Roy - my point is a simple one.
If you accept that there is a bank of goodwill, and you score credit by doing good things, and then, when you behave badly, you can call on that goodwill and use some credit - then Boris gets away with his party's law breaking.
My point is, if you use that template in another situation, then the same rule must work.
Therefore, if you take an example as I did, Jimmy Savile, then he is exonerated because he did so much good.
An extreme example, but if you are applying your reasoning fairly, it stands up.
If it doesn't stand up, and obviously it doesn't, then the original premise is invalidated, and that is the point I made.
I was careful not to invoke the So Rule - I suggested to naomi what her argument appeared to indicate, and offered her a chance to defend it.
I think her argument cannot be sustained, and it would appear from her disinclination to defend it, that she thinks so as well.
Experience suggests that maomi will post something, but it will be to have a go at me, rather than addressing my point.