We had windows replaced in lockdown, I even gave the workmen kitkats. It wasn't a party though.

@Janiie would you like to debate why a 56 year old needed an illegal birthday party and then choose to lie about it?

I fail to see why someone's partner would ever just wander into work, let alone tradepeople. Can you explain why that would happen?

When I am at work I am paid to work? Why would I be spending my time socialising, especially when it was illegal at the time?

That we have been through this before and no satisfactory answer has been forthcoming lies soley in the hands of one person.

The question is "why would an interior designer for no 11 DS need to be in number 10 meeting rooms?"

I'd expect someone fitting windows in my house to be in my house! Be pretty daft them being in my place of work where the area they are working on isn't!

And no - people shouldn't just wander into work because it's next door. Lots of places need clearance to enter like my place of work. DS should be the same as it has government documents and discussions around.

@itsgettingweird well, quite. Just before COVID, I was working in an office adjacent to an inpatient ward - because that was where there was space for our team.

The ward staff did not wander into our office, nor did we wander onto the ward. Separate work areas all the way.

Deja vu.

Do we need to go through the definitions of work meetings, what was and was not allowed etc again?

The Privilege Committee will report soon.
A Tory majority committee.

We know what Johnson said about parties. in PMQs.

"What I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that all guidance was followed completely in No. 10. May I recommend that he does the same with his own Christmas party, which is advertised for 15 December and to which, unaccountably, he has failed to invite the deputy Leader of the Opposition?"

Interesting - if you read down the questions, you will see his answer on building 40 new hospitals

Engagements - Hansard - UK Parliament

We all know that's not true.

Your devotion to the man is quite endearing @Janiie but I don't understand why you are so snippy with people who aren't in his thrall, going by his track record I am sure you will be in with a chance soon enough

And the next PMQs

Engagements - Hansard - UK Parliament

"May I begin by saying that I understand and share the anger up and down the country at seeing No. 10 staff seeming to make light of lockdown measures? I can understand how infuriating it must be to think that the people who have been setting the rules have not been following the rules, because I was also furious to see that clip. I apologise unreservedly for the offence that it has caused up and down the country, and I apologise for the impression that it gives.
I repeat that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no covid rules were broken. That is what I have been repeatedly assured. But I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to establish all the facts and to report back as soon as possible. It goes without saying that if those rules were broken, there will be disciplinary action for all those involved."

I guess that during the week, we were assured that there were no parties

"The Prime Minister and the Government spent the week telling the British public that there was no party and that all guidance was followed completely. Millions of people now think the Prime Minister was taking them for fools and that they were lied to; they are right, aren’t they?

We have all watched the video of the Prime Minister’s staff, including his personal spokesperson. They knew there was a party, they knew it was against the rules, they knew they could not admit it and they thought it was funny. It is obvious what happened—Ant and Dec are ahead of the Prime Minister on this. The Prime Minister has been caught red-handed; why does he not end the investigation right now by just admitting it?

PM: Because I have been repeatedly assured that no rules were broken. I understand public anxiety about this and I understand public indignation, but there is a risk of doing a grave injustice to people who were, frankly, obeying the rules. That is why the Cabinet Secretary will be conducting an investigation and that is why there will be the requisite disciplinary action if necessary.

KS: This pretence that further information has come to light—give me a break! The Prime Minister is still taking the public for fools.

Then we know the Cabinet Secretary had to change to Sue Gray

Oh no you misunderstand too! I'm not devoted, I'm not a fangirl nor I am hoping to be 'in with a chance' <>I'm very happily married thanks. I can just spot a stitch up when I see one and the thought of Sir Korma running the show very soon with Ange hanging on his coat tails is a bit concerning. Still I'm resilient so will no doubt cope with the horrors to come just fine.

I can just spot a stitch up when I see one and the thought of Sir Korma running the show very soon with Ange hanging on his coat tails is a bit concerning

There were parties in Downing Street.
Johnson said that there weren't.

He misled Parliament.

So Starmer stitched up Johnson - how exactly?

@Janiie Can you explain how this stitch up serves the interests of the Tory party?

Given the Tory party have a majority on the Standards Committee and in parliament, surely they would want to protect one of their own?

Well we all know that since But Jeremy Corbyn stopped running the country Sir Keir has been in his place.

Oh no you misunderstand too! I'm not devoted, I'm not a fangirl nor I am hoping to be 'in with a chance' <>I'm very happily married thanks. I can just spot a stitch up when I see one and the thought of Sir Korma running the show very soon with Ange hanging on his coat tails is a bit concerning. Still I'm resilient so will no doubt cope with the horrors to come just fine.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought you were coming across as a teensy bit devoted to Toad, but as far as being resilient to cope with the horrors to come, well you have managed to cope with the horrors of the last 13 years so you should be just fine and dandy unlike a good chunk of the electorate

No no I have a grasp of truth and evidence thanks. Lack of evidence in the case of Bozo is the problem you see.

If there was no evidence of criminal conduct, why did he accept the fine?

Given the Tory party have a majority on the Standards Committee and in parliament, surely they would want to protect one of their own?

Why ? This lot in government aren't even what most people would describe as Conservatives. Pretending they are is what has led to us being where we are, even Boris isn't really a Conservative.
I know some people think he is very badly done to, but he chose to ride the wave of populism because it provided him with what he personally needed, not because he cared about anyone else, certainly not the Conservative party and least of all the electorate.

Janiie · Today 18:17
I have a grasp of truth and evidence thanks.

also Janiie · Today 18:56
Oh they were work place gatherings we all know it. 'Party' used to oust him for Brexit.

DuncinToffee · Today 19:00
No he got ousted for appointing Pincher, a known sex pest.

Little reminder for you, Janiie.

Why has Boris Johnson resigned? How Chris Pincher scandal and MP resignations forced Prime Minister to quit
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-resigned-why-prime-minister-quit-chris-pincher-scandal-mp-resignations-1729346

^The Prime Minister had defied calls to step aside after more than 50 members of Government resigned in protest of his leadership.
They were triggered by former Chancellor Rishi Sunak and former Health Secretary Sajid Javid sensationally quitting on Tuesday evening.^
[...]
The resignations came in the wake of the Government’s latest scandal, after a bombshell letter from the former head of the Foreign Office, Simon McDonald, revealed Mr Johnson had been told of allegations that Chris Pincher was a sexual predator before appointing him to the position of deputy chief whip.

Mr Johnson had previously denied knowing of any specific claims of wrongdoing against Mr Pincher, and his spokesman suggested he had forgotten he was briefed on the incident.

As you are of course well aware, there was no need for dancing, loud music or raucous behaviour for the conduct in question to be illegal. The offence consisted of being in an unlawful gathering that was not reasonably necessary for work purposes. Manifestly, gathering around and eating birthday cake in a group that included Johnson's wife and his interior decorator was not necessary for work.

I find it a stretch that some posters are claiming that the met fined Johnson to oust him for Brexit.

Or that the standards committee made up of mostly Tory's wanted to oust him for brexit.

Or that the privileges report was wrong but yet he resigned over it rather than prove it wrong.

The problem isn't lack of evidence.

It's that every time he lies more evidence comes to light because more investigations have to happen.

Now then Janiie, I know your memory might be as bad as Johnson's, and you might have forgotten that you had been briefed on the incident.

But now that I've reminded you, if you were to repeat your false claim that Johnson was ousted because of a party or for Brexit - on this or any other thread – then you'd be lying.

Wouldn't you.

As you are of course well aware, there was no need for dancing, loud music or raucous behaviour for the conduct in question to be illegal. The offence consisted of being in an unlawful gathering that was not reasonably necessary for work purposes. Manifestly, gathering around and eating birthday cake in a group that included Johnson's wife and his interior decorator was not necessary for work.

This. Plus I remind everyone of the link above I gave of the OED definition of a party which doesn't state it must include dancing!

Goodness to we need to go through this arguement again.

It is quite clear that in order for Boris to do any work he needed the promise of booze and cake. Therefore the parties were essential for work.