Page 18 | Boris stands down as MP with immediate effect part 2

Rhondaa · 15/06/2023 08:19

'Who in your opinion would be on an 'impartial committee'?'

Hmm, well not people likely Harman who has been a constant vocal critic of Johnson. That isn't impartial is it. Also, not someone like silly Jenkins who sat on another committee sneering at Johnson. Granted I've no idea about the others, but one can imagine who steered the discussions.

Rhondaa · 15/06/2023 08:21

'Durham police and several legal opinions concluded no law had been broken. Do tell us exactly what your legal qualifications are and why you know better. Do tell us also exactly what relevance this has to Johnson lying to Parliament.'

Honestly we know what they found. It's like pulling teeth. The facts are either buffets were allowed at work or they weren't! (regardless of the time period same rules applied) so either Durham were wrong, or the Met were. Which is it?

Original poster

IClaudine · 15/06/2023 08:22

Oh for God's sake. It will be pointless trying to have any sort of real discussion about the report on this thread, won't it?

OP posts:

Kiwano · 15/06/2023 08:24

cakeorwine · 14/06/2023 21:24

"The Conservative MP Alberto Costa asked Mr Johnson why he relied on “assurances from political advisers” such as Jack Doyle and James Slack instead of “a permanent civil servant, or more importantly, a Government lawyer”.
Mr Johnson replied: “They both said that the rules had not been broken, and the reason I didn’t ask a lawyer or another senior civil service was because they were the people who’d been there… they could give a view about the legality of that event.”"

Another baffling example of Johnson's thought processes. It's extraordinary enough that he claims to think he will get a valid legal opinion by asking other people at risk of being prosecuted for the same event whether they were breaking the law; but what is mind blowing is that he actually thinks that's a good answer to the question and a valid defence, to the extent of getting all testy about it. He really has got some sort of mental block - I guess the reality is that he basically believes that he should be above questioning about anything he does, hence his massive indignation about the whole Privileges Committee investigation.

Efacsen · 15/06/2023 08:25

Rhondaa · 15/06/2023 08:19

'Who in your opinion would be on an 'impartial committee'?'

Hmm, well not people likely Harman who has been a constant vocal critic of Johnson. That isn't impartial is it. Also, not someone like silly Jenkins who sat on another committee sneering at Johnson. Granted I've no idea about the others, but one can imagine who steered the discussions.

So you're okay with the other 5 members of the committee?

Remember it was a unanimous decision which means you would need to discredit a few more to undermine the impartiality

Clavinova · 15/06/2023 08:26

cakeorwine
But off to bed? Good excuse

A good excuse for what? It was your turn to post, not mine - 23:17 is late enough.

And still no quote - a bigger person would say they got it wrong

I posted a brief quote yesterday - NB If you are looking at advanced search, make sure it's working for other words as well - it seems very glitchy to me. Anyway, it was more the point that you quoted a lengthy, 'holier than thou' speech from Ian Blackford on this thread, calling for Boris Johnson to resign - Blackford didn't resign in June 2022.

It's also critical thinking to know when not to bother engaging

You did the opposite - and made a mountain out of a molehill.

Look forward to your derail attempts when the report comes out tomorrow. Unfortunately I will be at work so won't be able to comment.

I am busy today as well, and this evening - I probably won't post until Friday afternoon at the earliest.

Kiwano · 15/06/2023 08:26

Clavinova · 14/06/2023 21:47

cakeorwine
(Ignores @ Clavinova)

That's convenient. You posted about Boris Johnson's 'defence of Chris Pincher' earlier in the thread - but you don't care about Ian Blackford's defence of former SNP chief whip Patrick Grady - relating to 'a sexual advance towards a teenage staff member [male] in 2016'.

Finally you've acknowledged that the Pincher saga happened. So, without trying to divert attention to anyone else, can you tell us whether his conduct with regard to that (with particular reference to the fact that he was Prime Minister) was acceptable?

Original poster

IClaudine · 15/06/2023 08:27

You going to admit you were wring @Janiie and that the Committee has not pulled a "stunt" as per Fabricant's fabrication?

OP posts:

DuncinToffee · 15/06/2023 08:28

Clavinova · 15/06/2023 08:26

cakeorwine
But off to bed? Good excuse

A good excuse for what? It was your turn to post, not mine - 23:17 is late enough.

And still no quote - a bigger person would say they got it wrong

I posted a brief quote yesterday - NB If you are looking at advanced search, make sure it's working for other words as well - it seems very glitchy to me. Anyway, it was more the point that you quoted a lengthy, 'holier than thou' speech from Ian Blackford on this thread, calling for Boris Johnson to resign - Blackford didn't resign in June 2022.

It's also critical thinking to know when not to bother engaging

You did the opposite - and made a mountain out of a molehill.

Look forward to your derail attempts when the report comes out tomorrow. Unfortunately I will be at work so won't be able to comment.

I am busy today as well, and this evening - I probably won't post until Friday afternoon at the earliest.

Have you found Cakeorwine's post you were referring to yet? Search history could help?

Original poster

IClaudine · 15/06/2023 08:29

I am busy today as well, and this evening - I probably won't post until Friday afternoon at the earliest

Got to get those links in a row, eh Clav? Funny how you always have to go out or go to bed when things get sticky, which they are about to. But have a good day.

OP posts:

Original poster

IClaudine · 15/06/2023 08:30

IClaudine · 15/06/2023 08:27

You going to admit you were wring @Janiie and that the Committee has not pulled a "stunt" as per Fabricant's fabrication?

"Wrong", obviously.

OP posts:

DuncinToffee · 15/06/2023 08:30

IClaudine · 15/06/2023 08:29

I am busy today as well, and this evening - I probably won't post until Friday afternoon at the earliest

Got to get those links in a row, eh Clav? Funny how you always have to go out or go to bed when things get sticky, which they are about to. But have a good day.

A fridge is a nice place to be in this hot weather

Kiwano · 15/06/2023 08:37

Rhondaa · 15/06/2023 08:19

'Who in your opinion would be on an 'impartial committee'?'

Hmm, well not people likely Harman who has been a constant vocal critic of Johnson. That isn't impartial is it. Also, not someone like silly Jenkins who sat on another committee sneering at Johnson. Granted I've no idea about the others, but one can imagine who steered the discussions.

Can you say who should be on it as opposed to who shouldn't, bearing in mind the need for the committee not to be restricted to one party?

Alexandra2001 · 15/06/2023 08:38

Rhondaa · 15/06/2023 08:19

'Who in your opinion would be on an 'impartial committee'?'

Hmm, well not people likely Harman who has been a constant vocal critic of Johnson. That isn't impartial is it. Also, not someone like silly Jenkins who sat on another committee sneering at Johnson. Granted I've no idea about the others, but one can imagine who steered the discussions.

Johnson knew the make up of the committee and agreed to it.

He has also foregone the opportunity to defend himself in the 'commons, instead, like the mini Trump he is, using the media, appealing to his base, to conduct his defence.

Pathetic, he should take responsibility for his actions

Notonthestairs · 15/06/2023 08:42

Well he couldn't defend himself in the Commons without misleading it (again). So he's chosen trial by media as a means to circumvent that. Lets face most of the media will print any old rubbish that suits their wider aims.

Efacsen · 15/06/2023 08:44

Yes @Alexandra2001

According to Tobias Ellwood the legitimate process for BJ to raise concerns about the committee would be for him to make a statement in the house prior to the vote on the report

But can no longer do so because he resigned as an MP

DuncinToffee · 15/06/2023 08:45

Robert Buckland just now

Johnson willingly submitted himself to the Committee as PM, accepted its members, and only started whining after he realised finding was going against him.

Rhondaa · 15/06/2023 08:47

I feel awful I've got to take a relative to a hospital appointment, not quite sure who you'll all keep questioning/'ignoring' without me and clav. Happy echo chamber don't worry I'll be back later to correct you all .

DuncinToffee · 15/06/2023 08:48

DuncinToffee · 15/06/2023 08:45

Robert Buckland just now

Johnson willingly submitted himself to the Committee as PM, accepted its members, and only started whining after he realised finding was going against him.

Here is the clip

https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1669249210946838528?s=20

SerendipityJane · 15/06/2023 08:51

Zonder · 15/06/2023 07:42

Fabricant is one of those people who it's hard to believe anyone voted into his position. He has such a warped world view. Along with Dorries. How did anyone look at either of them and think yeah, you would be a great representative of our party, you should stand for election?

Remember the number of people who couldn't pick the person they voted for out of a line up is well into double digits. When you combine that with people who don't know who their MP is, you realise how few people have any idea of how they are governed. And that ignorance, like a dodgy turd, tends to float upwards.

Original poster

IClaudine · 15/06/2023 08:55

Janiie's not going to admit she was wrong is she?

Anyway, let's see what tantrum Johnson throws at 9am.

OP posts:

SerendipityJane · 15/06/2023 08:57

SerendipityJane · 15/06/2023 08:51

Remember the number of people who couldn't pick the person they voted for out of a line up is well into double digits. When you combine that with people who don't know who their MP is, you realise how few people have any idea of how they are governed. And that ignorance, like a dodgy turd, tends to float upwards.

Show quote history

the %age of people is well into double digits.

Clavinova · 15/06/2023 08:59

itsgettingweird
And the fact people link to guidance and rules of the time that don't correspond to the actual events but rather to tell the story they want.

My quote came from a BBC article regarding Keir Starmer's Durham event. They explained the general rules at the time, including my quote;
Gathering indoors with people from outside your household or support bubble was against the law.

You claimed that the rules were different because the two events took place "a whole year apart"- I said that the general rules were quite similar - they were.

With reference to guidance (your post above) - there's also this;

Was there guidance for campaigning?
The government issued extra guidance for campaigning ahead of the May 2021 elections.
It said that while it was "essential that campaigning be allowed in the run-up to the polls" on 6 May, "all campaigning activity will need to follow the relevant rules on gatherings and social distancing".

It also recommended: "You should not meet with other campaigners indoors."

The BBC article makes clear that Starmer's statement to GMB was not correct - i.e. a lie;
"All restaurants and pubs were closed so takeaways were really the only way you could eat," he told Good Morning Britain.

Starmer also tried to cover up how many people were there (the BBC report confirms 17). Guidance against buffet-style meals was reported in the Mail and elsewhere.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/61334893
https://order-order.com/2022/05/16/starmer-revises-count-up-from-6-to-15-attendees-at-beergate/

I don't care if Starmer was cleared of breaking the rules or not - he still lied - and he voted in favour of Covid restrictions on everyone else.

DuncinToffee · 15/06/2023 09:00

Clavinova · 15/06/2023 08:59

itsgettingweird
And the fact people link to guidance and rules of the time that don't correspond to the actual events but rather to tell the story they want.

My quote came from a BBC article regarding Keir Starmer's Durham event. They explained the general rules at the time, including my quote;
Gathering indoors with people from outside your household or support bubble was against the law.

You claimed that the rules were different because the two events took place "a whole year apart"- I said that the general rules were quite similar - they were.

With reference to guidance (your post above) - there's also this;

Was there guidance for campaigning?
The government issued extra guidance for campaigning ahead of the May 2021 elections.
It said that while it was "essential that campaigning be allowed in the run-up to the polls" on 6 May, "all campaigning activity will need to follow the relevant rules on gatherings and social distancing".

It also recommended: "You should not meet with other campaigners indoors."

The BBC article makes clear that Starmer's statement to GMB was not correct - i.e. a lie;
"All restaurants and pubs were closed so takeaways were really the only way you could eat," he told Good Morning Britain.

Starmer also tried to cover up how many people were there (the BBC report confirms 17). Guidance against buffet-style meals was reported in the Mail and elsewhere.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/61334893
https://order-order.com/2022/05/16/starmer-revises-count-up-from-6-to-15-attendees-at-beergate/

I don't care if Starmer was cleared of breaking the rules or not - he still lied - and he voted in favour of Covid restrictions on everyone else.

So how do you feel about lying to Parliament?

Clavinova · 15/06/2023 09:02

IClaudine
Got to get those links in a row, eh Clav? Funny how you always have to go out or go to bed when things get sticky

I do have a life outside of Mumsnet - and people do generally go to bed after 11pm at night.