Boris Johnson, former Prime Minister

[tobyjugg2]

As he waded through the empty plates, drunken bodies and even emptier bottles and glasses,

he said to a half unconscious drunk: 'anything broken',

to which the drunk replied 'only the swing and a few tables and chairs'

 

So Johnson muttered 'ah - I'm assured no rules have been broken then

[determindator]

To me it all seems to be about the definition of what the word 'rules' means. What happens when the 'rules' are broken?

Rules can be an ambiguous analogy for those who choose to bend them. Rules and laws are important because they help to obtain and continue a balanced level of safety, fairness, order and justice. Rules help us learn and prepare for living in a wider society. If the rules were blurred for the Gov gatherings the phrase common sense comes to mind for those who participated. There were others who didn't attend because they had common sense of the rules. My thought on this case one rule for one and one rule for another.

[honeybee13]

So true about 'rules' and 'guidance'. I'm struggling to see the difference atm and wonder if the defence team are trying to muddy the waters.

 

He seems to be going full Trump and is saying the committee held back documents that would 'clear his name'. I don't know why he doesn't provide them himself.

 

He's also saying in the article below that the committee didn't understand the difference between rules and guidance. Tp me, this comes down to common sense, as Determinator says.

 

I also don't understand why the 'Abba party' hasn't been investigated as we thought at the time it didn't follow the rules. Johnson has admitted to being there.

 

Welcome to nginx

ARCHIVE.IS

 

[honeybee13]

So true about 'rules' and 'guidance'. I'm struggling to see the difference atm and wonder if the defence team are trying to muddy the waters.

 

He seems to be going full Trump and is saying the committee held back documents that would 'clear his name'. I don't know why he doesn't provide them himself.

 

He's also saying in the article below that the committee didn't understand the difference between rules and guidance. Tp me, this comes down to common sense, as Determinator says.

 

I also don't understand why the 'Abba party' hasn't been investigated as we thought at the time it didn't follow the rules. Johnson has admitted being there.

 

Welcome to nginx

ARCHIVE.IS

 

[honeybee13]

Interesting thoughts from David Allen Green on the hearing. Here's an extract.

 

But Johnson was not taking any chances: he was lawyered-up to the hilts when no lawyers were needed at all.

 

However, because he had lawyered-up, and his lawyers had come up with elaborate and technical arguments about fairness and evidence, then the committee responded in kind.

 

And the the committee had access to its own legal advice, not least that of Sir Ernest Ryder – the former lord justice of appeal and senior president of tribunals. There are few, if any, lawyers with a better understanding of the rules of evidence and fairness.

 

And so yesterday saw that the heavily prepped Johnson met and confounded by an even better prepped committee.

 

The Law and Policy Blog – Independent commentary on law and policy from a liberal constitutionalist and critical perspective

DAVIDALLENGREEN.COM

---

Independent commentary on law and policy from a liberal constitutionalist and critical perspective

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

Even question time

 

This is how many Question Time audience members thought Johnson was te

WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK

---

Roles were reversed for a moment on Thursday’s BBC Question Time, with host Fiona Bruce asking the audience a question. “Let’s have a show of...

 

[honeybee13]

That was very interesting, wasn't it? Especially as Fiona Bruce said the majority of the audience had voted for BJ.

 

She couldn't spin that one...

[tobyjugg2]

Yep, fill the studio with Boris voters - and they still cant get a hand up

 

 

[honeybee13]

A thoughtful article from Robert Shrimsley in the FT about the effect of Johnson and Brexit on government and the Tories.

 

'Rage is no substitute for political strategy'. It's easier and more interesting to read than the title might suggest.

 

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

WWW.FT.COM

---

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication

 

[Ethel Street]

FT is paywalled for me, free version here

 

Why rage is no substitute for political strategy | Financial Times (archive.ph)

 

[honeybee13]

Thank you Ethel. I thought the archive was what I had posted. 

[honeybee13]

Johnson's taxpayer-funded legal bill has gone up again. There's still a debate about whether the public should be paying it at all and apparently the Treasury didn't sign it off.

 

Boris Johnson's taxpayer-funded legal bill rises to £245,000

WWW.BBC.COM

---

The BBC has found the Treasury did not sign off the decision to use taxpayer funds to foot the bill.

 

[honeybee13]

I'm putting this here because of the Brexit connection but the effect on freedom of expression in the UK is very concerning.

 

The Observer view on the high costs order against Carole Cadwalladr | Observer editorial | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

The court of appeal partially allowed Arron Banks’ appeal. The effect on public interest journalism could be chilling

 

[unclebulgaria67]

Worrying isn't HB!

 

When those with money use it to pursue political aims, then use the Courts to go after anyone who has questions about them. 

 

 

[honeybee13]

Yes, justice appearing to be for the rich isn't right.

 

The government do seem to be aware of this but I'm not sure how far they've got in trying to crack down on SLAPP litigation. I don't think we're aware of how often this is used by powerful people to suppress articles about them that they don't like. Quite a few rich Russians and Arabs, from what I've seen.

 

 

[honeybee13]

I think what's also unfair in the Carole Cadwalladr case is that as I understand it, reporting on Russian contacts by Banks and Wigmore was confirmed by Isabel Oakeshott after she wrote the book on The Bad Boys of Brexit. She put extracts of their emails in the Telegraph/Times not that long ago.

 

Early last year, Cadwalladr tweeted: 'I wonder if Isabel Oakeshott will now go public with the private signed statement she gave the editor of the Sunday Times in which she called Arron Banks an ‘agent of influence for the Russian state’?'

 

But allegations of Russian contacts could have been a reason for the award of 60% of Banks's costs against Cadwalladr. I think the Byline Times are continuing to dig into this, as they believe there could be more to it.

[honeybee13]

From the Times.

 

Johnson has been referred to the police by the Cabinet Office for allegedly inviting friends to Chequers during the pandemic.

Welcome to nginx

ARCHIVE.IS

 

[honeybee13]

So the Cabinet Office has admitted to not having the documents it said were unambiguously irrelevant to the enquiry. How does it know that if it hasn't even seen them?

Johnson seems to have changed his message today and looks to be contradicting the Cabinet Office. 

If there's nothing to hide, why does it feel like a cover-up?

[honeybee13]

I suppose it might go quiet until some time tomorrow on No10 vs Lady Hallett.

If I've understood so far, Johnson is saying he's happy for documents to be released to the commission, even the ones he said would be an invasion of privacy and a threat to national security. But he says the Cab Office haven't asked him about releasing them.

And now his allies are saying he may release them direct. Nobody seems to be sure where the documents are.

[honeybee13]

Here is David Allen Green, legal blogger, interpreting the correspondence between Lady Hallett and the inquiry and the Cab Office. Several leading legal commentators think things are stacked against the Cab Office.

The requirement for a signed statement of truth is significant – and you may recall that the Miller II case on the prorogation of parliament was lost by the government because nobody was willing to provide a statement of truth as to the actual reasons for the prorogation.

The Law and Policy Blog – Independent commentary on law and policy from a liberal constitutionalist and critical perspective

DAVIDALLENGREEN.COM

---

Independent commentary on law and policy from a liberal constitutionalist and critical perspective

 

[unclebulgaria67]

I wonder if there are messages which are embarrassing to Government?

Boris may not be bothered, as he may think he can talk his way out of any situation. But Rishi may be thinking that the Tories cannot afford negative media coverage, a year before a General Election.

In the Civil Service, staff are subject to disciplinary actions, if they have broken rules on use of social media. And I am aware of several Civil Servants who have been dismissed, due to breaking social media rules, as they had posted messages critical of Government policies.

[honeybee13]

UB, the government seem to be getting more and more hardline about criticism. I expect you saw outside experts who've been excluded because they made a few posts on social media disagreeing with government policy. This limits good advice that HMG could be getting.

Views about the current stand off include that Johnson is trying to show up the Cab Office by offering all of the unredacted documents. A lot of people think it's more about keeping stuff that could embarrass Sunak and other ministers under wraps.

Another view that I can agree with is that Johnson thinks that if he's going down, he'll take plenty of other people with him. I think he's vindictive enough after being deposed to do this.

[unclebulgaria67]

Well I can see it from the Tories point of view. They have won 3 elections since 2015  the 2019 election giving them an 80 seat majority.

They have implemented Brexit ?

They dealt with Covid pandemic, helping to deliver largest vaccinations programme  the UK has ever seen.

They have provided billions of pounds of support to Ukraine to help them defend against the invasion by Russia.

The last 6 year or so, have probably been one of the most difficult periods the UK has faced. 

According to opinion polls, the Tories look like they will lose the next General Election.

If they keep feeling bitter about the current level of criticism, this will guarantee they lose the election.

There is still a chance Labour will implode before the election, as some of the Corbynistas have not signed up fully to Starmers version of the party.

 

 

[honeybee13]

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a coalition government. Then maybe there could be consultation on proportional representation.

[unclebulgaria67]

Yes that would be my hope, that there is another referendum on PR.

Last referendum offered AV+ and that was rejected.

Older generations still believe first past the post enables stronger Government and better local representation.  

Sadly not enough Labour MP's are in favour of PR or they won't admit to it.