ChatterBank1 min ago
Bloke Interiviewed On Sky T V Right Now......
98 Answers
Q: "what would you say to The PM and Kier Starmer right now...."
A: " Stop arguing over who drinks when and where and start getting on with the real problems of the day."
Enough said, the public are sick to death of trivial cobras gate!
A: " Stop arguing over who drinks when and where and start getting on with the real problems of the day."
Enough said, the public are sick to death of trivial cobras gate!
Answers
RedHelen should come up to Scotland sometime.The aresoles in charge up here makes Johnsons lot look like sanity personified.
15:31 Wed 04th May 2022
Misleading parliament is a resigning matter though.
It’s the devil in the detail that’s so troublesome isn’t it?
Along with breaking lockdown rules on a regular basis, not being honest about who paid for flat refurbishments and ignoring advice of the security services, questionable links with Russians, dodgy behaviour just for a game of tennis, it all sort of becomes a muddled mess of covert and surreptitious dealings in public office and makes one look like a lying criminal.
Or is it just me thinking that?
Obviously not, given the remarks made in parliament about Johnson by his colleagues over the last few months.
It’s the devil in the detail that’s so troublesome isn’t it?
Along with breaking lockdown rules on a regular basis, not being honest about who paid for flat refurbishments and ignoring advice of the security services, questionable links with Russians, dodgy behaviour just for a game of tennis, it all sort of becomes a muddled mess of covert and surreptitious dealings in public office and makes one look like a lying criminal.
Or is it just me thinking that?
Obviously not, given the remarks made in parliament about Johnson by his colleagues over the last few months.
It's very easy to minimise bad behavour by MP's, from drinks during Covid to watching unsuitable material on a mobile phone.
But the deeper point is this - if an MP will break rules on a matter that some consider 'trivial', does that make make them more inclined, and more emboldened, to break rules that can have more serious consequences.
To my mind, MP's obey all the rules, from the 'trivial' to the 'essential' because failure to obey one easily leads to failure to adhere to the other.
If you enforce all the rules, then all the rules are met.
When you start giving out serves because someone tells you that a rule break is 'trivial', you are on a slippery slope.
That is why drinks parties and video viewing are important.
Not because of themselves entirely, but because of what the behaviour around them tells us about the integrity of our MP's.
We cannot trust people to make rules for us, if their can't obey their own rules themselves.
But the deeper point is this - if an MP will break rules on a matter that some consider 'trivial', does that make make them more inclined, and more emboldened, to break rules that can have more serious consequences.
To my mind, MP's obey all the rules, from the 'trivial' to the 'essential' because failure to obey one easily leads to failure to adhere to the other.
If you enforce all the rules, then all the rules are met.
When you start giving out serves because someone tells you that a rule break is 'trivial', you are on a slippery slope.
That is why drinks parties and video viewing are important.
Not because of themselves entirely, but because of what the behaviour around them tells us about the integrity of our MP's.
We cannot trust people to make rules for us, if their can't obey their own rules themselves.
Naomi - // I never could understand why having a cup of tea with colleagues in the office was within the rules but having a glass of wine wasn’t. //
Because drinking tea in the office is an entirely acceptable refreshment in a working environment.
Drinking wine is not.
It not only reduces the capacity to work efficiently to varying levels, depending on the amount consumed, and the tolerance of the drinker, wine drinking is culturally accepted as a relaxation activity, undertaken after work is finished, and as a rule, away from the work place.
That is why one is acceptable, and the other is not.
Because drinking tea in the office is an entirely acceptable refreshment in a working environment.
Drinking wine is not.
It not only reduces the capacity to work efficiently to varying levels, depending on the amount consumed, and the tolerance of the drinker, wine drinking is culturally accepted as a relaxation activity, undertaken after work is finished, and as a rule, away from the work place.
That is why one is acceptable, and the other is not.
Avatar Image naomi24
I never could understand why having a cup of tea with colleagues in the office was within the rules but having a glass of wine wasn’t.
Just a hunch but I reckon there’s a little bit more to his conduct throughout his tenure that’s sticking in the craw of the public?
Not to mention his own MP’s and party faithful.
As I said, let’s see what the next 36 hours brings, it might give a window into the mood of the electorate right now.
I mean, was it a glass of wine or a suitcase full of booze? It’s difficult to tell when you have a career liar at the helm of government I suppose, a charlatan whom the public now have a deep mistrust of.
I never could understand why having a cup of tea with colleagues in the office was within the rules but having a glass of wine wasn’t.
Just a hunch but I reckon there’s a little bit more to his conduct throughout his tenure that’s sticking in the craw of the public?
Not to mention his own MP’s and party faithful.
As I said, let’s see what the next 36 hours brings, it might give a window into the mood of the electorate right now.
I mean, was it a glass of wine or a suitcase full of booze? It’s difficult to tell when you have a career liar at the helm of government I suppose, a charlatan whom the public now have a deep mistrust of.
Avatar Image naomi24
Redhelen, you mentioned the rules in your place of work the other day. Others here weren’t restricted similarly - but what that has to do with dying relatives I really don’t know.
So why mention Johnson’s mother in your previous post as a counter argument?
The problem is that the public will not forget the privations and hardships of lockdown.
The Johnson administration did not breach regulations once as some may have done, they made a habit of it, thumbing their nose at the public, a lot of whom could not attend funerals whilst the residents and staff of Downing Street had parties and functions for resignations and leaving do’s.
Does any of that register with you? It clearly doesn’t, but you can guarantee it’s uppermost in the mind of the public right now.
Redhelen, you mentioned the rules in your place of work the other day. Others here weren’t restricted similarly - but what that has to do with dying relatives I really don’t know.
So why mention Johnson’s mother in your previous post as a counter argument?
The problem is that the public will not forget the privations and hardships of lockdown.
The Johnson administration did not breach regulations once as some may have done, they made a habit of it, thumbing their nose at the public, a lot of whom could not attend funerals whilst the residents and staff of Downing Street had parties and functions for resignations and leaving do’s.
Does any of that register with you? It clearly doesn’t, but you can guarantee it’s uppermost in the mind of the public right now.
naomi - // AH, where did that Covid rule come from? i can’t say I’d heard of it but if it’s valid then Starmer has fallen foul of the law too. Personally I think it’s all very silly. //
The Covid rules came from the government, which is entirely why they cannot be exempt from compliance with the rules they enforce, by law, on the rest of us.
And likewise, Her Majesty's Opposition are in no position to call the government to account for rule breaking, if they are similarly doing exactly the same thing.
You think it's all very silly, I think it's anything but, so we must agree to differ.
The Covid rules came from the government, which is entirely why they cannot be exempt from compliance with the rules they enforce, by law, on the rest of us.
And likewise, Her Majesty's Opposition are in no position to call the government to account for rule breaking, if they are similarly doing exactly the same thing.
You think it's all very silly, I think it's anything but, so we must agree to differ.
ladybirder - // I am one of the public and I am sick to death of this trivial cobras gate. //
As I have pointed out, I have to entirely disagree with you.
You could argue that the issue itself can be seen as trivial, what does a few drinks matter?
But to me, it's not about which rule is broken, it's the fact that any rule at all is broken, that's the important part.
How can we respect a government that makes laws and rules which it enforces on the population by law, when it doesn't obey those same rules, and makes a mockery out of people who do?
And how can we respect an Opposition who is there to hold the government to account about breaking the rules, when they have been breaking the rules as well?
If you are going to have rules, then you have to enforce them, and the enforcers have to be seen to do that more than anyone else - that means Covid Rules created by the government have to be obeyed by the government, and that means no exceptions.
It doesn't matter how 'trivial' anyone wants to think the Rule is, it's about keeping it or breaking it that matters.
Because if you let this rule-breaking go because you are tired of it, and think it's trivial, then the message that you send to the government, and the rest of the population, is that rules don't matter, and you don't have to obey them if you don't feel like it, or you don't personally think that they are serious enough to deserve upholding.
What precedent does that create?
If we allow MP's to watch pornography in the Commons, what happens when that sense of entitlement starts to stretch a little, and includes grabbing a Commons bar waitress, or kissing a secretary because it's your birthday and you've had a few at lunchtime?
As the saying goes, the longest journey begins with the first step, and that's also true if you are stepping onto a road where rules don't actually matter because you, or anyone else, thinks so.
And that road eventually leads to no rules at all, for anyone, anywhere, ever.
Anarchy and lawlessness don't happen over night. They happen because one day, someone decided that a little rule didn't matter, so breaking it didn;t matter.
And the next day, a slightly more serious rule got broken, and by then, the atmosphere around rule breaking was getting a bit looser.
And a year later, people were able to justify breaking their neighbour's door down and strangling them because their dog barked at night.
And ten years later, rules really didn't matter, there were none left, and society had collapsed completely.
It sounds alarmist, but only if we allow the first step to lead to the last step.
And the way to avoid that is to enforce the little 'trivial' rules today, so we can save the huge vital society-threatening rules tomorrow.
As I have pointed out, I have to entirely disagree with you.
You could argue that the issue itself can be seen as trivial, what does a few drinks matter?
But to me, it's not about which rule is broken, it's the fact that any rule at all is broken, that's the important part.
How can we respect a government that makes laws and rules which it enforces on the population by law, when it doesn't obey those same rules, and makes a mockery out of people who do?
And how can we respect an Opposition who is there to hold the government to account about breaking the rules, when they have been breaking the rules as well?
If you are going to have rules, then you have to enforce them, and the enforcers have to be seen to do that more than anyone else - that means Covid Rules created by the government have to be obeyed by the government, and that means no exceptions.
It doesn't matter how 'trivial' anyone wants to think the Rule is, it's about keeping it or breaking it that matters.
Because if you let this rule-breaking go because you are tired of it, and think it's trivial, then the message that you send to the government, and the rest of the population, is that rules don't matter, and you don't have to obey them if you don't feel like it, or you don't personally think that they are serious enough to deserve upholding.
What precedent does that create?
If we allow MP's to watch pornography in the Commons, what happens when that sense of entitlement starts to stretch a little, and includes grabbing a Commons bar waitress, or kissing a secretary because it's your birthday and you've had a few at lunchtime?
As the saying goes, the longest journey begins with the first step, and that's also true if you are stepping onto a road where rules don't actually matter because you, or anyone else, thinks so.
And that road eventually leads to no rules at all, for anyone, anywhere, ever.
Anarchy and lawlessness don't happen over night. They happen because one day, someone decided that a little rule didn't matter, so breaking it didn;t matter.
And the next day, a slightly more serious rule got broken, and by then, the atmosphere around rule breaking was getting a bit looser.
And a year later, people were able to justify breaking their neighbour's door down and strangling them because their dog barked at night.
And ten years later, rules really didn't matter, there were none left, and society had collapsed completely.
It sounds alarmist, but only if we allow the first step to lead to the last step.
And the way to avoid that is to enforce the little 'trivial' rules today, so we can save the huge vital society-threatening rules tomorrow.
naomi - // AH, I know the rules came from the government but was that thing about tea and wine one of them - or was it just your personal opinion dressed up to look like a rule? //
You and I both live in the same society, so I am unsure why you want to pretend that you don't understand the standard perceptions about acceptable office and workplace behaviour, when I know you understand them perfectly well, like everyone else.
You and I both live in the same society, so I am unsure why you want to pretend that you don't understand the standard perceptions about acceptable office and workplace behaviour, when I know you understand them perfectly well, like everyone else.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.