Are we ok with our soon to be PM being involved in a domestic 'argument'?

[Totur]

Enough to prompt a neighbour to call police?

www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/police-called-to-loud-altercation-at-boris-johnsons-home

dongdingdong You argued against something I did not actually say.

Do you really think Boris has a strong sense of morality? Or do you think like I do that he is utterly immoral?

What a load of rubbish. I’m sure if a potential Labour PM was in this position he/she would have had exactly the same media coverage and reaction.

No he wouldn't - it would have been ten times worse.

To answer the OP, I’m absolutely appalled. No candidate should be in the running for a Prime Minister if there any suspicion of them being abusive to their partner. (Can’t believe that even needs stating, that should be totally obvious surely but here we are..)
We need proper serious politicians who we can trust to help us stand up to Trump and co after Brexit.
What kind of message does tolerating this send to women? for Carrie Symonds. Hope she gets away from him as soon as she can.

These are other times. Trump has open the door for domestic abuse and disrespect of women to be as politically acceptable as smoking tobacco.

Totally agree this is what happens when you have a President allowed to get away with ‘grab them by the pussy’ but acquiescence to that culture is very dangerous for everyone (not only women) and it needs to be objected to loudly, before Boris Johnson becomes PM.

I would be against anyone whatever party being our Prime Minister when they have the total lack of morals Boris has.
The Conservative Party used to try and hold itself up as a bastion of morality. It has abandoned that totally.
I suspect we are a laughing stock internationally.

Oh you are a laughing stock internationally.

Doesn't surprise me. What specifically are other countries media saying?

“What I’m saying is that Boris isn’t the only MP/potential PM with a fiery temper who may or may not have thrown things when in a rage.”
And this is relevant to the current situation because?

Do you really think Boris has a strong sense of morality? Or do you think like I do that he is utterly immoral?

I don’t think he’s utterly immoral - I think that description only applies to people who are pure evil, and I don’t think he’s that. I don’t think he has a strong sense of morality either, so I suppose that puts him somewhere in between.

Does that mean he is guilty of DV though? Of course not.

if you're a Tory voter and Boris becomes leader, after hearing this, will you still support them?

I'm a floating voter - I'll back whoever seems least awful at the time, regardless of party - but it's hard to say what I'd do after "hearing this" since we haven't heard it

That said I'd be unlikely to support Boris anyway, just on what's already on record about him. On the whole I agree with jenny's assessment that he's "promiscuous, reckless, parasitic, lazy, cares only about himself (and has) no sign of any moral compass" ... though I can't help wondering what would happen on here if a female MP was accused of promiscuity

And this is relevant to the current situation because?

Did you still vote Labour after it was reported that Gordon Brown would throw objects in rage across the room - and sometimes directly at his aides - on a regular basis? Because that might expose a little hypocrisy in how you evaluate the behaviour of political figures, no?

As to why report him, why not if it helps get rid of the neighbour from hell

Might not be about politics, just a series of very disruptive actions:

Ellen Barry@EllenBarryNYT

This detail in Times story on Boris Johnsons:

He parks illegally outside the flat
and there were three tickets on his windshield.

A neighbor said, “It’s got loads of parking tickets on it.
He just leaves it here.
He doesn’t care.”

This thread is full of tactics to defend someone who has done something indefensible. They are as follows, starting from first tactic to last.

1. Claim it is untrue, made up, a smear,
2. Claim it has been exaggerated by those who are motivated to smear the individual for personal or political reasons,
3. If it can not be denied because there is proof such as photos or a recording, minimise, claim everyone does it, or lots of people have done it.
4. Claim those who are criticising have people they support who have done the same. The aim of this is to make the criticism of your person seem biased. Better if you point out similar behaviour on the other side in recent times, but if not go back as far as you need to, although to the times of William Pitt the Younger is too far. If you can't find anyone, then find someone with similar enough behaviour whose behaviour you can exaggerate as being the same as the person you support,
5. Blame exhaustion or mental strain,
6. If all else fails issue a public apology. But this should be avoided if at all possible as it acknowledges you might actually have done something wrong.

I have for many many years judged people on their actions, not what they say. The actions of Boris is of an immoral man who has clear sociopathic traits. If you want to argue these are the personal characteristics that makes him a suitable Prime Minister then knock yourself out. I will never agree with you. Political views and actions matter, and so do personal charcteristics.

So you think Boris has committed DV, do you Jenny? Yes or no?

absolutely jenny.

we know the brexiteers/tories will do anything to get their brexit. this is nothing to them.

Puzzledandpissedoff I don't actually care if an ordinary backbencher male or female is promiscuous. I do think it matters for Prime Ministers male or female.
Public image matters, including internationally. How a Prime Minister is seem as well as what they do, does matter. It is about personal reputation. It actually does not matter that John Major had a very secret affair with Edwina Currie. No one knew about it. That is not what Boris does.
His behaviour also potentially opens him up to a "honeysting" or blackmail. If I was in charge of the world I would see Boris as a clear security risk.

Dongdingdong Perhaps I used the wrong word then? I mean Boris is amoral perhaps? In that I do not think he has any morals. I do not think he is evil, I think instead he is like a tiny toddler that goes for what he wants irrespective of any morality at all.

Dongdingdong I think we do not know if Boris has committed DV in terms of hitting his partner. I would have to listen to the recording as to whether the screaming and shouting and throwing of plates constituted DV. He may have he may not have.
But it is not a normal way to behave and is wrong. You do not resolve disagreements with your partner by behaving that way if you are a decent person.

See, I think the fact that he has affairs and doesn’t try to hide them, makes him less of a risk than the John Majors & Edwina Curries of this world. They’re no better than Boris, they were just more snide & secretive.
Are you saying that it’s ok to have an affair as long as you keep it very very very secret?
Trust me, someone always knows!

I think the plate throwing and screaming was his partner, not him. He is supposed to have been talking quietly. I loathe the man, but there is no suggestion he was the one screaming and throwing things.

Apart from shouting ‘get off my fucking laptop anyway

I don't think affairs are ever okay. But yes in a Politician if no one actually knows, then I can live with it.
With Boris his affairs are a symptom of his recklessness and utter lack of any sense of any moral compass. I think his recklessness is a major negative for a Prime Minister. And I think his utter lack of any moral compass means he will always put Boris first.

Someone mentioned Churchill and his rages. Churchill had been a terrible politician up till the war. He made many massive mistakes and was widely seen as a terrible politician. But during the war his personal characteristics made him very suitable as a war PM. And that includes his obviously strong sense of wanting to serve the country.
I am very against Churchill deification. He committed atrocities. But my point simply is that personal characteristics matter and that different characteristics matter for different times.

What makes Boris personally equipped to deal with a time of terrible political turbulence, a time that will be dominated with negotiations with other countries, and where any PM really needs to rebuild our reputation on the world stage? The truth is he has none of the personal characteristics or skills to be able to do this.

Public image matters, including internationally. How a Prime Minister is seem as well as what they do, does matter. It is about personal reputation

I totally agree; my point about a woman being accused of promiscuity on here wasn't so much about whether it was true, more the reaction it would get (and does)

I'm also with you on actions mattering a darned sight more than weasel words, and that applies whatever party they happen to belong to. Call me disloyal, but I've simply no time for partisanship, especially when it comes to politics

The female equivalent of Boris would be a mother of multiple children by different fathers, all living with their respective dads whilst she lives with her current toy boy. Add to that a blazing row with current partner, involving swearing and loud crashes and I don't think people would be half so to,erant, even if she had gone to Roedean and all her mates thought she was ever so funny.

“Did you still vote Labour after it was reported that Gordon Brown would throw objects in rage across the room - and sometimes directly at his aides - on a regular basis? ”

Had I been in a position to vote for the party leader at the time no, I would not have voted for him. I do not want the leader of my party, or my country to be a person subject to violent rage.