Beginning of the end for Boris Johnson

[The Voice of Reason]

10 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

So if he broke the rules, why did the police not fine him as they did others? Either it is because the police treated people differently, one rule for the plebs and one rule of the bosses, or they got it wrong. They are the only two options and neither is acceptable.

If he broke the rules, as you admit he did, then he lied to Parliament and the ministerial code requires a minister who misleads Parliament to resign.  Attending an event when he should not have done is fairly trivial. Lying about it to Parliament and consequently trying to cover up is not. It was not the offence that got Nixon but the lying and the covering up about it.  

Nixons lies related to underlying matters more serious than Partygate.  The seriousness of the underlying matter needs to be considered assessing the seriousness of the untruths

Say Johnson was asked in the house what he had for dinner last evening and he said “fish and chips” knowing full well that was not true, it was actually chicken and mushroom pie and chips that he had eaten

He would thus have lied to the House and under the ministerial code he would have to resign. 

 

[Lost Login]

47 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Nixons lies related to underlying matters more serious than Partygate.  The seriousness of the underlying matter needs to be considered assessing the seriousness of the untruths

Say Johnson was asked in the house what he had for dinner last evening and he said “fish and chips” knowing full well that was not true, it was actually chicken and mushroom pie and chips that he had eaten

He would thus have lied to the House and under the ministerial code he would have to resign. 

 

Utter and absolute bollocks, but not unexpected. There is not a scale whereby it is OK as Prime Minister to lie to Parliament about somethings but not others. In fact the more trivial the matter then in my view the more concerning as it indicates the person does it habitually and that they consider it is acceptable as if they considered lying to the house was a serious matter they would not do in respect of trivial matters. You would only lie when the consequences of being truthful were worse than lying if you considered lying to Parliament was a serious matter.

In my opinion, there is only one reason when lying to Parliament would be acceptable and that would be if the matter was of national importance or to protect somebodies life. e.g. if asked if we have infiltrated say Putin's inner loyalists then it would be acceptable to say no even if that was not true.

[The Voice of Reason]

12 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

Utter and absolute bollocks, but not unexpected. There is not a scale whereby it is OK as Prime Minister to lie to Parliament about somethings but not others. In fact the more trivial the matter then in my view the more concerning as it indicates the person does it habitually and that they consider it is acceptable as if they considered lying to the house was a serious matter they would not do in respect of trivial matters. You would only lie when the consequences of being truthful were worse than lying if you considered lying to Parliament was a serious matter.

In my opinion, there is only one reason when lying to Parliament would be acceptable and that would be if the matter was of national importance or to protect somebodies life. e.g. if asked if we have infiltrated say Putin's inner loyalists then it would be acceptable to say no even if that was not true.

OK but what about omissions.?

Say in the above example Johnson was truthful and admitted to having eaten chicken and mushroom pie and chips but deliberately didn’t mention the side of mushy peas he had with it.

Would that be a resigning matter?

[Lost Login]

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

OK but what about omissions.?

Say in the above example Johnson was truthful and admitted to having eaten chicken and mushroom pie and chips but deliberately didn’t mention the side of mushy peas he had with it.

Would that be a resigning matter?

You are really scrapping the bottom of the barrel. The ministerial code requires BJ or any minister who lies to Parliament to resign. You have already accepted BJ lied to Parliament. End of Debate.

[ManxTaxPayer]

19 hours ago, ManxTaxPayer said:

Re-release the hounds. 

And speaking of hounds, the big dog is starting to look properly fucked. Time he was put down really. 

[ManxTaxPayer]

Kuenssberg's fucking late to the party though. 

[ManxTaxPayer]

 

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, ManxTaxPayer said:

 

That’s just a picture of Rishi Sunak sitting next to Boris Johnson.

You really are desperate!

 

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by The Voice of Reason

[Lost Login]

9 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

That’s just a picture of Rishi Sunak sitting next to Boris Johnson.

You really are desperate!

 

Pot, please meet kettle!

[The Voice of Reason]

10 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

Pot, please meet kettle!

I don’t understand.

[ManxTaxPayer]

'The bar's open!'

[x-in-man]

The cesspit that is Downing Street will hold a news conference at 15:30 today.

I fear that the IOM phrase book will be rolled out - 

Lessons learned

Move on

Behind us

Looking to the future

 

 

[ManxTaxPayer]

 

[ManxTaxPayer]

On 5/24/2022 at 5:36 PM, ManxTaxPayer said:

 the big dog is starting to look properly fucked. 

Two more Tories come out against the Johnson. The creaking is getting louder and louder.

[Passing Time]

On 5/24/2022 at 9:53 PM, The Voice of Reason said:

That’s just a picture of Rishi Sunak sitting next to Boris Johnson.

You really are desperate!

 

 

You'd be better changing your name to The Voice of The Delusional...