Charlotte Owen

Johnson DNA inside her one way or the other. What will the thread bump bring?

  • Lover

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • Love child

    Votes: 11 73.3%

  • Scurrilous accusation and she's worth her peerage

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • Total voters
    15
Tangerinemoss said:
One for the legals. If there is a super injunction, how would we ever know?
Click to expand...
You wouldn’t.

Mind you if Johnson elevated a daughter (or a former lover) to the House of Lords then I think there’d be a reasonable public interest argument in overturning any injunction.

Edit to add: The existence of a super injunction could be revealed in the House of Commons. I think that’s happened in the past.
 
You just have to go abroad for open reports on who she is. And everyody in Westminster know who she is. Talk to one of them.
 
bfcpete said:
Put it this way, when I vote on these polls, I usually go with the middle option 🤔
Click to expand...
Don't think a super injunction would have been granted if she is Johnson's child as the public interest would surely overcome the right to privacy. If the super injunction was already in place then it might be another matter.
 
bollieboy said:
Don't think a super injunction would have been granted if she is Johnson's child as the public interest would surely overcome the right to privacy. If the super injunction was already in place then it might be another matter.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree.

On the basis that we’ve all got a right to privacy etc. Why should a child of a politician who struggles to keep his Willy in his pants be humiliated and embarrassed? By having her parentage revealed? I think that child is entitled to the protection afforded by a super injunction.

But if, purely hypothetically of course, the child then accepted a seat in the House of Lords recommended by Daddy…..well at that point it becomes a matter of public interest. And should come into the public domain.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I don’t agree.

On the basis that we’ve all got a right to privacy etc. Why should a child of a politician who struggles to keep his Willy in his pants be humiliated and embarrassed? By having her parentage revealed? I think that child is entitled to the protection afforded by a super injunction.

But if, purely hypothetically of course, the child then accepted a seat in the House of Lords recommended by Daddy…..well at that point it becomes a matter of public interest. And should come into the public domain.
Click to expand...
That was what I was trying to say - probably not explicit enough.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I don’t agree.

On the basis that we’ve all got a right to privacy etc. Why should a child of a politician who struggles to keep his Willy in his pants be humiliated and embarrassed? By having her parentage revealed? I think that child is entitled to the protection afforded by a super injunction.

But if, purely hypothetically of course, the child then accepted a seat in the House of Lords recommended by Daddy…..well at that point it becomes a matter of public interest. And should come into the public domain.
Click to expand...
When that child, if it is such, is given a peerage with income for life and power to make laws, there needs to be transparency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top