Boris stands down as MP with immediate effect part 2

[IClaudine]

New thread!

Watching that video of the dancing at the party makes me feel sick. I've said it before on here but my husband's mother died December 2020. We missed our chance to say goodbye because we weren't supposed to travel. At her funeral we weren't allowed to hold a wake even for immediate family because you know, the government said. We all stood at a distance in the car park unable to comfort family members. And all that time these bloody idiots were holding hands and dancing and partying.

'the famous 'silent' majority'

It's literally me a couple of you sneering at me, not sure others would feel the need to join in to tbh. You only need look elsewhere online and in the media to see I am certainly not his own solitary supporter, nor the only critic of Harman, Bernard and Sue.

Oh Zonder. That's my point .

Well you clearly have, you've said I said name calling is 'vulgar and beneath me' when I've said no such thing. I have merely said you cannot object to Sir Korma and not object to Cruella (on other threads) Bozo, Mad Nads. It's rather one sided.

Sir Korma - again reassuringly bland and mild.

We need beige right now. I think people - especially Tories - have forgotten what a killer asset they had in the boring, grey rock that was John Major. As we have found with Boris, chasing after ever bigger "personalities" is like a reverse game of Ker-Plunk! Eventually you will end up with one that brings the whole collection of balls (an analogy that works on several levels) crashing to the ground.

Very true but his support has pretty much turned on its head in less than a year & as an MP not PM.

YouGov’s Wells pointed out that while Johnson’s popularity has ebbed, it has not disappeared altogether. “There’s still a very solid chunk of [Conservative voters] who have a positive opinion of him.” While 56 percent of the public would not like to see Johnson back as an MP, there are 25 percent who would, according to a survey carried out Monday

I know but on this thread you have been abandoned.

I was actually giving you some kudos for staying on here.

Our situation in 2020 was similar, 8 only at partners Nans funeral, zoom for a much loved and popular woman, meanwhile Boris did as he wished and so did his party, remember Williamsons lot also partied.

Which of course brings into question if the people who locked down the UK at huge expense, didn't think covid was much of a risk, why was it done to the extent it was after the first LD ?

I struggle to understand how anyone who knows what went on in Downing Street during lockdown - especially with Wine Fridays - could defend it, given what the rest of the country was doing.

I struggle to understand how Johnson could not have either known about the events or if he did know about them, how he could not have realised that guidance was not being followed.

That's your point? That you can consistently use stupid names but don't want anyone else to? Weird point to make.

It does say in the article that they were ill all the time, I guess they were lucky the illnesses weren't severe and assuming nobody they knew died.

@cakeorwine we know he did know now, don't we? Which makes it worse. But at least he will lose his pass to the subsidized canteen. Unless he can get a mate to take him in.

Er, no. My point was let's have some consistency. If you <generally you, not you specifically> object to my silly names object to everyone else's even if they are on 'your side'.

Mr Johnson shows great consistency in his rule breaking and lying, to be sure.

That's my question too.
Also Alexandra what would you like to have happened about funerals? Should they have been as big as the family wanted or restricted in size? I'm not being facetious.
Also here in Scotland the regulations were clearly explained by NS. She didn't have any illegal gatherings and came down any transgressors like a ton of bricks.
But the death rates were similar to elsewhere and the care home deaths were shocking.

The reality of Boris Johnson's mythical 'popularity'.

This is NOT about what we would have liked to have happened.
This is about what did happen - and the disconnect between Downing Street attitude and the rest of the country.

One rule for them, one rule for us.

We have consistency. 'Mad Nad' was coined by tories (the Telegraph). 'BoJo/Bozo' was coined by tories (Johnson's aides when he was mayor). 'Sir Beer' coined by tories (on MN).

We also have consistency in that it's fine for Tories to come up with infantile names but bleating when others use them. One rule for them and another for everyone else.

Numbers should have been venue dependent, so long as a 2meter rule observed, what exactly was the difference between this and a trip to the supermarket?
Obviously no wake.

Our local church is huge, for smaller venues, maybe a some sort of tent provided.

Scotland or Wales, travel was allowed across the "borders", they aren't separate countries and their health systems were run down by 10 years of Austerity as well, which 2 health experts have already said to the inquiry.

I hope the inquiry looks at the 2/3/4 lockdowns and why they were done, when those in power saw no or little risk.

Separate to this, the inquiry reporting in 3 years time is pointless, needs to summarise key findings within 12 months, so the current govt can be held responsible for both good and the bad.

Names, silly or otherwise, aren't the issue, who cares?

Bozo/Bojo/Blojob or Mr Johnson... it's what he does/has done that matters.

If you set the rules, you follow the rules.

It's that simple

One rule for them, one rule for us. But that sounds like 'It's not fair!' to me not about bio security. Did you want to be at endless gatherings during the pandemic? I didn't. I kept well away from people and didn't get CV once.

Well you clearly have, you've said I said name calling is 'vulgar and beneath me' when I've said no such thing. I have merely said you cannot object to Sir Korma and not object to Cruella (on other threads) Bozo, Mad Nads. It's rather one sided.

no @Janiie, I was on the thread when you (although if I remember rightly, under a different incarnation) were trying to pull superiority over others and ‘encouraging’ acceptable levels of conversation and were. Then, very ‘’teehee’ pleased with yourself for using Sir Beer’.

Nobody has ever objected to you using sir beer, it just clearly states your ‘side’ and therefore your opinion is treated with that in mind, that’s the same for anyone’s post where name calling clearly marks out their stance.

There’s no hypocrisy, just a lot of disagreement with your stance and an easy pot shot at attempts to belittle the reasons people name call in the first place.

I don't understand what you mean.

"It's not fair" - of course it isn't fair if Downing Street set the laws for us to follow, expected us to follow them, the police took action against those who did not follow the rules and people were shamed for not following them. And in the meantime, they did not follow the rules.

That is the point. And it does look like one rule for them, one rule for us.

As a slight digression, as the conversation has turned slightly towards Covid restrictions that were in place - there may be some of you who would like to take part in this for the official Covid inquiry

https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/every-story-matters/?utm_source=Google%20Detailed%20Demo%20&%20Custom%20Audience&utm_medium=Display&utm_campaign=ESM%20Participate%20D&utm_content=Standard

I do object to any of them. Hence the fact that I always say Johnson instead of anything else that would be suitable. Perhaps you would like to show some consistency.