New Tory Leader

[Naturalcynic 629]

12 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So you want to claim there is an equivalence between the repetitive breaking of the country's law in ten Downing Street and what the person investigating Starmer's breaches (Kathryn Stone) described as, "minor and/or inadvertent", and "there was no attempt to mislead". Pathetic indeed!

Regardless of what you might want to believe, Johnson was only issued with one fixed penalty notice, as indeed was Sunak.  All of the other miscreants on the vast majority of occasions were civil servants.

[Herman 9,759]

44 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Deny it if you want, but it’s totally wrapped up in the prevailing woke culture.

@StevePeers.

[Naturalcynic 629]

Just now, Herman said:

@StevePeers.

Nice picture.  What’s its relevance?

[Herman 9,759]

Well, I thought it was fun and that you needed cheering up. But it didn't work sadly.

[horsefly 4,300]

2 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Regardless of what you might want to believe, Johnson was only issued with one fixed penalty notice, as indeed was Sunak.  All of the other miscreants on the vast majority of occasions were civil servants.

Oh dear! Where did I say anything different? It was you trying to deflect from Johnson's depravity by suggesting an equivalence between Starmer's failure to register his interests in the required time (something the investigator described as "minor and/or inadvertent", and "there was no attempt to mislead". Also, I feel inclined point out,  something Johnson himself has been found in breach of multiple times) and Johnson's ACTUAL law breaking. If I was you I would simply stop making a fool of yourself attempting to claim there is anything remotely similar between the two. 

[horsefly 4,300]

10 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Nice picture.  What’s its relevance?

Far more relevance than your attempt to equate Starmer's inadvertent failure to register certain interests with Johnson's blatant law breaking.

[Naturalcynic 629]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! Where did I say anything different? It was you trying to deflect from Johnson's depravity by suggesting an equivalence between Starmer's failure to register his interests in the required time (something the investigator described as "minor and/or inadvertent", and "there was no attempt to mislead". Also, I feel inclined point out,  something Johnson himself has been found in breach of multiple times) and Johnson's ACTUAL law breaking. If I was you I would simply stop making a fool of yourself attempting to claim there is anything remotely similar between the two. 

Oh dear, this discussion was being conducted in quite a civilised manner but now you’ve gone all preachy and superior again.

[sonyc 5,517]

42 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Regardless of what you might want to believe, Johnson was only issued with one fixed penalty notice, as indeed was Sunak.  All of the other miscreants on the vast majority of occasions were civil servants.

I have been reading this thread at odd times today. And I was becoming more hopeful and reassured of the exchanges. I liked your post about Cameron.

Then I've just read this and I'm amazed just how you can state, and it appears in complete seriousness (i.e. you're not being ironic), that you believe Johnson's behaviour was not so serious, as determined by the single fixed penalty notice he received. I'm guessing you might say "but it remains the truth".

I know you are someone (must be in a significant minority nationally... though you're the second person in this thread ....who is actually a member of a political party..) who has mentioned that you're a lapsed member of the Tory Party. If you actually think that his leadership was okay through his behaviour and that the biggest "miscreants" were the civil servants in contrast, you really ought to re-sign up to the party. They are losing members and if you have such a 'light touch' view on the morality of his behaviour they will badly be in need of people like you.

It tells me that whatever is posted about Johnson will never find favour in your world (if your comment is truly what you believe? And you appear a serious poster). Johnson for me has been an utterly rotten PM. The worst in my 60+ years of being alive. I cannot think of one good thing he has actually done. And I'm still amazed anyone supports him or who doesn't accept the gravity and misdemeanor of his office and actions. Yet, there are many online who want him back!

 

Edited August 5, 2022 by sonyc

[horsefly 4,300]

17 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Oh dear, this discussion was being conducted in quite a civilised manner but now you’ve gone all preachy and superior again.

You don't like it when someone faces you with the simple truth do you! So of course you have to resort to a abuse to deflect from the fact that what you said is patent nonsense. If you wish foolishly to claim a moral equivalence between Starmer's inadvertent failure to register his interests in time and Johnson's law breaking then you really ought to be grown up enough to expect someone to point out the absurdity of your view.

[Naturalcynic 629]

14 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I have been reading this thread at odd times today. And I was becoming more hopeful and reassured of the exchanges. I liked your post about Cameron.

Then I've just read this and I'm amazed just how you can state, and it appears in complete seriousness (i.e. you're not being ironic), that you believe Johnson's behaviour was not so serious, as determined by the single fixed penalty notice he received. I'm guessing you might say "but it remains the truth".

I know you are someone (must be in a significant minority nationally... though you're the second person in this thread ....who is actually a member of a political party..) who has mentioned that you're a lapsed member of the Tory Party. If you actually think that his leadership was okay through his behaviour and that the biggest "miscreants" were the civil servants in contrast, you really ought to re-sign up to the party. They are losing members and if you have such a 'light touch' view on the morality of his behaviour they will badly be in need of people like you.

It tells me that whatever is posted about Johnson will never find favour in your world (if your comment is truly what you believe? And you appear a serious poster). Johnson for me has been an utterly rotten PM. The worst in my 60+ years of being alive. I cannot think of one good thing he has actually done. And I'm still amazed anyone supports him or who doesn't accept the gravity and misdemeanor of his office and actions. Yet, there are many online who want him back!

 

I agree with your point about him being a poor PM and that he seemed economical with the truth on rather too many occasions.  His judgment was poor, he had become a liability and he had to go.  I just can’t get overly worked up about a piece of birthday cake with staff working in the same building, and I suspect this is something that went on in many workplaces, possibly even in the Met.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Naturalcynic

[Herman 9,759]

4 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

I agree with your point about him being a poor PM and that he seemed economical with the truth on rather too many occasions.  His judgment was poor, he had become a liability and he had to go.  I just can’t get overly worked up about a piece of birthday cake with staff working in the same building, and I suspect this is something that went on in many workplaces, possibly even in the Met.

For goodness sakes, it wasn't just a "piece of cake". Stop being so dishonest about this stuff.

[horsefly 4,300]

1 minute ago, Naturalcynic said:

I agree with your point about him being a poor PM and that he seemed economical with the truth on rather too many occasions.  His judgment was poor, he had become a liability and he had to go.  I just can’t get overly worked up about a piece of birthday cake with staff working in the same building, and I suspect this is something that went on in many workplaces, possibly even in the Met.

Eating birthday cake was NOT illegal and he wasn't fined for that. For someone who claims not to read tabloids you're very fond of spouting the exact same falsehoods pushed by the Mail and Express designed to trivialise Johnson's law breaking.

[sonyc 5,517]

2 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

I agree with your point about him being a poor PM and that he seemed economical with the truth on rather too many occasions.  His judgment was poor, he had become a liability and he had to go.  I just can’t get overly worked up about a piece of birthday cake with staff working in the same building, and I suspect this is something that went on in many workplaces, possibly even in the Met.

Fair enough. We can always over react to press stories. I feel very strongly as it happens that there is so much more to emerge from his time at No.10. I'm not sure we know the half in terms of behaviour. In normal times it may have been more excused but in a once in a lifetime pandemic and where thousands died and were denied access to those dying it was a very sad chapter in the political life of the country.

[sonyc 5,517]

4 minutes ago, Herman said:

For goodness sakes, it wasn't just a "piece of cake". Stop being so dishonest about this stuff

.... That was just an "ambush" wasn't it?

😏

Edited August 5, 2022 by sonyc

[Naturalcynic 629]

2 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Fair enough. We can always over react to press stories. I feel very strongly as it happens that there is so much more to emerge from his time at No.10. I'm not sure we know the half in terms of behaviour. In normal times it may have been more excused but in a once in a lifetime pandemic and where thousands died and were denied access to those dying it was a very sad chapter in the political life of the country.

Now that’s very possibly true, although the staff outside No. 10 seemed genuinely appreciative of him and sad to see him go after his farewell speech.  I suspect he was a bit of a Marmite character to work with and for.  Cummings’ autobiography might make interesting reading, assuming he writes one, although if he does it needs to be remembered that he had become more than a little bitter and twisted so I doubt there’d be much positive about Johnson in there.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

12 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

I agree with your point about him being a poor PM and that he seemed economical with the truth on rather too many occasions.  His judgment was poor, he had become a liability and he had to go.  I just can’t get overly worked up about a piece of birthday cake with staff working in the same building, and I suspect this is something that went on in many workplaces, possibly even in the Met.

That is stretching the truth beyond its elasticity. You are demeaning the many who died and those who may still grieve for them. Its not a small matter at all that you saw one picture with him holding cake and a drink. One. picture. And you believe that is all that went on that day, let alone any others.

Just because he is going doesn't absolve him or entitle him to a standing ovation.

[Naturalcynic 629]

7 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

That is stretching the truth beyond its elasticity. You are demeaning the many who died and those who may still grieve for them. Its not a small matter at all that you saw one picture with him holding cake and a drink. One. picture. And you believe that is all that went on that day, let alone any others.

Just because he is going doesn't absolve him or entitle him to a standing ovation.

I’m demeaning no-one.  Thousands died and some still are dying.  I’ve had Covid and didn’t enjoy it, and I’m sure many on here suffered likewise.  I might well have got it from work, particularly as I was employed in a real-time role that required close proximity with colleagues all day, much as people working in an office such as No. 10 would have done.  We also had lunch together each day because we had no choice - everyone had to take their break at the same time because of the nature of our work.  The risks of transmitting Covid were there whether working or having lunch, and I suspect that was also the case in Downing Street regardless of whether or not cake was involved.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Truss heckled at hustings and immediately talks of plans to clamp down even more on protesting.

This was someone who was a LibDem. She is a joke of a politician. 

 

[Naturalcynic 629]

13 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Truss heckled at hustings and immediately talks of plans to clamp down even more on protesting.

This was someone who was a LibDem. She is a joke of a politician. 

 

I thought she actually handled it well. I was pleased that she took the opportunity to announce that she’d legislate to prevent protesters and unionists from deliberately inconveniencing the rest of the population or trying to shut down the country.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Naturalcynic

[duke63 542]

11 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

I thought she actually handled it well. I was pleased that she took the opportunity to announce that she’d legislate to prevent protesters and unionists from deliberately inconveniencing the rest of the population and trying to shut down the country.

It's impossible to make it illegal for workers to withdraw their labour. If enough people do it, any government would have no choice but to back down or resign.

 

[Herman 9,759]

12 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

I thought she actually handled it well. I was pleased that she took the opportunity to announce that she’d legislate to prevent protesters and unionists from deliberately inconveniencing the rest of the population and trying to shut down the country.

How is that any different to the "cancel culture" that you decry?

[A Load of Squit 5,162]

3 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Deny it if you want, but it’s totally wrapped up in the prevailing woke culture.

The is no 'prevailing woke culture' the only people 'totally wrapped' are the fools trying to create a culture war.

Just shouting 'woke' at everything does not legitimise it, all it does is demonstrate that they do not know what the term 'woke' means.

 

Edited August 5, 2022 by A Load of Squit

[Naturalcynic 629]

13 minutes ago, Herman said:

How is that any different to the "cancel culture" that you decry?

I don’t think JK Rowling has tried to deliberately inconvenience others or shut down the country.  She merely has an opinion which some people seem not to like and who have mounted a campaign to try to make her persona non grata.  That is cancel culture.

Preventing over zealous political activists from glueing themselves to the M25 or bringing the national rail network to a halt is not cancel culture. It is protecting vital infrastructure for the good of the country and its population.

 

[Herman 9,759]

No, what I mean is that people want to shut down Rowling's (or whoever) legal right to an opinion while others want to shut down people's legal right to protest. There isn't much difference as far as I can see.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

Johnson was only fined once because the police for some reason simply didn’t bother to investigate his attendance at other much more obviously law-breaking events, such as the BYOB party.

He has spent his time as prime minister, as he has spent his whole life, lying whenever cornered, and lying even when not. He has presided over an administration that has been uniquely incompetent, and that is saying something, given the Cameron and May premierships, with that incompetence resulting in untold thousands of unnecessary deaths from Covid, and at the same time uniquely corrupt, with billions of pounds wasted, much of it by way of contracts to cronies.

As a man and as a politician he is without any redeeming features and has been a disaster for the United Kingdom.

[Midlands Yellow 3,980]

What a pair of **** to choose between, Anyone with politics leaning this way needs to have a chat with themselves. 

[sonyc 5,517]

10 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

What a pair of **** to choose between, Anyone with politics leaning this way needs to have a chat with themselves. 

Indeed 

 

Edited August 5, 2022 by sonyc
#loweringthetoneabit

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

4 hours ago, sonyc said:

I have been reading this thread at odd times today. And I was becoming more hopeful and reassured of the exchanges. I liked your post about Cameron.

Then I've just read this and I'm amazed just how you can state, and it appears in complete seriousness (i.e. you're not being ironic), that you believe Johnson's behaviour was not so serious, as determined by the single fixed penalty notice he received. I'm guessing you might say "but it remains the truth".

I know you are someone (must be in a significant minority nationally... though you're the second person in this thread ....who is actually a member of a political party..) who has mentioned that you're a lapsed member of the Tory Party. If you actually think that his leadership was okay through his behaviour and that the biggest "miscreants" were the civil servants in contrast, you really ought to re-sign up to the party. They are losing members and if you have such a 'light touch' view on the morality of his behaviour they will badly be in need of people like you.

It tells me that whatever is posted about Johnson will never find favour in your world (if your comment is truly what you believe? And you appear a serious poster). Johnson for me has been an utterly rotten PM. The worst in my 60+ years of being alive. I cannot think of one good thing he has actually done. And I'm still amazed anyone supports him or who doesn't accept the gravity and misdemeanor of his office and actions. Yet, there are many online who want him back!

 

Funnily enough, I think the view that only one notice wasn't so bad was kind of reinforced by the fact that some critics pointed to the fact that he only got one fixed penalty as a sign that it was a crooked police cover up, because in their opinion he should have had a billion or so. I did point out that a cover up would problably mean no fixed penalties at all, but they wouldn't have it. 

Edited August 5, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,300]

So, the former chancellor admits that the "levelling up" agenda was nothing but a lie. Boasting that he diverted money from deprived urban areas to more affluent country towns Like Tunbridge Wells may well please the Tory diehards in Kent, but I suspect the red wall Tory MPs and members are all putting their X in Truss' box this morning.

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-boasts-of-taking-money-from-deprived-urban-areas-for-wealthy-towns-12666046

[Naturalcynic 629]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

So, the former chancellor admits that the "levelling up" agenda was nothing but a lie. Boasting that he diverted money from deprived urban areas to more affluent country towns Like Tunbridge Wells may well please the Tory diehards in Kent, but I suspect the red wall Tory MPs and members are all putting their X in Truss' box this morning.

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-boasts-of-taking-money-from-deprived-urban-areas-for-wealthy-towns-12666046

Yes, he’s shot himself in the foot rather badly with that silly statement.