What about... Still enjoying Boris' downfall Part 4. The one with the report released?

[jgw1]

Part 4

I wonder if you understand what is meant by a fixed penalty fine?

The penalties are fixed to a published tariff (which someone posted here) in order to stop policemen (who issue the fines - courts do not) making demands based on personal prejudice

You really have no understanding of legal processes, do you, @Florianus? Time to stop digging.

@merrymouse

The important question is not whether Boris Johnson should pay a fine, but whether he has the character and ability to be PM.

Johnson himself has already been sacked from a number of jobs for dishonesty, without being accused of a criminal offence.

And it seems that that was no bar to the people who elected him, whether as Mayor of London (twice), as MP for Uxbridge (twice - with a greatly increased majority the second time), and as leader of the Conservative party (both by his MPs and by the party at large).

It almost makes one wonder if such huge support would wither away if he was anything other than dishonest (a half-serious comment: why do so many vote for a rogue ?).

@DePfeffoff

It can be £10,000 for serious contravention of the rules - e.g. holding a party for 200 people, or trying to interfere with the police issuing fines or dispersing people.

I wonder whether a court might take the view that an offence carried out by someone responsible for putting the rules in place who should be setting an example should carry a higher fine?

Why would a fixed penalty fine go to court? People would pay it and no one would ever know anything.

@DePfeffoff

I wonder if you understand what is meant by a fixed penalty fine?

The penalties are fixed to a published tariff (which someone posted here) in order to stop policemen (who issue the fines - courts do not) making demands based on personal prejudice

You really have no understanding of legal processes, do you, @Florianus? Time to stop digging.

If you have a criticism, spell it out - just casting unspecified aspersions is an empty gesture.

@merrymouse

The important question is not whether Boris Johnson should pay a fine, but whether he has the character and ability to be PM.

Johnson himself has already been sacked from a number of jobs for dishonesty, without being accused of a criminal offence.

This.

Whatever the outcome he's told many different versions of the 'story' for these events the public as a whole are losing faith in him. The polls show this. And we don't need a whataboutery comparison to where they are against Labour. There's no denying that Boris' popularity has fallen and the timing show it's a direct result of these actions.

This isn't about party politics and Pms. It's about 1 PM. A PM who has a track record of lying snd who has stood up and misled the country and apologised for it. And an investigation having to go on about what's been going on in DS whilst the rest of the country were on a mandated lockdown. A LD that destroyed many businesses, destroyed the mental health of some, kept families apart and affected a whole generation of children's education. (Although I personally believe the actual learning can be caught up if we focus on the right and necessary skills rather than specialist such as if they know how a river is formed!)

There is no denying there are members of the UK who do believe it didn't matter what he did behind closed doors. I suspect most of those are ones who didn't lose loved ones, were furloughed and didn't suffer lockdown alone or in small living conditions without outdoor space.

He can't be trusted and so that makes his role as PM untenable.

Any more wild wonderings?

Really a shame you couldn't read my whole post to help you understand with a context. Never mind @Florianus we know it's hard for you.

@Zonder

Any more wild wonderings?

Really a shame you couldn't read my whole post to help you understand with a context. Never mind @Florianus we know it's hard for you.

What did I not understand about your post?

Like Dpeffoff, just criticising without saying what you are criticising is meaningless.

And it seems that that was no bar to the people who elected him, whether as Mayor of London (twice), as MP for Uxbridge (twice - with a greatly increased majority the second time), and as leader of the Conservative party (both by his MPs and by the party at large).

London also voted for Ken Livingstone twice. That doesn’t make him less politically toxic now.

@merrymouse

And it seems that that was no bar to the people who elected him, whether as Mayor of London (twice), as MP for Uxbridge (twice - with a greatly increased majority the second time), and as leader of the Conservative party (both by his MPs and by the party at large).

London also voted for Ken Livingstone twice. That doesn’t make him less politically toxic now.

So why do you think the electorate votes for toxic characters?

If you have a criticism, spell it out - just casting unspecified aspersions is an empty gesture.

Well, yes.

I stopped paying too much attention to Florianus after this little gem, which I quoted in my first post on this thread:

`I do know something of how they operate [Civil Service] - from undermining their ministers' decisions to ensuring that there are always ample supplied of wine at meetings.

This tarred all civil servants' meetings with the same brush, and for those of us who have had many years in working in the CS in differing departments could say that it most emphatically wasn't true where we worked. Then we found that Florianus hadn't been a Civil Servant.

Last night we read about how Carrie Johnson's friends were allowed access to the Downing Street flat where Boris Johnson carelessly left highly confidential papers around. This particularly angered me- having had to undergo two quite intrusive vetting episodes in my working career and without seeing a sniff of classified information in my case. I can also recall a time in the Inland Revenue when a junior officer accidentally threw a confidential form into the ordinary waste, rather than the classified waste, (which went for shredding.) The Management tried to have her sacked for this one mistake, but Mrs Johnson's chums - why being around Top Secret information - no problem, apparently.

Peregrina:
Then we found that Florianus hadn't been a Civil Servant.

Where did I ever claim to be a civil servant?

Where did I ever claim to be a civil servant?

Exactly. You didn't, but you claimed to know how it operated.

Well, hey, I know how the NHS operates - I have had contact with it via my GPs surgery!

You made a sweeping statement on the culture of the civil service based on unclear evidence. When pushed it turns out you were worked on a non paid (or reduced fee) basis for an arms length body. Not the civil service. Any many years ago if was pre the bonfire of the quangos. Not relevant really.

@Peregrina

Where did I ever claim to be a civil servant?

Exactly. You didn't, but you claimed to know how it operated.

Well, hey, I know how the NHS operates - I have had contact with it via my GPs surgery!

Do we really need to go through all of this again, presumably because you didn't pay attention the first time around?

I said I worked with civil servants, preparing inspections and reports. They serviced the committee, providing hospitality - including lunches and (when we were away on business) hotel accommodation.

Good move @Peregrina I'll do the same.

Anyone remember Alan Clark? A politician of very dubious character who took no care to hide it. Arrogant, contemptuous, entitled and a dreadful snob, most people on this thread would be appalled by him. Recently emerged from a menage a trois (mother and her daughters) sex scandal, stood for the seat of Kensington & Chelsea where the electorate embraced him like a rock star. They loved him. Even less charm than Boz. Charisma, presumably.

@Binkybix

You made a sweeping statement on the culture of the civil service based on unclear evidence. When pushed it turns out you were worked on a non paid (or reduced fee) basis for an arms length body. Not the civil service. Any many years ago if was pre the bonfire of the quangos. Not relevant really.

The officers who served the committee (which met roughly four times a year) were civil servants who returned to their ministry when not involved with the QUANGO. Others have confirmed that this was not uncommon - it would be a huge waste of public money to provide a full-time permanent staff for a body that only met in total for something like four weeks a year.

As I said above, why do you need to go through all this again - were you not paying attention previously?

Yes we get that. They sorted hospitality for people who, by your admission, would not have worked without it. And may not have been civil servants at the time.

Hardly a window into the culture that supports your assertion I don’t think.

@Peregrina

Where did I ever claim to be a civil servant?

Exactly. You didn't, but you claimed to know how it operated.

Well, hey, I know how the NHS operates - I have had contact with it via my GPs surgery!

Peregrina: Where did I ever claim to be a civil servant? ... You didn't, but you claimed to know how it operated.

No I didn't - you make things up even more frequently than Johnson.

I said what my experience was. I did not claim to "know how it operated".

Y

But I agree with others. Not worth the time really.

I think the electorate vote for toxic characters for a variety of reasons, including: because those are the people put on the ballot paper and supported by large sections of the mainstream media, so they either don’t vote at all or have to vote for one of them; because they don’t believe such characters could possibly be lying about everything, so hope they are sincere about the things they are voting for them for; because they think they are more real and understandable than politicians who try to hide all their warts; because they have lost faith in politicians anyway, think the world we live in is utterly corrupt, that the good get nowhere and are ineffectual, and only corrupt, ruthless bastards can get anything done, anyway, so bring it on, nobody good will ever get into power, anyway.

Binkybix

Yes we get that. They sorted hospitality for people who, by your admission, would not have worked without it. And may not have been civil servants at the time

They did considerably more than "sort hospitality". It was they who wrote officially to establishments we inspected with details of what would be required, and they issued reports - both under the name of the minister involved. When not servicing the committee they were E.Os in the relevant ministry. As others have pointed out, this was not uncommon - especially for smaller bodies which could not warrant a permanent full-time staff.

I wonder what they were doing at the ministry if they were not civil servants? Or why they

So why do you think the electorate votes for toxic characters?

For the same reason they vote for Boatymcboatface - sometimes they think it is consequence free. However that doesn’t last forever and political fortunes can change quickly, as Corbyn and May have seen.

@merrymouse

So why do you think the electorate votes for toxic characters?

For the same reason they vote for Boatymcboatface - sometimes they think it is consequence free. However that doesn’t last forever and political fortunes can change quickly, as Corbyn and May have seen.

You don't think it is because they find the alternative (the opposition) too unappealing? I have had this discussion on Zoom with my eldest son, who lives and works in the USA and has dual citizenship, and his American wife - they are both highly intelligent university professors and are convinced that Trump will get back in because the Democrats are divided on every policy of importance.