To be really enjoying Boris Johnson's downfall?

[GrendelsGrandma]

I know he'll be replaced by someone equally awful and I know he's not quite gone yet, but I can't remember when I felt uplifted about politics and the ejection of this national embarrassment is warming my cockles. Anyone else feel the same?

@Fairylightsongs

Curious that not only has no evidence of corruption been shown, none of blackmail either, they are frothing at the mouth to the press, showing everything they have but seem to be withholding their evidence for sone reason,,curious that.

And yet the courts have been presented with lots of evidence of corruption in relation to the VIP lane and PPE contracts, and have regularly found that the government acted unlawfully.

I just hope they have some firm evidence of these threats because it's obvious they will need it or it'll be ' he said , they said ' tit for tat stuff again and nobody will ever be sure if it only goes on with certain people ( conservative rebels etc)

BashStreetKid
If, for instance, you are seen shoplifting you can be convicted on the evidence of someone who saw you doing it,

Yes, that's called evidence. What we are discussing is an MP saying that something happened without, as yet, any witness or other evidence.

How many millions of people watched Dominic Cummings in the Downing Street rose garden LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH on the instructions of the Boris person and cronies of the Boris person.

Partygate is just the latest iteration of that now well-established pattern of behaviour.

There's a very long trail of evidence if anyone cba to join the dots.

And yet the courts have been presented with lots of evidence of corruption in relation to the VIP lane and PPE contracts, and have regularly found that the government acted unlawfully.

Lots of evidence of corruption?

12 January 2022
Mrs Justice O'Farrell said that it was unlawful to give the two companies preferential treatment on the basis of being part of the VIP lane.

However, she found that both of the companies' offers "justified priority treatment on its merits" and were "very likely" to have been awarded contracts even without the VIP lane.

The judge also found that "sufficient financial due diligence" was carried out in respect of both sets of contracts.

A spokesman for Mr Hancock welcomed the decision.

"We are delighted that the Department for Health has won this case, as the court found that the priority treatment was 'justified' and rightly refused to grant any rectification for the way PPE was urgently bought in the height of the crisis.

"At the time, a huge number of people were doing everything they could to get PPE to the front line as fast as possible in a national emergency.

"As the National Audit Office has confirmed, ministers had no involvement in procurement decisions or contract management.

"The department was doing the best it possibly could within the rules to respond to an unprecedented situation, and crucially, the court has rightly found that action was justified and absolutely no rectification or further action is necessary."

news.sky.com/story/covid-vip-lane-used-by-government-to-hand-out-ppe-contracts-to-two-companies-during-first-coronavirus-wave-was-unlawful-high-court-rules-12514239

Here's an idea, @Clavinova, save yourself the trouble of all the selective cutting and pasting. Surely you've worked out by now that people see right through it?

Shame Bruno Ganz is no longer with us. He would have played Boris Johnson excellently in Downfall 2.

@Florianus

BashStreetKid If, for instance, you are seen shoplifting you can be convicted on the evidence of someone who saw you doing it,

Yes, that's called evidence. What we are discussing is an MP saying that something happened without, as yet, any witness or other evidence.

Do you really think that a judge would award me £10,000 against you if I just went to court and said, without evidence, that you have defrauded me?

Your statement would be evidence and would have to be viewed in the light of other evidence.

Your statement on its own might not be strong enough in its own right, but if other people came forward with similar stories that would strengthen the case.

It's particularly interesting that Johnson's response to the blackmail issue is "I've seen no evidence of it". Because, of course, he thinks that's safe - the nature of blackmail is that blackmailers do their best not to leave a trail. But what he hasn't said is "Conservative MPs can rest assured that they are free to follow their consciences, and neither they nor their constituencies will be subjected to adverse consequences if they do so".

18 Jan 2022

Government wins appeal over contract for firm linked to Dominic Cummings.

The court of appeal has overturned a ruling that found that a government contract given to a polling company with links to Dominic Cummings was unlawful.

The lord chief justice reversed a ruling made last year after he found the original judgment to be “unprecedented”, and questioned how it perceived an alleged bias.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/18/government-wins-appeal-over-contract-for-firm-linked-to-dominic-cummings

"So if I say that I have just been to the moon and back, it must be true because I say it happened?"

Do you think that's what "evidence" means?

BashStreetKid I think they must use mn threads as digital bookmarks or references, to organise their paymasters' defensive arguments.

Whatever, they're certainly determined to clog up threads and force intelligent discussion off this forum.

It's particularly interesting that Johnson's response to the blackmail issue is "I've seen no evidence of it"

Indeed. He is not saying it never happened. I bet there are lawyers crafting every sentence he utters right now.

However, she found that both of the companies' offers "justified priority treatment on its merits" and were "very likely" to have been awarded contracts even without the VIP lane.

Judges talk out of their arses on a daily basis. How the fuck does she know it's "very likely".

The judge also found that "sufficient financial due diligence" was carried out in respect of both sets of contracts.

Judges often find whatever their paymasters want them to find. They can say whatever they like, so they do. Just like Boris.

TRANSPARENCY. We need it.

Looks like @Clavinova and friends will be getting more of that evidence that they think doesn't exist:

"One member of the group recorded a conversation they had with chief whip Mark Spencer after voting against the government last year which they are considering releasing to the public, the Times reports.

"They pulled me over and I told them I was voting against them," the MP told the Times.

"They got right up in my face. They told me that if you think you're getting a single f*ing penny, forget it. If you think a minister is coming to your patch forget it. You're done."

There are also allegedly text messages from whips they could release."

NiceShrubbery
Judges often find whatever their paymasters want them to find

Does your claim apply to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as well?

Merrymouse
Your statement would be evidence and would have to be viewed in the light of other evidence.

There is no other evidence. I look forward to receiving your cheque for £10,000 - you must owe it, because I said so.

@BashStreetKid

Looks like *@Clavinova* and friends will be getting more of that evidence that they think doesn't exist:

"One member of the group recorded a conversation they had with chief whip Mark Spencer after voting against the government last year which they are considering releasing to the public, the Times reports.

"They pulled me over and I told them I was voting against them," the MP told the Times.

"They got right up in my face. They told me that if you think you're getting a single f*ing penny, forget it. If you think a minister is coming to your patch forget it. You're done."

There are also allegedly text messages from whips they could release."

Excellent

@BashStreetKid

Looks like *@Clavinova* and friends will be getting more of that evidence that they think doesn't exist:

"One member of the group recorded a conversation they had with chief whip Mark Spencer after voting against the government last year which they are considering releasing to the public, the Times reports.

"They pulled me over and I told them I was voting against them," the MP told the Times.

"They got right up in my face. They told me that if you think you're getting a single f*ing penny, forget it. If you think a minister is coming to your patch forget it. You're done."

There are also allegedly text messages from whips they could release."

If the tape and text messages are released, the whips are guilty. Why has the recording not been released when it is claimed to have been made last year?

@Mayorquimby2

"So if I say that I have just been to the moon and back, it must be true because I say it happened?"

Do you think that's what "evidence" means?

Of course not. I am demonstrating why it is so stupid to think that one person making an unsupported claim constitutes "evidence".

In fact, the person concerned (William Wragg) won't even say if he has been threatened by the Chief Whip. He just says that he has heard that other MPs have been. It's just "Chinese Whispers" unless the emails and tape are produced in evidence.

"Of course not. I am demonstrating why it is so stupid to think that one person making an unsupported claim constitutes "evidence"."

Glad you've clarified you still don't know what evidence is. 👍

One person making an unsupported claim is still evidence. That doesn't mean it's true or that anyone has to believe it, but it's still evidence, to claim otherwise is to redefine what evidence is.

You can reject evidence, such as an unsupported claim, because it's nonsensical, contradicted by other evidence, or precisely because it is unsupported and as such is bit sufficient to satisfy you that it is true or accurate, but it is absolutely evidence in every meaning of the word.