To be really enjoying Boris Johnson's downfall Part 2

[ClaudineClare]

A follow on thread from

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4457488-to-be-really-enjoying-boris-johnson-s-downfall?msgid=114425763#114425763

AdamRyan
William Wragg is a well respected MP. The fact he's bought this up suggests this is an unusual, new behaviour by the whips, not that Paliament has been acting unlawfully for centuries.

Please read what I wrote and not what you imagined I wrote. I said that "putting pressure on MPs is how Westminster works". I did NOT say that blackmailing MPs is how Parliament has worked for centuries!

@Notonthestairs

Florianus has told us many times that she/he just wants to see the right people get punished. And Johnson is not one of the right people because he lacks authority (moral or otherwise).

How many times do you want to demonstrate to us that you cannot read messages accurately?

I have said that in just about every reported case of an illegal gathering, it is the person or people who organised the gathering that are punished, not the many (often hundreds) who simply attended.

Is that really not clear?

@ClaudineClare

I really don't understand your angle on the blackmail issue, florianus? I know you have said you are not a Johnson supporter, but from your posts here and on the previous thread, it would very easy to conclude the opposite.

You seem to have confused two different issues, ClaudineClare. The blackmail issue is about Wragg and the Whips' office - not about Johnson.

I have said that in just about every reported case of an illegal gathering, it is the person or people who organised the gathering that are punished, not the many (often hundreds) who simply attended.

This is a red herring. As far as I am aware no one is talking about punishing the 30 or so who did attend the party which wasn't a party. What we are talking about is whether Johnson can pretend he didn't know anything about it. If he really didn't then as PM he jolly well ought to have done. If he doesn't have a finger on the pulse and know what's happening under his nose then he ought to step down.

@Hawkins001

Although does anyone consider that it could be Boris being setup with regards to certain events ?

Lol no. Set up? Only by his own arrogance.

Florianus - all of your posts seem to try to put as much clear water between the PM and events (be they blackmail or parties) as possible.

Nearly overlooking his influence and authority.

This may lead readers to the conclusion that you are looking to exonerate Johnson and punish the minions.

But maybe I'm just misinterpreting you 😉

Also, for some light relief:

No one’s being blackmailed

and

Why are we at war?

The point being made here, I assume, is that if there is a pattern of the organiser of an illegal event being the one who is punished, that will allow for Johnson's staff to cop for the blame for this event, with him resting on this absurd defence of 'I didn't know it was against my own rules'.

We should be able to expect better behaviour and judgement from a PM, but Johnson has lowered the bar spectacularly on that. That's why I want him gone, even if we end up with another awful Tory. He has never deserved to be in high office, a la Max Hastings, and the sooner he's out of it the better.

@Alexandra2001

No, but I doubt that it is illegal

Blackmail is illegal unless the demands are reasonable or is a proper means to enforce the demand.

Is keeping BJ in power a reasonable demand?

It will be up to the police to decide if the allegation amounts to a case of criminal activity. Given that the alleged blackmailer (the Chief Whip) would not make any personal gain from the alleged threat, nor would Wragg seem to suffer any personal loss, I doubt that things are anywhere as near so simple as some here seem to thik.

Burn - I love Matt Green. Why are we at war is hilarious but a tiny bit worrying!

Oh, so the whips have nothing to do with Johnson and his government @florianus?

Anyway, defense or otherwise of Johnson aside, why do you think that what the whips have allegedly done could not be construed as blackmail?

You seem to have confused two different issues, ClaudineClare. The blackmail issue is about Wragg and the Whips' office - not about Johnson.

@Florianus Can I be clear, We should not hold Boris Johnson responsible for the action of his PPS who is the Prime Ministers link with the Civil Service and works closely with him.
We should not hold Boris Johnson responsible for the actions of the Whips he appointed as Ministers and who are his link with the parliamentary party and responsible for ensuring the Prime Ministers bills get through parliament.

What is Boris responsible for?

Given that the alleged blackmailer (the Chief Whip) would not make any personal gain from the alleged threat, nor would Wragg seem to suffer any personal loss, I doubt that things are anywhere as near so simple as some here seem to thik

I know I am wasting my time here, but

(1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—

(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

(2)The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

(3)A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21

@Florianus Given that the alleged blackmailer (the Chief Whip) would not make any personal gain from the alleged threat, nor would Wragg seem to suffer any personal loss,

Personal gain or loss isn't required for the offence of blackmail to have been committed.

Given that the alleged blackmailer (the Chief Whip) would not make any personal gain from the alleged threat, nor would Wragg seem to suffer any personal loss, I doubt that things are anywhere as near so simple as some here seem to thik.

What would the chief whip gain? Why a knighthood or a seat in the Lords once he steps down or is voted out as an MP. I would definitely see that as gaining something.

cross post

What is Boris responsible for

Single handedly rolling out the vaccine programme of course! Oh, and I think he invented the vaccine too.

@Florianus

If you accept the claims as just part of ordinary Westminster life, you are still left with the fact that It didn’t work and in the middle of huge domestic and international crises Johnson’s MPs are ignoring him

Ignoring him? How come the government are continuing to win votes in parliament?

The Telegraph is full of leadership challenges and criticism of his environmental policies today, and it’s only a month since Tories refused to back Plan B, so it’s difficult to see any recent wins as true victories for Johnson.

However, the government has a majority and the wheels can still keep turning regardless of Johnson.

What is Boris responsible for?

Bringing his child's slide into work with him?

NotOnTheStairs:
Nearly ([neatly?] overlooking his influence and authority.

The many who dislike Johnson try to paint the UK as a dictatorship in which everything that happens, from devising lockdown rules to organising parties for the civil service.

Like most prime ministers, he has very limited authority - even over his own MPs let alone over the half million civil servants - and even less influence.

But the bottom line is that you will find that nothing changes - NOTHING - if you blame the wrong people when things go wrong. If the Chief Whip has acted illegally he must be removed and, if necessary, charged. If the PPS at No.10 organised illegal parties he must be removed and, if necessary charged.

If idiots keep blaming Johnson for everything, the culture of booze at No.10 will not change, and the whips will continue to "blackmail" MPs. It is well known to parents and teachers that blaming the wrong person is the worst possible course of action.

Now, if you want to blame Johnson for being late in introducing precautions at the start of the pandemic - or, indeed, for seeming not to take it seriously by wandering around hospitals without a mask and shaking hands with all, I would be with you.

@Peregrina

Given that the alleged blackmailer (the Chief Whip) would not make any personal gain from the alleged threat, nor would Wragg seem to suffer any personal loss, I doubt that things are anywhere as near so simple as some here seem to thik.

What would the chief whip gain? Why a knighthood or a seat in the Lords once he steps down or is voted out as an MP. I would definitely see that as gaining something.

I hope you will be presenting your evidence of the Chief Whip being offered a peerage in return for allegedly blackmailing an MP to the Met's forthcoming investigation. It sounds like absolutely key evidence.

@Florianus

NotOnTheStairs: Nearly ([neatly?] overlooking his influence and authority.

The many who dislike Johnson try to paint the UK as a dictatorship in which everything that happens, from devising lockdown rules to organising parties for the civil service.

Like most prime ministers, he has very limited authority - even over his own MPs let alone over the half million civil servants - and even less influence.

But the bottom line is that you will find that nothing changes - NOTHING - if you blame the wrong people when things go wrong. If the Chief Whip has acted illegally he must be removed and, if necessary, charged. If the PPS at No.10 organised illegal parties he must be removed and, if necessary charged.

If idiots keep blaming Johnson for everything, the culture of booze at No.10 will not change, and the whips will continue to "blackmail" MPs. It is well known to parents and teachers that blaming the wrong person is the worst possible course of action.

Now, if you want to blame Johnson for being late in introducing precautions at the start of the pandemic - or, indeed, for seeming not to take it seriously by wandering around hospitals without a mask and shaking hands with all, I would be with you.

So essentially you are saying it is pointless having Johnson as Prime Minister because he is not responsible for anything.

A curious way of trying to defend him, but fair enough.

@Hawkins001

Cummings, is hardly an angel too,

Cummings a gigantic arse. V g reason to send the entire govt down. Where is the integrity? The professionalism, the work?!

@jgw1

You seem to have confused two different issues, ClaudineClare. The blackmail issue is about Wragg and the Whips' office - not about Johnson.

@Florianus Can I be clear, We should not hold Boris Johnson responsible for the action of his PPS who is the Prime Ministers link with the Civil Service and works closely with him.
We should not hold Boris Johnson responsible for the actions of the Whips he appointed as Ministers and who are his link with the parliamentary party and responsible for ensuring the Prime Ministers bills get through parliament.

What is Boris responsible for?

He's responsible for his MPs and the work of the cabinet, for representing the UK at the G7, G20, COP and other world events, for looking after (like all MPs) the needs of his constituents.

He is not in charge of the civil service at No.10 (they have a Chief of Staff for that).

The whips are appointed by each party in parliament, not by the prime minister.

Sorry, but I really don't have the time to keep correcting the multitude of errors made by certain contributors to this thread. I'm off to do some shopping.

Florianus I doubt whether the Met will come and seek my opinion, any more than they will come and seek yours.

But come off it. The Tories went and lost a by election just before Christmas, which was the most spectacular own goal, caused initially because they tried to break the rules to get one of their own off the hook. OK I expect you to say that this was nothing to do with Johnson, it was Rees-Mogg and Leasdom but that begs the question: who appointed them to the jobs they held?