Surely Boris Has To Go Now?

[diddlydo]

Who is sticking up for Boris now? None of the papers as far as I can see.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/01/zero-shame-how-the-papers-covered-anger-at-boris-johnson-over-sue-gray-report

[Peter Pedant]

//You suggest they could not avoid mixing for work purposes, XXXX my divine queen of heaven. - - //- name redacted a la Sue gray report

oh you mean ( a little misunderstanding) : You suggest they could not avoid bringing mixers into work for the usual purposes,

yes yes that is much clearer

Seriously ( hem hem this is AB not withstanding hic!)
there is no lie, no plea of "let me say that again more clearly", no limp excuse, no reported complaint that the dog has eaten the Gray Report, no obvious farrago of made up irrelevant detail - no mis-statement of law so basic that people gasp !
that a Boris supporter will fail to reel out - in order to save his worthless skin
- in order to allow him to keep on lying !

[archibaldy]

// companies gave a small party on Fridays to thank their workers for the efforts they made // Aren't there extenuating circumstances in these cases?//

In most cases I think that’s okay - against the rules but I’m fine with it. However, not by those making the rules, and especially the boss of those making the rules - whoever that is, in this case - Boris.

[New Judge]

//In most cases I think that’s okay..//

Indeed. In the pub or wine bar over the road. But I just realised - they couldn't have done that because the pubs and wine bars were forcibly closed.

[Peter Pedant]

the guidance THEN was
" you must not have christmas parties"...
as Tessa May said - you didnt read the rules or you didnt understand them

(bit like AB really innit)

[Ellipsis]

> But I just realised - they couldn't have done that because the pubs and wine bars were forcibly closed.

So they set up the Number 10 Wine Bar and wheeled the vino in in suitcases ...

[jim360]

Thanks, NJ. It's nice to see that those with, in general, wildly differing politics can agree sometimes.

[Ellipsis]

> Boris is a decent human being. He makes mistakes and misjudgments

And then, being the decent human being he is, he blusters, lies, cheats and deceives rather than put right his wrongs.

Case in point: he was admonished by the Speaker today for his slur about Jimmy Savile yesterday, a slur that he has not withdrawn and that nobody dares repeat without the protection of parliamentary privilege. What a decent human being he is ... what mistakes and misjudgments he makes ...

[naomi24]

Got to wonder why he didn't withdraw it, but the papers have reported what was said - on both sides. Perhaps you missed the rest.

[ichkeria]

People resort to stuff like that when they’re desperate.
He was very cross certainly when he said it.
It felt a little like the mask slipping for an instant

[douglas9401]

Drowning people often lash out blindly, flailing about for some purchase on anything that might help, however rotten and fetid.

[naomi24]

Does that apply to the other side too?

[Stickybottle]

naomi24
Got to wonder why he didn't withdraw it
————-
Probably reverted to type :
Nobody told him did they ?

What a pathetic excuse for a human being he is showing himself to be

Even the victims of Savile want him to withdraw it

[Stickybottle]

Tobias Elwood is the latest to submit a letter to the 1922 committee
He told Sky News :

Explaining why he is also putting a letter in to Sir Graham, Mr Elwood said it is "just horrible" for Tory MPs to "continuously
have to defend this to the British public"
"I don't think the prime minister realises how worried colleagues
are in every corner of the party, backbenchers and ministers alike, that this is all only going one way and will invariably slide
towards a very ugly place," he said

Sounds like he has morals as well as a conscience and human decency
No wonder he has no confidence in Boris

[dannyk13]

The Speaker did not think it warranted an apology:_
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/01/boris-johnson-keir-starmer-jimmy-savile-smear-julian-smith

[jim360]

I think saying that the Speaker "did not think it warranted an apology" is a bit of a misrepresentation. More precisely, there is nothing in the rules of Parliament that prevent such a statement from being made, and the Speaker, bound by the rules, therefore couldn't demand an apology or withdrawal.

It seems more accurate to say that the Speaker expressed serious disapproval of the comment -- because it was outrageous and untrue and shouldn't ever have been uttered or even contemplated by a holder of the most senior office in the land -- but found his hands tied in terms of pressing for any response. It's also clear that a fair number of Tory MPs were appalled.

[dannyk13]

Jim//therefore couldn't demand an apology or withdrawal.//
He has done exactly that in the past on quite a few occasions.

[naomi24]

What was that about the buck stopping at the top? Sadly records were not kept.

https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/

[jim360]

That's true. But Parliamentary Privilege seems to apply in this case.

Hoyle's full response was "I will not intervene unless something is said which is disorderly... such allegations should not be made lightly, especially in view of the guidance about good temper and moderation. While they may not have been disorderly, I am far from satisfied that the comments in question were appropriate. I want to see more compassionate, reasonable politics in this House, and this sort of comment can only inflame... I want a nicer Parliament... we should be more honourable."

It seems pretty obvious what Hoyle thought of the comments. He may not have demanded an apology, because he felt he could not within the rules of the House, but he sure as hell wanted one.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-speaker-lindsay-hoyle-slaps-26106857

[Ellipsis]

I brought up Savile just to show what a "decent human being" Boris is. Floundering to defend himself, he makes a baseless slur (there is no evidence that Starmer was involved in the decision not to charge Savile) and then refuses to withdraw it, while not daring to repeat it outside Parliament. It's also interesting to ponder where Boris would have dragged that slur up from ...

[naomi24]

How odd that Boris, as boss, must bear full responsibility for people having a glass of wine in the office and yet Starmer, as head of the CPS, bears no responsibility whatsoever for very serious failings within his organisation. Who'd a thunk?