• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shrop

On Moderation
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
649
(Im)morality requires intent. In the case of this party, I don’t believe that intent is made out; indeed there is significant evidence to suggest that it is not.
Funnily enough, last time I was fined for speeding, even though it was without intent to break the law, I was still obliged to forfeit points on my licence plus pay a fine, or pay a significant sum in order to spend hours on a speed awareness course. My lack of intent counted for absolutely nothing, yet you're saying that even though Boris clearly knew exactly what he was doing, this should be swept under the carpet. Alternatively, if he genuinely didn't know what he was doing then that raises extremely serious questions about his competence to lead the country.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,747
Location
No longer here
(Im)morality requires intent. In the case of this party, I don’t believe that intent is made out; indeed there is significant evidence to suggest that it is not.
Oh please. He had a party in his house.

Didn't know ignorance of the law was a valid defence, well there you go.
Especially not one you and your own government drafted.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,179
Location
Taunton or Kent
Oh, come on. Brexit and all that - there are a few countries that are laughing at us. We have Boris Johnson as the head of government; if that's not a laughing matter, it should be. We criticised the US for electing the idiotic lump that is Donald Trump, but it's okay for our Poundland equivalent of him to be our prime minister.
Fixed it for you ;)
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,327
Location
SE London
Funnily enough, last time I was fined for speeding, even though it was without intent to break the law, I was still obliged to forfeit points on my licence plus pay a fine, or pay a significant sum in order to spend hours on a speed awareness course.

Just as Boris and the others who attended parties at no. 10 have been fined for it., and as far as we are aware, they are not questioning the fines. I'm not sure what you're claiming is different here?

My lack of intent counted for absolutely nothing, yet you're saying that even though Boris clearly knew exactly what he was doing, this should be swept under the carpet. Alternatively, if he genuinely didn't know what he was doing then that raises extremely serious questions about his competence to lead the country.

Were you expected to resign from your job because you'd been caught speeding? (Yes I know it's not exactly comparable because being PM is a much more prominent job, which tends to demand higher standards than most people's jobs).
 

Shrop

On Moderation
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
649
Just as Boris and the others who attended parties at no. 10 have been fined for it., and as far as we are aware, they are not questioning the fines. I'm not sure what you're claiming is different here?
I wasn't questioning the fine, I was questioning the intent.
Were you expected to resign from your job because you'd been caught speeding? (Yes I know it's not exactly comparable because being PM is a much more prominent job, which tends to demand higher standards than most people's jobs).
Not comparable? It bears no comparison whatsoever! Suppose speeding had been the main headline in every news item for many weeks prior to my breaking the limit, and I had been the one making the laws around them, all whilst there had been a massive increase in people dying due to speeding traffic? Now that's more of a comparison. If I had then tried saying on national television that I was definitely not speeding, followed later when proved otherwise, by admitting that I might have been speeding but I didn't have any idea I was at the time, and all whilst being in charge of road safety whilst it was beyond doubt that speeding had caused a massive increase in deaths, how much sympathy would you have had with me then? And yes, had that all happened, then I would not have expected to hold on to my position.
 

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
4,019
Were you expected to resign from your job because you'd been caught speeding? (Yes I know it's not exactly comparable because being PM is a much more prominent job, which tends to demand higher standards than most people's jobs).

If he was the person who had been responsible for the introduction of the speed restrictions, and who had then fronted a tv campaign to repeatedly remind the public of the importance of obeying these new restrictions, and he’d then been caught speeding, of course he bloody would
 

dakta

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2008
Messages
577
If you're a high profile individual who is expected to champion honesty, integrity, responsibility and effectively look after the interests of 60 or so million people largely in front of the cameras then yeah, I think comitting anything unlawful would be a resigning matter because at that point you can't do your job as a lot of those points get compromised and bring the organisation (be it government or something else) into disrepute, especially when (as typical in politics) such emphasis on public perception is required and there is always someone wanting to capitalise on your organisations weaknesses or scandals.

In such an environment even if weren't the government I would expect top people to expect, and be expected, to take the hit when they fall short.

I don't think this is unusual, many people in business have fallen on their swords the exception seems to be this is particularly embarrassing, humiliating on a completely different scale with an absolute refusal to take responsibility because taking responsibility only has the one outcome for something this blatant. I refuse to believe that in a world where going to a corner shop had people queing outside to prevent people from mixing, where offices nationwide were closed and the few that weren't had seperated desks, where funerals were well publicised to be held remotely - that it would not occur anyone, let alone a prime minister that a gathering might not be right.

The prime minister (amongst others) either had genuine disregard for the people of the country, or a degree of incompetence that is absolutely incomprehensible for someone of his position and both issues are terminal
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,327
Location
SE London
Not comparable? It bears no comparison whatsoever! Suppose speeding had been the main headline in every news item for many weeks prior to my breaking the limit, and I had been the one making the laws around them, all whilst there had been a massive increase in people dying due to speeding traffic? Now that's more of a comparison. If I had then tried saying on national television that I was definitely not speeding, followed later when proved otherwise, by admitting that I might have been speeding but I didn't have any idea I was at the time, and all whilst being in charge of road safety whilst it was beyond doubt that speeding had caused a massive increase in deaths, how much sympathy would you have had with me then? And yes, had that all happened, then I would not have expected to hold on to my position.

Oh sure, there's a vast difference. But the reason I posted was because you seemed to be directly comparing the fact that you'd paid your fine for speeding with the Boris not having resigned. I was pointing out that your comparison was not valid: The correct comparison with your case is that you paid your fine for speeding, just as - from what we know - Boris has paid his fine for attending that party.
 

Trog

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2009
Messages
1,546
Location
In Retirement.
While morally wrong, I do wonder about the practicalities of the matter if all those involved had already spent all day working in the same office.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,443
Oh sure, there's a vast difference. But the reason I posted was because you seemed to be directly comparing the fact that you'd paid your fine for speeding with the Boris not having resigned. I was pointing out that your comparison was not valid: The correct comparison with your case is that you paid your fine for speeding, just as - from what we know - Boris has paid his fine for attending that party.

However, unlike driving there's no limit to the number of fines that could be issued.

With driving, there comes a point where there's a good chance you'll lose your driving licence.

What happens if Boris has 2 fines for parties, 3, 4, 10? As it appears that dives have been issued for 2 parties so far. It is unclear if there'll be more to come, however it's likely.

At what point does just a fine for a misunderstand of the rules start to mean that the calls for his resignation get a lot stronger.

While morally wrong, I do wonder about the practicalities of the matter if all those involved had already spent all day working in the same office.

When working in the office was permitted and parties weren't, work had a social event. We were given drinks and snacks to have at home whilst we used video conferencing to have our social event.

Yes it felt a bit pointless as we'd all been in work that day, however that was the rules, so that's what happened.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,460
Location
Fenny Stratford
While morally wrong, I do wonder about the practicalities of the matter if all those involved had already spent all day working in the same office.
The rules were clear. They were broken. That isn't morally wrong. It is just plain wrong.

When working in the office was permitted and parties weren't, work had a social event. We were given drinks and snacks to have at home whilst we used video conferencing to have our social event.
We had to warn people very clearly that any social gatherings even in work, even with people you had spent all day with, were illegal and had to be avoided. Why? Because the rules were really, really clear!
 

Trog

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2009
Messages
1,546
Location
In Retirement.
The rules were clear. They were broken. That isn't morally wrong. It is just plain wrong.
No the element of hypocrisy involved in breaking laws you have yourself set, for all to follow makes this worse than just plain wrong. As if some random person doing the thing is wrong doing, then doing the same wrong by breaching rules you set yourself compounds the matter.

Although I do still wonder what the virus spreading implications are, if those involved have already spent the day working in the same office.
Possibly the doing of it is a more serious matter in terms of trust and morals, than the practical infection effects of what was done.
 

class ep-09

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2013
Messages
532
(Im)morality requires intent. In the case of this party, I don’t believe that intent is made out; indeed there is significant evidence to suggest that it is not.
Even if you do not know the law and you break it,you are still break the law and you pay consequences .
Intent or not intent , simple .

As a person who makes the law , BoJo should know best , whether he is breaking it or not .
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,443
Yet another example of the government not being able to proactive:


The UN refugee agency has called on the UK government to intervene to stop single British men from being matched up with lone Ukrainian women seeking refuge from war because of fears of sexual exploitation. Following claims that predatory men are using the Homes for Ukraine scheme to target the vulnerable, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) told the Guardian “a more appropriate matching process” could be put in place to ensure women and women with children are matched with families or couples. The suggestion from the global refugee agency follows reports that Ukrainian refugees, predominantly women and sometimes accompanied by children, are at risk in the UK of sexual exploitation. Under the government’s Homes for Ukraine scheme, British hosts must link up with Ukrainian refugees themselves, leaving tens of thousands of people to resort to unregulated social media groups to connect. A government-backed matching service run by the charity Reset offers to match UK hosts with refugees but has been operating for just over a week. Those who want to move to the UK must have a sponsor before applying for a visa. In a statement, the UNHCR said there was a need for adequate safeguards and vetting measures to be in place against exploitation, as well as adequate support for sponsors. “[The] UNHCR believes that a more appropriate matching process could be put in place by ensuring that women and women with children are matched with families or couples, rather than with single men. “Matching done without the appropriate oversight may lead to increasing the risks women may face, in addition to the trauma of displacement, family separation and violence already experienced,” a spokesperson said. Leading refugee charities raised their concerns about the Homes for Ukraine scheme in a letter to Michael Gove, the minister in charge of the scheme. Louise Calvey, the head of safeguarding at the charity Refugee Action, told the Observer it was at risk of being a “Tinder for sex traffickers”. One 32-year-old woman from Bakhmut, Ukraine, who has been searching for an appropriate person to match in the UK, wrote that she had received suggestive messages from men on Facebook’s Messenger app. “I was approached by one older guy from London who said that I would have to share a bedroom with him, and was asked if I was OK with that,” she said in an email seen by the Guardian. The Times reported this week that a journalist posing as a 22-year-old Ukrainian woman from Kyiv found that within minutes of posting a message on the largest Facebook group for UK hosts she was inundated with inappropriate messages. Some men lied about having several bedrooms in their one-bed homes while another proposed sharing a bed, writing: “I have a large bed. We could sleep together.” Another sent a voice note that said: “I am ready to help you and maybe you can help me also.” In its statement, the UNHCR also raised concerns about the repercussions should the original UK host prove a potential threat to the safety of the refugee, and the six-month minimum duration on the Homes for Ukraine scheme. “UNHCR believes that appropriate training and information are needed to ensure that hosts make an informed decision when applying to become sponsors. Housing a stranger in an extra bedroom for an extended period is not, for some people, sustainable,” the spokesperson said. There is growing public anger over the length of time that Ukrainians are being forced to wait before being given visas from the Home Office amid the biggest refugee crisis in Europe since the second world war. Priti Patel, the home secretary, apologised on Friday for the time it had taken for Ukrainian refugees to arrive in the UK under two visa schemes, after figures showed only 12,000 had so far reached Britain.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
The rules were clear. They were broken. That isn't morally wrong. It is just plain wrong.
Some one who agrees with you is a (now former) Justice Minister, Lord Wolfson:
Conservative peer David Wolfson has quit as justice minister over the "scale, context and nature" of breaches of COVID regulations in Downing Street.

Lord Wolfson said he reached the 'inevitable conclusion that there was repeated rule-breaking, and breach of the criminal law, in Downing Street'© Other Lord Wolfson said he reached the 'inevitable conclusion that there was repeated rule-breaking, and breach of the criminal law, in Downing Street'

Lord Wolfson said in a letter to the prime minister he was quitting not only over the events themselves, or the prime minister's "own conduct," but also "the official response to what took place".

He said: "I regret that recent disclosures lead to the inevitable conclusion that there was repeated rule-breaking, and breaches of the criminal law, in Downing Street.

"I have - again, with considerable regret - come to the conclusion that the scale, context and nature of those breaches mean that it would be inconsistent with the rule of law for that conduct to pass with constitutional impunity".

Hardly a household name but it is his former post and (for some) his position as a member of the House of Lords (so less susceptible to any bullying or bribes from the whips) that give his move more prominence.
 

Shrop

On Moderation
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
649
Dan Stevens on the One Show last night - the fact that it went out live on BBC is classic!
I won't spoil it by detailing what he says ... (hope our moderators don't mind!)
 
Last edited:

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,747
Location
No longer here
The dead cat distraction from Partygate today is the Rwanda policy for processing migrants. Won’t happen, don’t take the bait.
 

bspahh

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2017
Messages
1,772
This is a twitter thread from Russ Jones with a summary of the last 5 days for the Conservative Party

As some of you might expect, the latest banshee howl that is #TheWeekInTory is quite lengthy, and I advise a deep dive into your preferred sedative before beginning.

Let us begin where the last one ended, which is, astonishingly, a mere 5 days ago [cue wobbly screen]...??

1. Having spent a week insisting there was nothing wrong with avoiding £20 million in tax while being responsible for raising tax, Space Family Sunak have now concluded that for PR purposes their monumental, sickening greed is “not compatible with British fairness”

2. Sunak insisted he should not be associated with his spouse for tax purposes

3. This came as a shock to the rest of us, for whom our spouse’s income affects every personal tax matter, every mortgage application, and all benefits claims

4. But you can’t you expect poor, bewildered Sunak to understand the UK’s rules, especially as it seems he’s spent half his time as chancellor accidentally pledging allegiance to a foreign state for tax purposes, and promising to make USA his forever home

5. Parliamentary rules state MPs must be UK residents for tax purposes, so Sunak broke both MP’s rules and the Ministerial Code, both resigning matters. He didn't resign

6. And then it was revealed Sunak had listed his wealth in the Cayman Islands to avoid even more domestic tax

7. He also failed to list his wife’s £690m stake in Russian businesses in the register of members’ interests, even though the govt of which he is a senior member has given that company multiple contracts, and even though he told us all not to invest in Russia

8. So by Sunday we’d discovered Sunak was chancellor of one country while legally domiciled in another, claimed his wife didn’t pay tax cos she was from a 3rd, got paid by a trust fund in a 4th, and was secretly breaking the rules of his job to give money to a 5th

9. So to prove he's now 100% committed to his job, his nation, and our struggle, he moved out of 11 Downing St and into one of his 4 giant luxury houses

10. Furiously glaring testicle Sajid Javid leaped to Sunak’s defence, saying it would be “morally wrong” not to put up taxes

11. And then Javid admitted he’d spent 20 years as a non-dom avoiding paying those taxes, but there was “nothing immoral” about it

12. He then pressed SHIFT + F5 in his brain, and announced Tories would “tackle aggressive tax avoidance and evasion”, like all the stuff he did

13. Sunak, laser focussed on what was really pissing us off, decided “divulging the tax status of a private individual is a criminal offence”, and he HATES criminal offences, as we all know

14. So Boris Johnson – yes, Boris Johnson – ordered an ethics inquiry into Sunak

15. In all the kerfuffle, you may have missed the news about Nadine Dorries, which is understandable, since she’s so dense no light can escape her

16. This week the exuberantly befuddled Nadine claimed opponents of her plan to privatise Channel 4 were “ill informed”

17. This claim is only slightly undermined by the fact she’d argued for the privatisation whilst still not having the faintest idea how Channel 4 operates

18. She said only 7% of TV production companies get money from Channel 4

19. It’s actually over 50%

20. She said privatisation would finally force the majority of TV to be made outside London

21. 66% of Channel 4’s UK content is made outside London

22. She said Channel 4 was currently a debt-risk and should be more like Netflix

23. Netflix is has over $15 billion of debts

24. She said Channel 4’s advertising revenue has collapsed

25. All advertising collapsed during the pandemic. Channel 4’s has recovered

26. She said Channel 4 becoming like the big streamers would protect its news service

27. None of the big streamers provides a news service

28. Let's visit Boris Johnson, a leaking bin-bag full of custard and Viagra, who began the week by heroically facing a terrifying inquisition from GBNews interviewers Esther McVey and Philip Davies, who just happen to be Tory MPs he gave jobs to

29. The interview probably breached Ofcom rules because we are in an election cycle, meaning press interviews must meet defined impartiality standards, such as not being a cosy chat between people with one brain between them

30. Johnson still lied, telling McVey he would introduce more lockdowns, despite promising MPs there would be no more lockdowns in Feb

31. Don your biohazard suits and let's see what's been happening to Priti Patel, answer to the question “what did Bellatrix Lestrange do next?”

32. This week Patel surprised us all with her first ever attempt at an apology, in this case over the Ukrainian visa fiasco

33. Let's be honest, even for a first attempt it wasn’t a wildly successful apology

34. She admitted it was “always easy to blame someone else”, and then immediately blamed somebody else, claiming her insistence on shellshocked Ukrainian children completing byzantine visa application forms in a foreign language “is not the problem”

35. She insisted she couldn’t let refugees into the country without visas just in case we ended up with a repeat of the Windrush scandal

36. The Windrush victims all had visas, but the Tories locked them up and kicked them out of the country anyway. Details schmetails

37. Patel boasted of a “surge of staff to Calais” to cope with applications

38. Reporters found she’d actually sent “two guys, a table, and some crisps”

39. So nobody can get in, and in news that will shock 48% of us and be ignored by the rest, nobody can get out either

40. Brexit is going so well that we had to close 23 miles of motorways in Kent

41. Instead of tackling crime, Kent police now have to patrol the 30-hour queues of HGVs to ensure weeping drivers don’t simply abandon their vehicles as their livelihoods gently rot in the back

42. Boris Johnson, who won an election telling us Brexit was done, has now become so bored with Brexit not being done that he told German leaders he was ready to rip up the protocol

43. A committee of MPs concluded Brexit will make us more reliant on imported food, not less

44. But MPs found we probably can’t that import food, cos by the time HGV drivers finally escape our shores, most of them have concluded it’s not worth coming back

45. Such is the demand for food that as inflation reached a whopping 7%, the cost of basic foodstuffs rose by 12%

46. More than 550 foodbanks warned parliament they were at “breaking point” because supporters can no longer afford to give donations, and rising poverty sees centres overwhelmed by desperate demand

47. Foodbank use has doubled since January

48. John Redwood said the govt needed to sort out import/exports at Dover, finally catching up with where everybody else was in June 2016

49. Well, everybody except for Dominic Raab, a betwattled, box-faced Etch-a-Sketch dingbat who famously didn’t know what Dover was for

50. This week Raab applied his fierce wisdom and keen intellect to a spiffing new Human Rights Act, and introducing something he was SURE would be better, because it would “counter wokery”, an indefinable, shape-shifting curse that makes people have basic manners

51. Raab’s human rights plan was immediately condemned by the Joint Committee on Human Rights for “weakening protections”, for not being based on any evidence, for undermining the right to a fair trial, and for suggesting some classes of people should have fewer human rights

52. To Westminster, or maybe Pentonville: and despite a ban on MPs employing wives, 2 aides to gropy cocaine enthusiast David Warburton said they were unable to report his misconduct, because the person paid £52k of public money to handle complaints against him was his own wife

53. Fellow Tory MP Simon Hart defended this arrangement, claiming MPs - such as Simon Hart - who employed their wives delivered “real value for money” for the taxpayer, presumably on the basis that it minimises the risk of MPs facing costly criminal prosecutions

54. Even so, brace for another prosecution soon: it seems Warburton had secretly lobbied on behalf of an iffy Russian businessman without revealing that the Russian had given him a £150,000 loan, and that he wasn’t able to repay it

55. A former Tory minister said, “This is symptomatic of a party in terminal decline. We are in a death spiral”

56. Also on Monday… no, really, we’re just on Monday… Tory MP Imran Ahmad Khan was found guilty of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy

57. Crispin Blunt, Tory head of the all-party group on LGBTQ+ rights, said the conviction of his friend Khan for abusing a child was an “international scandal”

58. So half the LGBTQ+ members resigned from the group, because Blunt refused to quit

59. And then Blunt quit anyway

60. So now, only a week after we had to cancel an LGBTQ conference because 100s of LGBTQ groups objected to Tory policy on "conversion therapy", a Tory MP has managed to make half the gay members of parliament stop being members of the group for gay parliamentarians

61. Meanwhile (former) Tory Rob Roberts is still acting as an independent MP, and refusing to step down from his seat a year after being suspended from the Commons for making repeated unwanted sexual advances

62. This is despite his suspension leading to a recall petition of his own voters, which he lost, therefor the regulations mean he now has to face a byelection. He still hasn’t agreed to step down. He’s just sat there, immoveable, undermining democracy

63. And so to the big news of the week, as Boris Johnson, a crapulous Honey Monster crammed into a suit he’s borrowed for a tribunal, got a fixed penalty notice for attending parties during Covid lockdown, thus becoming the first sitting PM ever convicted of a breaking the law

64. Johnson still insists he hadn’t lied to parliament, because he had naturally assumed the rolling stream of parties involving suitcases of booze, DJs, birthday cakes, party hats, tinsel and people playing on swings in the garden were simply standard govt meetings

65. Johnson wrote in the forward to the Ministerial Code that to “win back the trust of the British people we must uphold the very highest standards of propriety, and this code sets out how”

66. That very same Ministerial Code says ministers must resign if they lie to parliament

67. Johnson has told parliament the following lies:

a. “All guidance was followed completely in No 10”
b. “There was no party and no Covid rules were broken”
c. “I have been repeatedly assured there were no parties”
d. “I follow the rules”
e. “There was no Christmas party. Covid rules have been followed at all times”
f. “I can understand how infuriating it must be to think that the people who have been setting the rules have not been following the rules, because I was also furious”

68. Rishi Sunak – last year's Best Available Tory whose primary skill now appears to be removing his jacket on Instagram – also got fined, even though he had told parliament “I did not attend any parties”, which was another flagrant lie

69. Sunak didn’t resign either

70. A whole fesnying (google it) of Tory MPs rushed out to independently tweet nearly identical messages of irrumating (don’t google it) support for Johnson

71. These were led by be-Tangoed Party Chairman and adenoidal Morph cosplayer Oliver Dowden, who said he was “fully behind” the PM, the ideal position from which to stab him if the polling turns bad

72. It turns out it was absolutely right for Allegra Stratton to resign for making a joke about illegal parties she hadn't attended, but absolutely wrong for Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak to resign for attending those illegal parties

73. Later, somebody who was genuinely prepared to admit that he is Grant Shapps was sent out to defend Johnson, immediately got confused by his brief, and said Johnson’s actions were “indefensible”

74. Various floundering attempts at avoiding consequences were deployed, such as: Johnson can’t resign cos we’re at war

75. We’re not at war. Although don't put it past them to declare war if it buys them an hour to clean up Johnson's latest stinky brown gift to the nation

76. The next attempt to keep Johnson in power came from a backbencher struck with the brilliant idea of stating in public that all the alternative potential Tory leaders were “damaged people”, which isn’t exactly wrong, but is a monumentally stupid thing to admit out-loud

77. Another Tory argued Johnson couldn’t resign, because that would send a message to Russia that we’re a soft touch, somehow convincing himself Russia hadn’t figured this out for themselves during all their years of giving money to Tories so they could avoid the law

78. Reports emerged that the world-leading PM wanted to recall parliament to discuss the risk of chemical weapons in Ukraine

79. And then reports emerged that Ukraine could go **** itself, cos there was no way our world-leading PM wanted to face parliament right now

80. The next desperate gambit was to insist the PM hadn’t broken any laws because he’d only broken the law for 9 minutes

81. So presumably the "party of law and order" is now behind the notion that an 8-minute burglary doesn't really count. Especially if nobody eats cake

82. Johnson, leader of this seemingly eternal gob****e jamboree, has already said he attended a party for 25 minutes, so that idea floundered, and the burgary is off

83. Next preposterous claim: the PM didn’t understand the rules, and therefore wasn’t immoral, merely stupid

84. Unfortunately the Tory MPs using this defence have merely shown they're immoral AND stupid

85. Gibbering ukulele fanatic and dying palm-tree Michael Fabricant had a go at defending the PM by insisting NHS doctors get pissed at work all the time

86. Hospitals don’t allow alcohol on the premises – not even in a suitcase

87. So in a year, we’ve gone from the people of Britain applauding health workers from their doorways to MPs abusing health workers to keep a bull****ting one-man game of Shag/Marry/Avoid in power

88. Gilead commander’s wife Liz Truss was taking a break from “leading the world on Ukraine” to undertake the urgent task of being photographed sitting with eerie serenity in an haunted orchard, but she somehow found time to say she “fully backs” the PM

89. This doesn’t entirely explain why she’s registered 2 domain names for a future leadership bid

90. Despite Tory MPs attempting to overwhelm us with their panicky blunderbuss of ****wittery, only 6% of the public believe the PM is honest, and 57% of us want him to resign

91. A rising number Tory MPs have had enough, OK with the 150,000 deaths, but not with this, and have begun sending letters of no-confidence to the 1922 committee

92. The public are being encouraged help matters along by writing a letter of complaint to their own Tory MP

93. This, of course, assumes their Tory MP isn't one of the ones who – in this week alone – have been found guilty of paedophilia, or suspended for railing coke and doing sexual assaults, or celebrated the anniversary of them refusing to step down for being handsy as ****

94. Anyway, minor stories hidden behind the more obvious vortex of broiling chaos – and do try to remember the missing £20 million of Sunak tax as you read these

95. UK benefits – already the worst in Europe – have now fallen further, reaching their lowest level for 50 years

96. Meanwhile Minister James Heappey complained that he couldn’t survive on his £106k salary

97. After every single Tory MP voted against making rented housing fit for human habitation, 1 in 8 privately rented homes are now a “serious threat to people’s health and safety”

98. And after a decade of the lowest funding in its history, half of A&E patients now wait over 24 hours to be seen

99. 23% wait more than 2 days

100. 80% of hospitals reported storing patients in desperately needed ambulances because wards are packed with Covid cases

101. The NHS said spiralling Covid infections were “being ignored for ideological reasons”, cos stopping spindly, posturing mantis Jacob Rees-Mogg from whining is more important than public health

102. The NHS said the “living with Covid” policy was “dooming the health service”

103. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine said the Tories abandoning cheap, workable and basic public health measures in a pandemic was “breaking the basic agreement to provide a health service”

104. They said the NHS is in “a deeper crisis than ever before”

105. GP numbers have fallen every single year since the Tories promised to increase them in 2015

106. This week a study fond 44% of teachers said they plan to quit due to “unmanageable workload”, made worse by constant rolling absences caused by unconstrained Covid

107. And finally, the chairman of Enfield Conservatives has been suspended for dressing up in a Nazi uniform for “perverse-themed” parties, but said he didn't remember

108. I don’t know about you, but I think I’d remember dressing up in a Nazi unform for a perverse-themed party

It's a hard time for millions. I hope you're doing OK.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Can’t see this daft Rwanda idea doing anything other than reducing Bojo’s support from the public at large still further.
'We are doing something about immigration, what would they' - pointing across to the opposition benches - 'do? We are focusing on the People's Priorities.'

I suspect that those who are appalled by Patel's latest masterplan have already decided that Johnson and his motley crew must go.

Maybe this deserves a thread on its own as I would be interested in why we are flying those claiming asylum over 4000 miles, was there nowhere closer? (Answer, probably, no, no-one else would participate in Patel's madcap scheme). What guarantees there are over the safety of those transferred from the care of this country to a country whose record of democracy is not exactly pristine - a presidential election in which the incumbent secured the sort of majority that would make even Bashar al-Assad (of Syria) jealous. In particular, to those claiming victimisation in their home country because of their sexuality, what guarantees will be given to them they will not be harassed, molested, arrested in what is supposed to be a place of safety, given Rwanda's track record?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,327
Location
SE London
Maybe this deserves a thread on its own as I would be interested in why we are flying those claiming asylum over 4000 miles, was there nowhere closer? (Answer, probably, no, no-one else would participate in Patel's madcap scheme). What guarantees there are over the safety of those transferred from the care of this country to a country whose record of democracy is not exactly pristine - a presidential election in which the incumbent secured the sort of majority that would make even Bashar al-Assad (of Syria) jealous. In particular, to those claiming victimisation in their home country because of their sexuality, what guarantees will be given to them they will not be harassed, molested, arrested in what is supposed to be a place of safety, given Rwanda's track record?

It's maybe not so 'madcap' when you consider that one of the main advertised purposes of the scheme is to put a stop to the people-trafficking trade that involves traffickers dumping people on small, unsafe, overcrowded, boats, pointing them in the direction of Dover and expecting them to sail across - with of course large numbers of the 'clients' drowning in the attempt. The idea appears to be that, if it becomes widely known amongst those who pay the traffickers for their crossings that if they do reach the UK, then what awaits them is a trip to Rwanda, then the traffickers could find their business suddenly drying up.

Of course whether this works or is fair to the asylum seekers/etc. trying to get into the UK will depend a lot on the practical details of exactly how the scheme is implemented and what arrangements get put in place once people are in Rwanda - and we don't yet know anything about that. In terms of human rights though, let's not forget that the *real* human rights abuses going on here are the ones being committed by the illegal people traffickers around Calais. If that can be stopped, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Ultimately it sounds to me like an imperfect solution to a horrendously difficult problem. At least the Government are trying to find solutions - which is more than can be said for Labour/the LibDems/the SNP, who are basically standing on the sidelines shouting about how awful the idea is, but without offering any alternative ideas to solve the problem.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,179
Location
Taunton or Kent
Ultimately it sounds to me like an imperfect solution to a horrendously difficult problem. At least the Government are trying to find solutions - which is more than can be said for Labour/the LibDems/the SNP, who are basically standing on the sidelines shouting about how awful the idea is, but without offering any alternative ideas to solve the problem.
Well I know what the long term solution should be, don't go messing up other countries to the point that migrants/refugees feel a need to leave in the first place. Short term I'd recommend they break down the costs of this Rwanda proposal and compare to alternative solutions, such as temporary housing in the UK and/or a deal with France to clamp down on the trafficking side of things. If, as I suspect, the proposal being deployed is more expensive, then the opposition should be suggesting the cheaper proposals and saying "the excess money is being wasted on what could go towards reducing energy bills, etc.".
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
It's maybe not so 'madcap' when you consider that one of the main advertised purposes of the scheme is to put a stop to the people-trafficking trade that involves traffickers dumping people on small, unsafe, overcrowded, boats, pointing them in the direction of Dover and expecting them to sail across - with of course large numbers of the 'clients' drowning in the attempt. The idea appears to be that, if it becomes widely known amongst those who pay the traffickers for their crossings that if they do reach the UK, then what awaits them is a trip to Rwanda, then the traffickers could find their business suddenly drying up.

Of course whether this works or is fair to the asylum seekers/etc. trying to get into the UK will depend a lot on the practical details of exactly how the scheme is implemented and what arrangements get put in place once people are in Rwanda - and we don't yet know anything about that. In terms of human rights though, let's not forget that the *real* human rights abuses going on here are the ones being committed by the illegal people traffickers around Calais. If that can be stopped, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Ultimately it sounds to me like an imperfect solution to a horrendously difficult problem. At least the Government are trying to find solutions - which is more than can be said for Labour/the LibDems/the SNP, who are basically standing on the sidelines shouting about how awful the idea is, but without offering any alternative ideas to solve the problem.
Rwanda - a country deemed more authoritarian than Russia, Haiti, Ethiopia and only just above Oman and Kazakhstan.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democracy-countries
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,327
Location
SE London
Well I know what the long term solution should be, don't go messing up other countries to the point that migrants/refugees feel a need to leave in the first place.

So you mean like, how we refused to intervene in Syria resulting in Russia moving in and an exodus of Syrian refugees? This stupid implied trope about every problem in the World somehow being the UK's fault really does get tiring, you know!

Short term I'd recommend they break down the costs of this Rwanda proposal and compare to alternative solutions, such as temporary housing in the UK and/or a deal with France to clamp down on the trafficking side of things. If, as I suspect, the proposal being deployed is more expensive, then the opposition should be suggesting the cheaper proposals and saying "the excess money is being wasted on what could go towards reducing energy bills, etc.".

But that kind of comparison completely misses the point. Sure, temporary housing in the UK might well be cheaper, but it would do nothing to deter the people-smugglers: In fact it would probably encourage even more people smuggling because people would perceive that the dangers of letting themselves be dumped on an unseaworthy dinghy are worth it if they (assuming they survive) get a place to live in the UK at the end of it.
 
Last edited:

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,832
Location
Redcar
Sure, temporary housing in the UK might well be cheaper, but it would do nothing to deter the people-smugglers: In fact it would probably encourage even more people smuggling because people would perceive that the dangers of letting themselves be dumped on an unseaworthy dinghy are worth it if they (assuming they survive) get a place to live in the UK at the end of it.
If we actually wanted to fix that problem we'd give them a safe route of entering the UK. Perhaps a Home Office facility in Calais where they can make their asylum claim and then chuck them on a ferry across to the UK. I think that would go a lot further a lot quick and a lot cheaper than flying them 4,000 miles away when it comes to ending people smuggling over the Channel.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,179
Location
Taunton or Kent
So you mean like, how we refused to intervene in Syria resulting in Russia moving in and an exodus of Syrian refugees? This stupid implied trope about every problem in the World somehow being the UK's fault really does get tiring, you know!
Not necessarily, but if we're going to intervene we at least need a plan for getting out of there without causing more trouble. Iraq, Libya and most recently Afghanistan were all places we helped intervene in, but there was clearly no exit strategy from any of them. And no, I'm not suggesting it's all the UK's fault, all our partners who joined us, most especially the US, share the blame too, but as we're in the UK we can have more influence over our actions and learn lessons, though I would encourage those in other countries involved to do the same for them.

But that kind of comparison completely misses the point. Sure, temporary housing in the UK might well be cheaper, but it would do nothing to deter the people-smugglers: In fact it would probably encourage even more people smuggling because people would perceive that the dangers of letting themselves be dumped on an unseaworthy dinghy are worth it if they (assuming they survive) get a place to live in the UK at the end of it.
Then I suggest we go down the route of doing a deal with France towards sorting out the people smugglers, or something similar to what @ainsworth74 just said above.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Wakefield MP found guilty of sexually assaulting a 15 year old. We will see what sentence he gets, more than a year = automatic expulsion otherwise recall petition (like in Peterborough in 2019).

Extremely likely to go Labour in a by election.
He's resigned.
A Conservative MP found guilty of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy has announced he is resigning from the Commons.

Imran Ahmad Khan, who has represented Wakefield since 2019, said on Twitter that he was appealing the conviction.

But he added it was "intolerable" for his constituents not to be represented properly while he goes to the courts.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61113265
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top