Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > SOCIAL > CHAT BOARD
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Johnson
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


Johnson

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
Message
scarletpimp View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 22 November 2015
Location: llanelli
Status: Offline
Points: 2649
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scarletpimp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Johnson
    Posted: 24 March 2023 at 3:17am
Looks like our friend  has almost got away' Scott free', while we have been discussing  other things. 
Did'nt see the committee  hearing  on the live stream, just on the evening news.
I would like to know other forum members views of how they feel how convincing he was?
Clearly experienced  politicians  like Harriet Harman, and Bernard Jenkin, are neither ging to be cowed by Johnson's bluster or fooled .
Their job is clear.They are not deciding whether  or not there were illegal gatherings in no 10, during lockdown.Everyone knows law breaking was rampant in Downing st.
The committee 's Job is to judge whether his denialswere the result  of innocent  misapprehension Wink,  about the lockdiwn busting that went on in No 10,or whether he told deliberate  lies to MP's.
The verdict the committee is  leaving towards, seems clear from its interim report, published,  a fortnight ago.
Evidence  has been gathered  independently of the Sue Gray enquiry, and many witnesses  statements have already  been given 
The evidence  concluded  that it would have been obvious  to Johnson , that the law was being flouted inside no 10, especially  as he himself was present at rule -busting parties! 
Witness  testimonials him telling one packed gathering, inside the building,  which took place when lock down restrictions  were very strict,  that it was "probably  the most socially  undistanced  gathering  in the UK right now."
Johnson has of course  argued that these were genuine work events
, and within the rules.

The judgement  will hinge on the wording,  and whether they feel Johnson has "recklessly " mis-led MP's , or has "knowingly  mis-led Parliament. 

What is clear,is that the foundations  of democracy is destroyed, if ministers think they can deliberately  get  away  with  misleading MP's.
When those in power think they can deceive with impunity,  it becomes impossible  for Parliament  to do its job.
That is hideously corrosive for democracy, and public  faith in it.
This is why it is so essential that the penalties  for lying  to Parliament,  must  be steep., particularly when the perpetrator has lied,and on a grave issue,from the highest office in the land. 
If there was a by election  in Uxbridge  and South  Ruislip ATM, forecasts  suggest  he would pose by a hefty margin. 
Humiliation  complete! 




I stood yer on tanner bank
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Kentexile View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 August 2013
Location: Kent
Status: Offline
Points: 626
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kentexile Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2023 at 6:53am
Interesting point made on question time that a millionaire like Johnson is given hundreds of thousands of 
Pounds of public money to hire one of the most expensive barristers in the country to defend him whilst more and more people are being denied access to legal aid.
Back to Top
dr_martinov View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 06 August 2005
Location: Tycoch
Status: Offline
Points: 13287
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dr_martinov Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2023 at 9:41am
I watched/listened to almost all of it and I will say Johnson was in his element, waffling on in an attempt to obfuscate and escape any responsibility for breaking the rules and then lying about it afterwards. A lifetime of practice, no doubt.

In any case, his arguments were:

1. He did not know or have any control over what was going on in Downing St.
2. The gatherings (and breaking the restrictions) were 100% work events.
3. It was an essential part of his job to attend leaving dos.
4. Leaving drinks were actually fine under the restrictions; it was down to individual employers to decide.
5. No advisor ever told him any events broke restrictions.

During the enquiry my assessment is:

1. He is trying to play ignorance and incompetence. Goes against taking "full responsibility". He also was very happy to drop other names into the mix, Sunak in particular.
2. The committee revealed this to be a lie: his wife and interior designer were at an event. 
3. Many of us could not do all aspects of our jobs, he did not justify why he was an exception to this. 
4. I do not recall this at all and this is another lie.
5. There is evidence of his advisors implying they are well-aware restrictions were broken. It is hard to think they did not tell him their opinions so my view is this was another lie. There may well be no direct evidence he was told, however, which is what he is relying on.

His continued comment was at all times he "believed" he was being honest in the HoC yet it was only subsequent revelations that revealed these statements to be incorrect. So, at first glance this seems hard to challenge... But of course we do not rely upon unchallengeable personal beliefs as any form of evidence. But what will the committee do? There is no smoking gun so he will likely escape the most severe punishment. Yet he has in fact lied to them, presented himself as incompetent and unable to accept any responsibility where they observed the advisors he quoted were clearly not reliable plus undermined the committee itself: none of which go in his favour. Two Tories, Jenkin and de Costa seemed unimpressed, which may tilt the balance, and I think reckless behaviour can be justified. At the very least, Johnson has presented clear evidence that he did not have enough information to make the statements he did. Even if he tries to blame his advisors for this prepared line in the HoC, the fact he himself was at numerous gatherings severely undermines his ignorance plea, meaning I do think negligence is the minimum finding. As to what punishment this would occur in the intricacies of politics, I am unsure, but it will be interesting to see. 
Back to Top
ladram View Drop Down
Rambler
Rambler
Avatar

Joined: 08 April 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 26856
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ladram Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2023 at 10:29am
Watched a good programme last night about another liar Jeffrey Archer and I hope what goes around comes around for Johnson Archer could have been Boris's mentor such was his capacity for lying.
Back to Top
scarletpimp View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 22 November 2015
Location: llanelli
Status: Offline
Points: 2649
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scarletpimp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2023 at 11:18am
Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

I watched/listened to almost all of it and I will say Johnson was in his element, waffling on in an attempt to obfuscate and escape any responsibility for breaking the rules and then lying about it afterwards. A lifetime of practice, no doubt.

In any case, his arguments were:

1. He did not know or have any control over what was going on in Downing St.
2. The gatherings (and breaking the restrictions) were 100% work events.
3. It was an essential part of his job to attend leaving dos.
4. Leaving drinks were actually fine under the restrictions; it was down to individual employers to decide.
5. No advisor ever told him any events broke restrictions.

During the enquiry my assessment is:

1. He is trying to play ignorance and incompetence. Goes against taking "full responsibility". He also was very happy to drop other names into the mix, Sunak in particular.
2. The committee revealed this to be a lie: his wife and interior designer were at an event. 
3. Many of us could not do all aspects of our jobs, he did not justify why he was an exception to this. 
4. I do not recall this at all and this is another lie.
5. There is evidence of his advisors implying they are well-aware restrictions were broken. It is hard to think they did not tell him their opinions so my view is this was another lie. There may well be no direct evidence he was told, however, which is what he is relying on.

His continued comment was at all times he "believed" he was being honest in the HoC yet it was only subsequent revelations that revealed these statements to be incorrect. So, at first glance this seems hard to challenge... But of course we do not rely upon unchallengeable personal beliefs as any form of evidence. But what will the committee do? There is no smoking gun so he will likely escape the most severe punishment. Yet he has in fact lied to them, presented himself as incompetent and unable to accept any responsibility where they observed the advisors he quoted were clearly not reliable plus undermined the committee itself: none of which go in his favour. Two Tories, Jenkin and de Costa seemed unimpressed, which may tilt the balance, and I think reckless behaviour can be justified. At the very least, Johnson has presented clear evidence that he did not have enough information to make the statements he did. Even if he tries to blame his advisors for this prepared line in the HoC, the fact he himself was at numerous gatherings severely undermines his ignorance plea, meaning I do think negligence is the minimum finding. As to what punishment this would occur in the intricacies of politics, I am unsure, but it will be interesting to see. 

As usual an exexcellent  assessment by the Dr. Thanks!
The key statement here is" negligence is the minimum  finding", due to the evidence the evidence  the Dr has indicated,  plus all the witnesses  statements gathered  by the Privileges  Committee,  which are contrary  to Johnson's  own statements.
Preston thinks he's finished,  but he can go on making,millions at speaking events  and continue denying  he ever fund anything  wrong.
The worry  for me is that some of the public in his constituency  STILL back him , despite  everything! Proves that public opinion jn UK cannot be trusted,  whatever polls tell us now.
Greasy Sunakk still fancy his chances at the polls !
I stood yer on tanner bank
Back to Top
ap sior View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 11480
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ap sior Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2023 at 11:19am
Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

I watched/listened to almost all of it and I will say Johnson was in his element, waffling on in an attempt to obfuscate and escape any responsibility for breaking the rules and then lying about it afterwards. A lifetime of practice, no doubt.

In any case, his arguments were:

1. He did not know or have any control over what was going on in Downing St.
2. The gatherings (and breaking the restrictions) were 100% work events.
3. It was an essential part of his job to attend leaving dos.
4. Leaving drinks were actually fine under the restrictions; it was down to individual employers to decide.
5. No advisor ever told him any events broke restrictions.

During the enquiry my assessment is:

1. He is trying to play ignorance and incompetence. Goes against taking "full responsibility". He also was very happy to drop other names into the mix, Sunak in particular.
2. The committee revealed this to be a lie: his wife and interior designer were at an event. 
3. Many of us could not do all aspects of our jobs, he did not justify why he was an exception to this. 
4. I do not recall this at all and this is another lie.
5. There is evidence of his advisors implying they are well-aware restrictions were broken. It is hard to think they did not tell him their opinions so my view is this was another lie. There may well be no direct evidence he was told, however, which is what he is relying on.

His continued comment was at all times he "believed" he was being honest in the HoC yet it was only subsequent revelations that revealed these statements to be incorrect. So, at first glance this seems hard to challenge... But of course we do not rely upon unchallengeable personal beliefs as any form of evidence. But what will the committee do? There is no smoking gun so he will likely escape the most severe punishment. Yet he has in fact lied to them, presented himself as incompetent and unable to accept any responsibility where they observed the advisors he quoted were clearly not reliable plus undermined the committee itself: none of which go in his favour. Two Tories, Jenkin and de Costa seemed unimpressed, which may tilt the balance, and I think reckless behaviour can be justified. At the very least, Johnson has presented clear evidence that he did not have enough information to make the statements he did. Even if he tries to blame his advisors for this prepared line in the HoC, the fact he himself was at numerous gatherings severely undermines his ignorance plea, meaning I do think negligence is the minimum finding. As to what punishment this would occur in the intricacies of politics, I am unsure, but it will be interesting to see. 

Jenkin also made the point that Johnson should have sought legal advice on whether gatherings were legal. Johnson failed to do that. Clearly therefore, it was reckless to make statements that he knew may not be true. I think that this issue will be his downfall. There was also an issue where he said he took advice from an adviser, but refused to disclose the name of the adviser. That was very 'convenient'.

I think that Tory MP's are now getting a little fed up of him. The clue to that came in the vote on the Windsor Agreement. Only 22 voted against. ERG voted against it. Steve Baker, long a staunch ERG member has been thrown out, basically for failing to support the ERG and the DUP.

Johnson's mysoginistic side was clear to be seen. He was furious when Harman, a woman, told him not to interrupt a questioner, and also told him to make his answers more succinct.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2023 at 11:36am
Originally posted by scarletpimp scarletpimp wrote:

Looks like our friend  has almost got away' Scott free', while we have been discussing  other things. 
Did'nt see the committee  hearing  on the live stream, just on the evening news.
I would like to know other forum members views of how they feel how convincing he was?
Clearly experienced  politicians  like Harriet Harman, and Bernard Jenkin, are neither ging to be cowed by Johnson's bluster or fooled .
Their job is clear.They are not deciding whether  or not there were illegal gatherings in no 10, during lockdown.Everyone knows law breaking was rampant in Downing st.
The committee 's Job is to judge whether his denialswere the result  of innocent  misapprehension Wink,  about the lockdiwn busting that went on in No 10,or whether he told deliberate  lies to MP's.
The verdict the committee is  leaving towards, seems clear from its interim report, published,  a fortnight ago.
Evidence  has been gathered  independently of the Sue Gray enquiry, and many witnesses  statements have already  been given 
The evidence  concluded  that it would have been obvious  to Johnson , that the law was being flouted inside no 10, especially  as he himself was present at rule -busting parties! 
Witness  testimonials him telling one packed gathering, inside the building,  which took place when lock down restrictions  were very strict,  that it was "probably  the most socially  undistanced  gathering  in the UK right now."
Johnson has of course  argued that these were genuine work events
, and within the rules.

The judgement  will hinge on the wording,  and whether they feel Johnson has "recklessly " mis-led MP's , or has "knowingly  mis-led Parliament. 

What is clear,is that the foundations  of democracy is destroyed, if ministers think they can deliberately  get  away  with  misleading MP's.
When those in power think they can deceive with impunity,  it becomes impossible  for Parliament  to do its job.
That is hideously corrosive for democracy, and public  faith in it.
This is why it is so essential that the penalties  for lying  to Parliament,  must  be steep., particularly when the perpetrator has lied,and on a grave issue,from the highest office in the land. 
If there was a by election  in Uxbridge  and South  Ruislip ATM, forecasts  suggest  he would pose by a hefty margin. 
Humiliation  complete! 

Let's hope there will be a by-election and a unity candidate in Uxbridge very soon. Also hope in the long term to see written constitutions for our nations which includes an unequivocal legal basis by which politicians can be held to account when they lie in parliament. At the moment, the system is too wishy washy. Am I right in saying that the PM is the ultimate arbiter or is that just ministers? I know that Plaid Cymru proposed a Bill to make lying in Parliament a legal offence.
Back to Top
RR1972 View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 27 April 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 18343
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RR1972 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2023 at 11:42am
Originally posted by ladram ladram wrote:

Watched a good programme last night about another liar Jeffrey Archer and I hope what goes around comes around for Johnson Archer could have been Boris's mentor such was his capacity for lying.
hopefully hell end up in the same hmp as archer!Wink
Back to Top
Oracle View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 19 September 2022
Location: North pole
Status: Offline
Points: 3959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Oracle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2023 at 12:01pm
think i would vote for Boris again , just saying hes seems a nice guy , probably we would all enjoy his company Big smile
Back to Top
scarletpimp View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 22 November 2015
Location: llanelli
Status: Offline
Points: 2649
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scarletpimp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2023 at 1:00pm
I am sure there are many gut - wrenching  stories from many here on SF, during  that period  of the pandemic,  when people were dying alone, without a loving  family  member  to hold their hand. People experiencing  mental health  issues during lockdown.
Everyone  struggling .
At the same time industrial  scale parties occurring  at no10, which the prime minister clearly had knowledge  of , describing them,  as "work events ".
 He was complicit in attending  several,  for he was fined.

This is my story. 
A friend of mine, with a long track record of NHS service as a matron,  had just retired  prior to the pandemic.
She returned, as she saw it as her duty, to work on the void wards.
Full PPE for 10/12 hrs shifts, sometimes exhausted,  would return home emotionally  fraught.
Her mother was in a care home, which from the earliest  days of tye pandemic had a  losed door policy.
Sadly  the mother become ill, and the last goobye, was from the outside  of the home, through a glass window.
I could'nt support my friend as obviously,  I was locked down  looking after my wife.
Shortly after this tragedy,  my friend lost  a colleague, to Covid ,  another dedicated  nurse, wh also had returned to the front line, as she thought it was her duty. She paid the price.

When I see Johnson,arrogant  and blustering, is it little wonder it makes my blood boil.

Let's hope he gets what he deserves,  but I wouldn't hold my breath. 
Not known as the " the greasy piglet for nothing " !



I stood yer on tanner bank
Back to Top
lofty evans View Drop Down
Rambler
Rambler
Avatar

Joined: 20 September 2007
Location: Gorseinon
Status: Offline
Points: 53567
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lofty evans Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2023 at 1:00pm
He's earned 6 million since not being PM.....its a paying game politics 


In 1972, Roy Bergiers scored that try and said "that was for you lofty"

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"
Back to Top
dr_martinov View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 06 August 2005
Location: Tycoch
Status: Offline
Points: 13287
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dr_martinov Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2023 at 1:22pm
The committee should be aware of public outcry over this if they decide no punishment, but he has already been fined for breaking regulations and this is about whether he lied to the house or was simply wrong by no fault of his own. That does remind me of something else: at one point he said or implied how confused he was to receive a fine, indicating he still does not accept wrongdoing. He is a person who truly thinks the rules do not apply to him, always has been. But there were over 100 fines in Downing St, indicating a systemic problem that was not just him. I actually believe he did not organise any gathering himself because he could not organise a pissup in a brewery, which is essentially what Downing St was during his "leadership". 
Back to Top
lofty evans View Drop Down
Rambler
Rambler
Avatar

Joined: 20 September 2007
Location: Gorseinon
Status: Offline
Points: 53567
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lofty evans Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2023 at 1:58pm
Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

The committee should be aware of public outcry over this if they decide no punishment, but he has already been fined for breaking regulations and this is about whether he lied to the house or was simply wrong by no fault of his own. That does remind me of something else: at one point he said or implied how confused he was to receive a fine, indicating he still does not accept wrongdoing. He is a person who truly thinks the rules do not apply to him, always has been. But there were over 100 fines in Downing St, indicating a systemic problem that was not just him. I actually believe he did not organise any gathering himself because he could not organise a pissup in a brewery, which is essentially what Downing St was during his "leadership". 


He was talking utter garbage....layed out his argument that it was ludicrous to " convict him of anything other than ignorance.  He is so far up his own @rse it was gringy......watched it all and in the last 30 mins he was losing it ......for me it was all about people in this country not being able to say goodbye to family that had died or were dying while he and his extremely hard working partying Number 10 DESERVED a drink and a get together and eff the Country.

I'm not allowed to drink wine or spirits in work...instant dismissal....anyone else on here during working hours have a tipple ???


In 1972, Roy Bergiers scored that try and said "that was for you lofty"

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Offline
Points: 18955
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2023 at 2:06pm
This committee have to throw the book at this muppet. If they don't it will send completely the wrong message to our politicians that being conservative with the truth is acceptable behaviour for our prime ministers & clearly that is unacceptable. 

Being PM should convey to the voting public that the person has the required gravitas for the post which includes the necessary intelligence to know when one is having a party which has been forbidden for the rest of the country due to a Worldwide pandemic. 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2023 at 3:23pm
Originally posted by lofty evans lofty evans wrote:

Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

The committee should be aware of public outcry over this if they decide no punishment, but he has already been fined for breaking regulations and this is about whether he lied to the house or was simply wrong by no fault of his own. That does remind me of something else: at one point he said or implied how confused he was to receive a fine, indicating he still does not accept wrongdoing. He is a person who truly thinks the rules do not apply to him, always has been. But there were over 100 fines in Downing St, indicating a systemic problem that was not just him. I actually believe he did not organise any gathering himself because he could not organise a pissup in a brewery, which is essentially what Downing St was during his "leadership". 


He was talking utter garbage....layed out his argument that it was ludicrous to " convict him of anything other than ignorance.  He is so far up his own @rse it was gringy......watched it all and in the last 30 mins he was losing it ......for me it was all about people in this country not being able to say goodbye to family that had died or were dying while he and his extremely hard working partying Number 10 DESERVED a drink and a get together and eff the Country.

I'm not allowed to drink wine or spirits in work...instant dismissal....anyone else on here during working hours have a tipple ???



I was on night shift in Trostre the night we won the 2005 Grand Slam. I'd had a couple of pints watching the game and was worrying a bit about turning up to work. Needn't have worried in the slightest. All the pulpits were stacked with slabs of lager LOL

Not an everyday occurence mind you Wink
Back to Top
lofty evans View Drop Down
Rambler
Rambler
Avatar

Joined: 20 September 2007
Location: Gorseinon
Status: Offline
Points: 53567
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lofty evans Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 March 2023 at 3:28pm
Originally posted by totallybiasedscarlet totallybiasedscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by lofty evans lofty evans wrote:

Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

The committee should be aware of public outcry over this if they decide no punishment, but he has already been fined for breaking regulations and this is about whether he lied to the house or was simply wrong by no fault of his own. That does remind me of something else: at one point he said or implied how confused he was to receive a fine, indicating he still does not accept wrongdoing. He is a person who truly thinks the rules do not apply to him, always has been. But there were over 100 fines in Downing St, indicating a systemic problem that was not just him. I actually believe he did not organise any gathering himself because he could not organise a pissup in a brewery, which is essentially what Downing St was during his "leadership". 


He was talking utter garbage....layed out his argument that it was ludicrous to " convict him of anything other than ignorance.  He is so far up his own @rse it was gringy......watched it all and in the last 30 mins he was losing it ......for me it was all about people in this country not being able to say goodbye to family that had died or were dying while he and his extremely hard working partying Number 10 DESERVED a drink and a get together and eff the Country.

I'm not allowed to drink wine or spirits in work...instant dismissal....anyone else on here during working hours have a tipple ???



I was on night shift in Trostre the night we won the 2005 Grand Slam. I'd had a couple of pints watching the game and was worrying a bit about turning up to work. Needn't have worried in the slightest. All the pulpits were stacked with slabs of lager LOL

Not an everyday occurence mind you Wink

Despicable LOL


In 1972, Roy Bergiers scored that try and said "that was for you lofty"

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.