Boris Johnson

It is now Tuesday. The thread was started on Friday 5 days ago.
Evidence was provided to support the proposition that Boris Johnson is a corrupt Prime Minister.
MPs such as Chris Bryant, former political advisors and nationally recognised recognised journalists have attacked the awards and made the connection about lecturing other countries about democracy and corruption in nationally published articles and on Twitter without issue.
Yet somebody in the more team decided tonight AFTER 5 DAYS that the title was unacceptable. Why was the decision made and importantly why now?

🙄 Really ?

😔
 
So this British Prime Minister has given a peerage to a defender of I R A violence eg Claire Fox ???? Defend that
 
And 20s will no doubt claim that I am hate filled for pointing out the contempt our Tory rulers have for the general public.

Like him or loathe him - 20’s is often absolutely factually correct! As opposed to “claiming to be”!

That’s the salient difference, between you two.
 
The Tories might fall short in some places but contempt for the general public? That's the kind of deranged mentality you get from listening to dangerous fanatics like Owen Jones

There's a long thread further down the forum on why voters dislike Labour and I think Cat has given us the answer, if you dare to disagree with them then you're contemptible scum and should be rounded up and re-educated through hard labour.
 
This whole thread is hilarious.


Both my daughters are teachers. One English one maths. Both teach up to and including A level. They agree with CATS - both also believe the education syllabuses need a damn good overhaul.

Am I alone in thinking the Boris dummy looks more human than the real thing?
 
What, not sacking someone for following the rules and regulations because the media didn't understand them (or more accurately wanted to pretend they didn't understand them).
So which part of the rules said drive for 30 miles to a local beauty spot to take your wife out for her birthday (ahem! test your eyesight) when ordinary members of the public could not even attend funerals of their children.
And as you are always demanding evidence you are remarkably free with derogatory claims about me without substance.
 
So which part of the rules said drive for 30 miles to a local beauty spot to take your wife out for her birthday (ahem! test your eyesight)

Section 6, The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020

(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

My bold.


(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

Again my bold, note that this means that the list in the remainder of s6(2) is not exclusive, the only condition is that the excuse is "reasonable".


(f) to travel for the purposes of work ...................

So the 200+ mile journey the next day was permitted, my analysis is that a reasonable person expecting to make such a journey after a bout ouf significant illness would consider it reasonable to go on a short experimental trip to ensure that he was capable of making such a trip and therefore a reasonable excuse exists.

But of course to understand the phrase "reasonable excuse" you would need to be a reasonable person rather than a hate filled left wing activist looking to score political points out of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people so I understand your confusion.


when ordinary members of the public could not even attend funerals of their children.

g) to attend a funeral of—

(i)a member of the person’s household,

(ii)a close family member,


Looks pretty clear cut to me, are you just making stuff up again?


And as you are always demanding evidence you are remarkably free with derogatory claims about me without substance.

Your posts are all the evidence I need.
 
Sexual predators, racists, bullies and that is the tip of the iceberg. What a cesspit Westminster has become no wonder we need an enlarged House of Lords to keep them all in order. Well done Boris for this unique solution.
 
Nobody with any moral values accepted his lies about breaking the rules when it happened.
It was not reasonable to travel to Durham in the first place the childcare excuse was palpably laughable and to accept his excuse borders on gullibility which is unbelievable for anyone of a shred of intelligence unless you are so blinkered by your politics yourself.
Even 20s did not buy his reasoning at the time.
 
Nobody with any moral values accepted his lies about breaking the rules when it happened.
It was not reasonable to travel to Durham in the first place the childcare excuse was palpably laughable and to accept his excuse borders on gullibility which is unbelievable for anyone of a shred of intelligence unless you are so blinkered by your politics yourself.

Do you have a posse of journalists and photographers camped outside of your front door ready to hurl abuse at anyone who visits you?

If you did would you be happy to ask close family members to run that gauntlet to deliver food or anything else that was urgently needed?

You're so blinded by hatred you're not capable of thinking objectively.
 
Do you have a posse of journalists and photographers camped outside of your front door ready to hurl abuse at anyone who visits you?

If you did would you be happy to ask close family members to run that gauntlet to deliver food or anything else that was urgently needed?

You're so blinded by hatred you're not capable of thinking objectively.

A couple of things that he did would appear to be against the guidance;

- The first was returning to his work place at Downing Street after he had knowingly been in contact with someone who had the symptoms of the virus (his wife).
- The second was going to his second home to shield. He owned the cottage that he went to. He must have known that this was against the rules because a senior Health Service official from Scotland was forced to resign for doing the same thing.

In a way it doesn't matter whether he broke the rules or not. The perception of his behaviour by the general public caused people to change their own behaviour. In turn this change will have caused more people to become infected than otherwise and ultimately more people to die. The whole affair has been incredibly damaging for the government's credibility and their important public health messaging. He should have resigned or if he wouldn't then he should have been sacked, it's about public confidence in the message which should be far more important than a single person's job. He could have returned after a few months in the wilderness.
 
Last edited:
A couple of things that he did would appear to be against the guidence;

The first was returning to his work place at Downing Street after he had knowingly been in contact with someone who had the symptoms of the virus (his wife).

His wife developed symptoms first on the 27th, he fell ill later on the 28/9th March (Sat/Sun), he returned to work on Monday 13 April so just over two weeks isolation from first developing symptoms, the advice today is 10 days from first symptoms or positive test although I believe that was only recently raised from 7, which would've been what was in force at the time.

Nothing contrary to the guidance there.

There's a possible question about when his wife first became ill on 27 March however the initial symptoms at the time were not consistent with Corona so debatable either way.

Links:
Symptoms 28/9 March, penultimate paragraph of that section.
13 April return (and 27 March query)


- The second was going to his second home to shield. He owned the cottage that he went to. He must have known that this was against the rules because a senior Health Service official from Scotland was forced to resign for doing the same thing.

IIRC the Scottish official visited a holiday home without good reason rather than make the journey to self-isolate away from his usual abode ( for reasons based on reasonable grounds), the first being a breach of the rules the second not being one.


In a way it doesn't matter whether he broke the rules or not. The perception of his behaviour by the general public caused people to change their own behaviour.

This is perhaps more to the point however I would suggest it's not his actions that are at fault but the media's response to them.

Quite simply he followed the rules, but the BBC and others wanted his head for reasons unconnected to Covid, so they turned a minor matter that was at worst questionable into headline news for 10 days or more, so if anyone should go for the damage to public health you mention it is the journalists who created the story rather than the subject of it himself.
 
His wife developed symptoms first on the 27th, he fell ill later on the 28/9th March (Sat/Sun), he returned to work on Monday 13 April so just over two weeks isolation from first developing symptoms, the advice today is 10 days from first symptoms or positive test although I believe that was only recently raised from 7, which would've been what was in force at the time.

Nothing contrary to the guidance there.

There's a possible question about when his wife first became ill on 27 March however the initial symptoms at the time were not consistent with Corona so debatable either way.

Links:
Symptoms 28/9 March, penultimate paragraph of that section.
13 April return (and 27 March query)




IIRC the Scottish official visited a holiday home without good reason rather than make the journey to self-isolate away from his usual abode ( for reasons based on reasonable grounds), the first being a breach of the rules the second not being one.




This is perhaps more to the point however I would suggest it's not his actions that are at fault but the media's response to them.

Quite simply he followed the rules, but the BBC and others wanted his head for reasons unconnected to Covid, so they turned a minor matter that was at worst questionable into headline news for 10 days or more, so if anyone should go for the damage to public health you mention it is the journalists who created the story rather than the subject of it himself.

This is what I am meant (27th March);


According to that he thought that she probably had the virus yet returned to Downing Street. I think that was in breach of the rules at the time.
As I said, the technicalities don't really matter, the effect of his behaviour was to undermine the public health message.
 
Lost Seasider, are you a special adviser to the special adviser? Why on earth would you want to defend a muppet like Cummings? Your posts are embarrassing!
 
As I said, the technicalities don't really matter, the effect of his behaviour was to undermine the public health message.

No, it was the effect of the media's behaviour that undermined the public health message.

I mean at worst he made one or two misjudgements in exceptional circumstances, and it became headline news for how long? 10 days plus? Anybody with a sense of proportion would say whatever but it was a chance for the media to get their public enemy no.1 so they went all out on it and damn the consequences.


Lost Seasider, are you a special adviser to the special adviser? Why on earth would you want to defend a muppet like Cummings? Your posts are embarrassing!

Cat brought it up, am I supposed to ignore the fact that once again he's distorting the truth to further his own agenda.

Your slavish acceptance of everything you're told is frankly embarrasing.
 
No, it was the effect of the media's behaviour that undermined the public health message.

I don't think that this stands up. Many MPs reported that they received more letters on this subject than any other - was that all the fault of the media coverage? I would suggest that it is more likely that British people do not like blatent hypocrasy during a public health crisis. In short they do not like being made to feel that they are mugs. The story pesisted because of the public feeling not the other way around.

I notice that you now accept that Cummings made misjudgements. The advice was to self isolate if you thought you had been in contact with someone with the virus. Cummings said he thought that his wife 'probably' had the virus yet he went back into his place of work. This was against the rules at the time.
 
The media have hardly covered themselves in glory throughout this period. "Ghouls at the feast" is the phrase that springs to mind.

But there has been plenty of good reporting, some very, very mixed governance, and a hell of a lot of inspiring work done by lots of people who are rarely in the limelight.

For me the big talking point of the last four months is how extraordinary selfish some people are, as well as being bloody soft. If you can't stick a few weeks of staying in watching TV without having to flock to the coast to spread the infection, I hate to think how you would have coped with living in London or Coventry during The Blitz.
 
Today he put his own brother, a former boss, a billionaire Tory donor a former aide and a brexiteer cricketer in the House of Lords for life. On average these jobs for life will cost British taxpayers £1.1 million per year based on average claims.
Meanwhile he's also looking for a £100,000 per year spokesperson so the lazy incompetent buffoon has to face even less public scrutiny than at the present.
Just try to let this mockery of democracy sink in and get through the blindness of cognitive dissonance.
Typical left wing remainer brainwashing young minds. You should be banned.
 
For me the big talking point of the last four months is how extraordinary selfish some people are, as well as being bloody soft. If you can't stick a few weeks of staying in watching TV without having to flock to the coast to spread the infection, I hate to think how you would have coped with living in London or Coventry during The Blitz.

Ridiculous comparison - almost ‘trench’ worthy
 
I don't think that this stands up. Many MPs reported that they received more letters on this subject than any other - was that all the fault of the media coverage?

Really? Headline news for the better part of two weeks and you're surprised that some MP's are getting letters about it?

You're damn right it's the fault of the media coverage.


I would suggest that it is more likely that British people do not like blatent hypocrasy during a public health crisis. In short they do not like being made to feel that they are mugs. The story pesisted because of the public feeling not the other way around.

Sure if the media tell people they're mugs then they're not going to like being made to feel like mugs, but then again how many people actually take a step back and think things through, not many I'd suggest (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion).

I stand by my original claim, the media wanted his head because of Brexit, because he's important to Boris and because of other changes he's making to government - media relations.


I notice that you now accept that Cummings made misjudgements.

No, I said at worst he'd made one or two misjudgement, I don't think anything to do with Durham was a misjudgement, I don't have enough information about the events on the 27th to form a clear opinion.


The advice was to self isolate if you thought you had been in contact with someone with the virus. Cummings said he thought that his wife 'probably' had the virus yet he went back into his place of work. This was against the rules at the time.

It's important to draw a distinction between "advice" and "rules", the former being government recommendations, the latter being backed up by the force of law.

Curiously "the rules" (AKA The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020) say nothing at all about what a person infected with Covid can and cannot do, so bizarrely you can wander around your local supermarket coughing and sneezing all over everything without legal consequence whilst at the same time an uninfected person could be fined for sitting down in the park for 5 minutes (in theory anyway).

Was the 27th a breach of the rules? I don't think so. It may have been a breach of the guidance, we don't know exactly what happend, why or what his thought process was, in any event this was never the focus of the media witch hunt anyway so I think we'll have to leave it there.
 
Really? Headline news for the better part of two weeks and you're surprised that some MP's are getting letters about it?

You're damn right it's the fault of the media coverage.




Sure if the media tell people they're mugs then they're not going to like being made to feel like mugs, but then again how many people actually take a step back and think things through, not many I'd suggest (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion).

I stand by my original claim, the media wanted his head because of Brexit, because he's important to Boris and because of other changes he's making to government - media relations.




No, I said at worst he'd made one or two misjudgement, I don't think anything to do with Durham was a misjudgement, I don't have enough information about the events on the 27th to form a clear opinion.




It's important to draw a distinction between "advice" and "rules", the former being government recommendations, the latter being backed up by the force of law.

Curiously "the rules" (AKA The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020) say nothing at all about what a person infected with Covid can and cannot do, so bizarrely you can wander around your local supermarket coughing and sneezing all over everything without legal consequence whilst at the same time an uninfected person could be fined for sitting down in the park for 5 minutes (in theory anyway).

Was the 27th a breach of the rules? I don't think so. It may have been a breach of the guidance, we don't know exactly what happend, why or what his thought process was, in any event this was never the focus of the media witch hunt anyway so I think we'll have to leave it there.
The whole County Durham thing happened in March and I'm still annoyed by it. Nothing to do with media influence. Everyone I know mentions driving to Barnard Castle as a joke whenever they can't quite see something.

He is a laughing stock in the eyes of the public and by extension the Government.
 
The whole County Durham thing happened in March and I'm still annoyed by it. Nothing to do with media influence. Everyone I know mentions driving to Barnard Castle as a joke whenever they can't quite see something.

He is a laughing stock in the eyes of the public and by extension the Government.
Unfortunately although he might be a laughing stock to many he is able to persuade his puppet prime minister to give a job for life to a brexiteer who justified the murder of two young children in Warrington and who hands out corrupt contracts to his vote leave mates.
 
Lost Seasider, you can't have it both ways
Either he thought his wife had covid 19 and therefore broke his own rules in returning to Whitehall that day or
he thought his wife had another illness other than covid 19, in which case why leave for Durham at all (thus breaking the rules on travel). Remember he claims to have only got Covid 19 after he had already arrived in Durham.
 
Lost Seasider, you can't have it both ways
Either he thought his wife had covid 19 and therefore broke his own rules in returning to Whitehall that day or
he thought his wife had another illness other than covid 19, in which case why leave for Durham at all (thus breaking the rules on travel). Remember he claims to have only got Covid 19 after he had already arrived in Durham.
We don't actually know if he had it or not because he was never tested.
 
Well it appears that the police just took his word that he hadn't made a second trip and that he was in London on the evening of the 19th April. Of course the second part maybe true as it is easily possible to drive from Durham to London in 4 hours as DC as already stated.

 
People claimed he said
Link please
Is your memory so bad that you don't remember The Times reporting this earlier in the year.
He denied it. Witnesses said he made the remark. I prefer to believe the people without a history of lying over Brexit, this and the Durham trips. Ian Huntley said the girls he murdered died accidentally. Are we to believe his claims too just because it is disputed by himself?
 
Last edited:
The media have hardly covered themselves in glory throughout this period. "Ghouls at the feast" is the phrase that springs to mind.

But there has been plenty of good reporting, some very, very mixed governance, and a hell of a lot of inspiring work done by lots of people who are rarely in the limelight.

For me the big talking point of the last four months is how extraordinary selfish some people are, as well as being bloody soft. If you can't stick a few weeks of staying in watching TV without having to flock to the coast to spread the infection, I hate to think how you would have coped with living in London or Coventry during The Blitz.
Indeed.

When you see the photos of the beaches crowded with idiots it almost makes you root for the virus.

Or to paraphrase Rust Cohle, we're the ** virus.
 

This looks really appealing

I am in my lovely sunny back garden, cold beer in hand. Clean toilet about 10 yards away
 
The media have hardly covered themselves in glory throughout this period. "Ghouls at the feast" is the phrase that springs to mind.

But there has been plenty of good reporting, some very, very mixed governance, and a hell of a lot of inspiring work done by lots of people who are rarely in the limelight.

For me the big talking point of the last four months is how extraordinary selfish some people are, as well as being bloody soft. If you can't stick a few weeks of staying in watching TV without having to flock to the coast to spread the infection, I hate to think how you would have coped with living in London or Coventry during The Blitz.

Agree with pretty much all of that.

Much like the war - This pandemic has certainly brought out the best in some people, and the worst in others!

Of course with the benefit of hindsight, this presiding Government will no doubt be found to have made mistakes.
However; I do feel that sadly large numbers of the general public - who won’t be scrutinised like The Government, are also culpable in the spreading of the virus.
 
Is your memory so bad that you don't remember The Times reporting this earlier in the year.

So no link as usual, plus ca change.............

You'll forgive me if I don't trust your memory of an unsourced article in a newspaper I can't access from 5 months or so ago, there are lots of ways to distort things and many people eager to do so.


Ian Huntley said the girls he murdered died accidentally. Are we to believe his claims too just because it is disputed by himself?

I seem to remember that Mr Huntley was found guilty of the crimes at the Old Bailey, I'm not aware of similar for Mr Cummings (outside of your mind anyway).
 
Barely out of lockdown and Cat is galivanting all over the UK. One day in the Isle of Wight and now in Scotland.
Well done Cat, doing your bit for the economy.
A shame he’s not in Aberdeen although he’d probably be saying what a good job Sturgeon is doing 😂
 
Back
Top