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

[TheEdge]

Were there nothing more stringent than a fixed penalty notice available, such as a term of imprisonment?

I believe it was fines only. But if your bar for suitability for PM comes for making sure criminal offenses committed don't include a prison sentence that's quite the low bar.

 

[32475]

I haven’t contributed to this thread before since politics is not of great interest to me however having seen what Boris said today, is he extracting the salts, water and urea from us all?! I mean to say he’s supposedly the man in charge who makes the rules isn’t he or have I got it all wrong?
Signed, ‘Confused of Sandwich’
PS The front page of one of the tabloids today had a picture of Boris wearing a woolly hat with a BR double arrow logo on it. What’s that all about?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I believe it was fines only. But if your bar for suitability for PM comes for making sure criminal offenses committed don't include a prison sentence that's quite the low bar.

Can I therefore pose a question. One matter that has ran through this thread was the stated hypocrisy in holding events in contravention of ruling at a time when people were dying as a result of the virus and the matter of people unable to visit loved ones. Now a recent posting has stated that a considerable number of fixed penalty notices were issued to members of the general public for contravening the ruling in force. Therefore on the assumption of what is good for the goose is good for the gander, all those accused should also be named and shamed, as is the case with those at the top.

 

[43096]

Can I therefore pose a question. One matter that has ran through this thread was the stated hypocrisy in holding events in contravention of ruling at a time when people were dying as a result of the virus and the matter of people unable to visit loved ones. Now a recent posting has stated that a considerable number of fixed penalty notices were issued to members of the general public for contravening the ruling in force. Therefore on the assumption of what is good for the goose is good for the gander, all those accused should also be named and shamed, as is the case with those at the top.

Why? Those who were fined weren't the one setting the rules. If you're the one setting the rules, then public shaming is fully deserved if you flout the rules you set and expect everyone else to abide by.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why? Those who were fined weren't the one setting the rules. If you're the one setting the rules, then public shaming is fully deserved if you flout the rules you set and expect everyone else to abide by.

I can just imagine the defendant in a Court of Law, acting in his own defence charged with a minor crime, addressing the court saying "I did not set this law which I am now charged with breaking, so I should not be charged".....

 

[dgl]

it's like

I can just imagine the defendant in a Court of Law, acting in his own defence charged with a minor crime, addressing the court saying "I did not set this law which I am now charged with breaking, so I should not be charged".....

Nah in this case it would be like the Judge asking the defendant what sentance they should get because the judge has no idea!

So you've been charged with murder, defendant, remind me again is that even a crime? I can't remember!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

it's like

Nah in this case it would be like the Judge asking the defendant what sentance they should get because the judge has no idea!

So you've been charged with murder, defendant, remind me again is that even a crime? I can't remember!

My posting did mention the phrase "minor crime", so I fail to understand how you assume murder is a minor crime.

 

[dgl]

My posting did mention the phrase "minor crime", so I fail to understand how you assume murder is a minor crime.

I was just showing an example of a person who should know the rules claiming not to, the crime was picked at random.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I was just showing an example of a person who should know the rules clainig not to, the crime was picked at random.

You assume that all defendants know the full extent of the law upon which they are charged, as in the case that I used as an example. I made no reference to the judge being unaware of the Law and its inherent sentancing powers

 

[seagull]

Very fickle, the media and those who hang on their every utterance. Not so long ago, Dominic Cummings was Public Enemy No. 1 and branded a monster hypocrite for disobeying Covid rules, as well as a liar for inventing excuses.
Now, some are believing HIS every word and trying to bury Boris Johnson alive.

Makes me wonder what exactly is going on. I'm more nervous too as to what actually awaits us if the mob succeeds and Johnson goes. Not that I have any time for the bloke, given these recent revelations: but he has at least held back from the ultra-restrictive Covid approach this winter, and heeded back-benchers advice. Interesting times ahead.

 

[dosxuk]

I can just imagine the defendant in a Court of Law, acting in his own defence charged with a minor crime, addressing the court saying "I did not set this law which I am now charged with breaking, so I should not be charged".....

Have you been on the wine? Your posts make no sense, other than as a poor parody of the sort of distraction techniques that Boris is expert in.

Nobody is saying Boris should be convicted because he set the rules. People are saying he should be convicted of breaking the rules he set, exactly the same as many people were.

Nobody is saying that those found guilty of breaking the rules should be named and shamed. Boris is only being named and shamed because he's trying to cover up each lie with an even more preposterous one.

Nobody is saying that every word out of Cummings's mouth is the truth. What's people are saying is that, in the context of their public falling out, it's unlikely Cummings would go on record to say he would stand in court and on oath repeat this claims of the PM knowing about this party, if he didn't have the means to back it up.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Nobody is saying Boris should be convicted because he set the rules. People are saying he should be convicted of breaking the rules he set, exactly the same as many people were.

Nobody is saying that those found guilty of breaking the rules should be named and shamed. Boris is only being named and shamed because he's trying to cover up each lie with an even more preposterous one.

If you look at what was said by another contributor in his posting # 1,047 on the thread, the only stricture against those charged by the police was a fixed penalty notice. Then let the requisite number of fixed penalty notices be issued to any politician or civil servant who wilfully organised events that contravened the terms of the Coronovirus Act 2020.

 

[dosxuk]

If you look at what was said by another contributor in his posting # 1,047 on the thread, the only stricture against those charged by the police was a fixed penalty notice. Then let the requisite number of fixed penalty notices be issued to any politician or civil servant who wilfully organised events that contravened the terms of the Coronovirus Act 2020.

That is very possibly what will happen when the people involved in the parties actually admit and accept that they were breaking the law.

We're not at that stage yet.

 

[87 027]

I think the issue has moved on from the parties themselves however. The focus now seems to be around the perceived subsequent failure to give a straight and and honest account of events.

The Spectator has an interesting article on the art of the non-apology

The art of the non-apology

‘Johnson apologises for lockdown garden party’ announced the Times on Wednesday. But did he? It’s quite a skill, the non-apology, and our Prime Minister is a non-apologiser par excellence, the Nureyev of not really meaning it. Academics working in conflict resolution have analysed what makes a...

www.spectator.co.uk

The full article is behind a paywall but the summary is:

1 Make it conditional ('I'm sorry if ...')
2 Be unclear what you're apologising for ('I believed this was a work event' - implying an error rather than deliberate rule-breaking)
3 If you have a fault, it's that you're too nice ('With hindsight I should have sent everyone back inside and found some other way to thank them')
4 The passive voice ('mistakes were made' - by whom?)
5 'I'd like to apologise' (but I'm not going to - subtle!)
6 Is there anything to apologise for anyway? ('even if the events technically fall within the guidance not everyone sees it that way')

 

[MattRat]

My posting did mention the phrase "minor crime", so I fail to understand how you assume murder is a minor crime.

To some people, it's depends on who was murdered. I wish I was joking,

 

[brad465]

There are sources, including Dan Hodges and Christopher Hope, who are claiming some of the whips have jumped ship, which if true means Johnson is a sitting duck. Joe Pike from Sky also has heard reports as of 1-2 hours ago that 54 letters have been sent.

 

[MattRat]

There are sources, including Dan Hodges and Christopher Hope, who are claiming some of the whips have jumped ship, which if true means Johnson is a sitting duck. Joe Pike from Sky also has heard reports as of 1-2 hours ago that 54 letters have been sent.

How long after the letters are sent will we know if it's true or not?

 

[brad465]

How long after the letters are sent will we know if it's true or not?

Joe Pike's claim was sent around 9pm this evening, so I suspect tomorrow morning we'll know. Sir Graham Brady is obliged to publicly declare if the minimum number of letters has been reached; if no statement comes tomorrow then it's not true.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Have you been on the wine?

I am teetotal. I now wonder how many future Heads of State could face removal from office on account of transgressions that carried a penalty of a fixed penalty notice...

That is very possibly what will happen when the people involved in the parties actually admit and accept that they were breaking the law.

We're not at that stage yet.

One of my neighbours is a now-retired barrister and he ventures the opinion upon transgressions in premises covered by schedule 21 of the Coronovirus Act 2020 would carry a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

 

[AM9]

I am teetotal. I now wonder how many future Heads of State could face removal from office on account of transgressions that carried a penalty of a fixed penalty notice...


One of my neighbours is a now-retired barrister and he ventures the opinion upon transgressions in premises covered by schedule 21 of the Coronovirus Act 2020 would carry a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

If Johnson gets removed, it will be because he's has been found to be dishonest. I'm not counting the general tendency of politicians to live a life of half truths and deception, but in his case, demonstrable falsehoods and, dare I say it - lies.

 

[birchesgreen]

I am teetotal. I now wonder how many future Heads of State could face removal from office on account of transgressions that carried a penalty of a fixed penalty notice...

Think of it like the case of Al Capone.

 

[skyhigh]

I am teetotal. I now wonder how many future Heads of State could face removal from office on account of transgressions that carried a penalty of a fixed penalty notice...


One of my neighbours is a now-retired barrister and he ventures the opinion upon transgressions in premises covered by schedule 21 of the Coronovirus Act 2020 would carry a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

I think you're missing the point - it's not simply about the offence, which is legally a minor one. It's the fact he's apparently lied to parliament, and the strength of public feeling from a lot of people who gave up a lot to follow the rules... when the person in charge of setting the rules wasn't following them and claimed not to know.

 

[AM9]

I think you're missing the point - it's not simply about the offence, which is legally a minor one. It's the fact he's apparently lied to parliament, and the strength of public feeling from a lot of people who gave up a lot to follow the rules... when the person in charge of setting the rules wasn't following them and claimed not to know.

That's right, he won't be marched off by the police because of a serious crime (in the legal sense), he will be voted off by the same body that made him PM. The electorate voted for him as an MP, not a minister.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think you're missing the point - it's not simply about the offence, which is legally a minor one. It's the fact he's apparently lied to parliament, and the strength of public feeling from a lot of people who gave up a lot to follow the rules... when the person in charge of setting the rules wasn't following them and claimed not to know.

Can you categorically confirm what you have said above about Johnson being the person who set the rules or would that have had to be someone with precise legal knowledge to ensure conformity was made, of which I am sure that Johnson has very little.

Think of it like the case of Al Capone.

Capone received an eleven-year sentance (of which he served over half). He also received a further six months sentance on release for contempt of court. Financially, he was found liable for $215,000 in back taxes, a total of $50,000 in fines and was deemed liable to pay all court costs.

 

[dosxuk]

Can you categorically confirm what you have said above about Johnson being the person who set the rules or would that have had to be someone with precise legal knowledge to ensure conformity was made, of which I am sure that Johnson has very little

Oh give it up!

Boris is much better at this technique than you. At least when the leaks started, some people believed him when he said he didn't know about them and definitely wasn't there.

Nobody believes him when he turned up to a BYOB chance to enjoy the lovely weather in the Downing Street garden that he thought it was a work event because nobody told him it was a party, and nobody believes you.

 

[skyhigh]

Can you categorically confirm what you have said above about Johnson being the person who set the rules or would that have had to be someone with precise legal knowledge to ensure conformity was made, of which I am sure that Johnson has very little.

Who cares who wrote the precise wording? It was his government that brought the rules in, and he's the leader of the government. The issue is he was telling other people what to do on TV, and not following that himself. The strength of feeling in the population is what will do him in the end - not precise legal details

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Oh give it up!

Boris is much better at this technique than you. At least when the leaks started, some people believed him when he said he didn't know about them and definitely wasn't there.

Nobody believes him when he turned up to a BYOB chance to enjoy the lovely weather in the Downing Street garden that he thought it was a work event because nobody told him it was a party, and nobody believes you.

An impertinent response to a pertinent question.

 

[87 027]

The name on the various statutory instruments that gave legal force to the regulations is Matt Hancock

I am reminded of the old adage that ignorance of the law is no defence!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Who cares who wrote the precise wording? It was his government that brought the rules in, and he's the leader of the government. The issue is he was telling other people what to do on TV, and not following that himself. The strength of feeling in the population is what will do him in the end - not precise legal details

He stands accused of breaching a legal matter, yet you end your posting dismissing legality.

 

[DelayRepay]

He stands accused of breaching a legal matter, yet you end your posting dismissing legality.

May I ask you a question, because your posts about this matter seem to focus on irrelevant details.

Do you think Boris Johnson is an asset to our country?