How is the Tory government doing?

Yawn 🥱

Whitesince63 wrote:Yawn 🥱

I think you've finally sussed him out 63!

I'm sure others have too but they're his mates so they just turn a blind eye and let him spew his never ending obsessive hatred and negativity of all things Tory by continually ranting on and on and on and on.....

After what has been revealed this evening by ITV, your time's up, Boris.
 
The party's over.

Time to do the decent thing finally. 

You can't lie or smirk your way out of your guilt this time.

EXCL: Email obtained by @itvnews proves over 100 staff were invited to drinks party in No 10 garden at height of lockdown to “make the most of the lovely weather”.

We’re told PM and his wife attended, with staff invited to “bring your own booze!”https://t.co/rg34EIkdz2 pic.twitter.com/UORlSwwHJX

— Paul Brand (@PaulBrandITV) January 10, 2022

Boris is just deflecting as usual but his credibility is sliding further down the pan.
He is a liar and a lowlife -  however that really doesn't seem to matter to many of his supporters.

And that's not just a sad indictment of British politics - it's a sad indictment of sections of the British public.

okocha wrote:After what has been revealed this evening by ITV, your time's up, Boris.
 
The party's over.

Time to do the decent thing finally. 

You can't lie or smirk your way out of your guilt this time.

I wouldn't celebrate too much if I were you Okocha. 

He seems to be able to lie and smirk his way out of absolutely anything and doesn't give a shiny shite what anybody else thinks of him. The only thing that worries him or reins him in at all is when his own backbench MP's rebel against him when they fear losing their own seats as a result of his stupidity.

He certainly has absolutely zero respect for parliament. I couldn't help laughing when Angela Rayner tried to hold him to account in PMQ's for his November 21 comments on a TV interview saying inflation posed no threat to struggling families. He first of all blatantly lied by saying he had obviously said no such thing. Then when confronted by proof that he had said it he picked up his notes and briefcase and tried to walk out of the H of C in a childish tantrum/strop. The speaker (Wanderers fan or not, lets him get away with murder on a regular basis) has to tell him to sit back down.

I find it truly embarrassing that a man so immature. selfish, unprincipled, dishonest, narcissistic, shambolic etc etc (feel free to add to the list) can hold the office of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. When Trump was in office in the USA you knew just by listening to him that he was a complete liar/narcissist/nutjob whose only interest was Donald Trump and nobody or nothing else. I used to think what a nation of complete rednecks the U.S. must be. How could so many people possibly vote for a monster like Trump. 

Johnson is becoming our Trump.

It takes 54 Tory backbenchers to trigger a no confidence vote and they are all balancing the equation between the mood of their Tory constituents, the absence of a charismatic alternative, the likelihood of an alternative leader succeeding in the next GE, the possibility of sanctions if a coup fails, the reputational standing of the party if a coup is attempted, when is enough enough and WTF is Boris likely to cock up next.

So none of them are likely to initiate anything for the time being - they are watching and waiting like a herd of nervous sheep on high alert.
Once the popular tide against Boris reaches the tipping point, they'll pile in but not a nanosecond before - they have jobs they want to keep.

Whitesince63 wrote:Yawn 🥱

If i'd supported a PM who was taking the piss out of the country with his behaviour I'd be fuming, it's a doormat's mindset not to be.

Why isn't there a police investigation? There are witnesses, documented evidence and allegations that a crime has been committed - a crime that 4000 members of the public were prosecuted for.

Does Sue Gray have jurisdiction over alleged criminal offences? I don't think so.

How does an internal  investigation undertaken by a member of the alleged offender's own cabinet stop the police from doing their duty?

wanderlust wrote:Why isn't there a police investigation? There are witnesses, documented evidence and allegations that a crime has been committed - a crime that 4000 members of the public were prosecuted for.

Does Sue Gray have jurisdiction over alleged criminal offences? I don't think so.

How does an internal  investigation undertaken by a member of the alleged offender's own cabinet stop the police from doing their duty?

Sue Gray isn't in the cabinet of course, she is a civil servant not an MP.

Obviously you meant to say working in the Cabinet Office.

She like all civil servants are employed by the crown and her duty is to the state not the politicians she works to.

I'm no police expert but I've been involved in matters where internal investigations are undertaken first and when evidence of possible criminality is found the police are only brought in 'formally' at that point, even though contact and dialogue had commenced well before that stage.

I suspect something similar is happening in this instance - indeed iirc there are even reports of such already happening.

Sluffy wrote:



I'm no police expert

Perhaps someone who knows what they are talking about might be able to answer the question then?

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:'m no police expert

Perhaps someone who knows what they are talking about might be able to answer the question then?

What like you being the self proclaimed expert telling us all how the government works based on your experience of working in a NGO - which for those who don't know stands for NON GOVERNMENT Organisation!!!!

   

And fwiw I'm happy to admit I'm no expert when I'm not one but I have seen the process first hand in respect of electoral fraud which resulted in an arrest and an imprisonment of a councillor (you know one of those you tell us orders public servants. like I was, around and that we have to do all sorts of illegal things for them and if we don't we will lose our jobs!!!  You really are a loon!) - hence why I offered my thoughts on the matter.

The thing that surprises/shocks me most about this is that the 'event' invitation was sent by a senior civil servant!!!

What the hell was Martin Reynolds thinking???

It's pretty clear to me from both the comments reported from invitees 'shocked' at the proposed gathering and that out of around 100 invites only around a third turned up, that most people knew it to be both morally and illegally wrong to attend.

I'm also amazed (if it is all true) that Reynolds hasn't done the honourable thing and resigned.  Surely he must have feared this coming out after all that happened leading up to Christmas?

Fair play to Cummings if he did email at the time that the 'gathering' should not go ahead because it broke the rules - although it is a bit rich coming from someone who broke the rules himself!

PM Question Time tomorrow should be very interesting - although there is talk that Boris will make a statement before it takes place.

Sluffy wrote:The thing that surprises/shocks me most about this is that the 'event' invitation was sent by a senior civil servant!!!

What the hell was Martin Reynolds thinking???

It's pretty clear to me from both the comments reported from invitees 'shocked' at the proposed gathering and that out of around 100 invites only around a third turned up, that most people knew it to be both morally and illegally wrong to attend.

I'm also amazed (if it is all true) that Reynolds hasn't done the honourable thing and resigned.  Surely he must have feared this coming out after all that happened leading up to Christmas?

Fair play to Cummings if he did email at the time that the 'gathering' should not go ahead because it broke the rules - although it is a bit rich coming from someone who broke the rules himself!

PM Question Time tomorrow should be very interesting - although there is talk that Boris will make a statement before it takes place.

As you say, out of about 100 people invited only about 30 attended and the other 70 knew it to be both morally and legally wrong. So what does that say about our PM, that not only is he one of the 70% idiots who astonishingly thought it ok to attend, but who also lied regularly and effortlessly to parliament and the general public over the last few weeks to try and cover his tracks.
There was no way Reynolds was going to resign and lose his pension etc. How could Johnson sack him given the fact he had accepted Reynold's invitation and actually attended the party.

Hip Priest wrote:

Sluffy wrote:The thing that surprises/shocks me most about this is that the 'event' invitation was sent by a senior civil servant!!!

What the hell was Martin Reynolds thinking???

It's pretty clear to me from both the comments reported from invitees 'shocked' at the proposed gathering and that out of around 100 invites only around a third turned up, that most people knew it to be both morally and illegally wrong to attend.

I'm also amazed (if it is all true) that Reynolds hasn't done the honourable thing and resigned.  Surely he must have feared this coming out after all that happened leading up to Christmas?

Fair play to Cummings if he did email at the time that the 'gathering' should not go ahead because it broke the rules - although it is a bit rich coming from someone who broke the rules himself!

PM Question Time tomorrow should be very interesting - although there is talk that Boris will make a statement before it takes place.

As you say, out of about 100 people invited only about 30 attended and the other 70 knew it to be both morally and legally wrong. So what does that say about our PM, that not only is he one of the 70% idiots who astonishingly thought it ok to attend, but who also lied regularly and effortlessly to parliament and the general public over the last few weeks to try and cover his tracks.
There was no way Reynolds was going to resign and lose his pension etc. How could Johnson sack him given the fact he had accepted Reynold's invitation and actually attended the party.

You don't lose your pension if you resign, only if you are sacked.

I think you meant to say 30% in respect of Boris not 70%.

And I would have hoped by now that you should listen to both sides of the story before making a judgement.

I can sort of see Reynolds thought process in that if you have an office where 100 people are working socially distanced and you invite the same 100 immediately after work straight into the office garden to a works bonding event which is also socially distance, then what harm are you doing?

Being outside is actually safer than being inside with the same people yet being inside working with these people is legal but stepping into the garden 1 minute after work ends is illegal!

As for the boss Boris it's ok for him and his wife (I think she is classed as a Spad?) to walk through the socially distance office with these people with his cup of tea but one minute after work ends it is illegal for him (and them) to walk through the works socially distance garden with his g and t!

It's kind of mad if you think about it - isn't it really?

The problem is rules are rules and it simply should not have been organised or attended.

And in the light of the revelations before Christmas (and knowing Cummings knew about it) I would have thought the best course of action was to hold your hand up and admit to an error of judgement but meant in the most innocent of ways at the time.

If I was Reynolds I would have judged my 'team building' garden party was now known to be a bad error of judgement on my part and that the blame would come knocking at my door sooner or later so offer my resignation.

The only reason I would stay was if I was told to send the invite and I had it on file that I believed it to be breaking the law but was presented with some form of legal documentation that it was not.

I can't see it being the case myself but as I've said, let us hear Reynolds and the other side of the story before judging them on just one side of the story as we know it.

They think they don't have to follow the rules like us plebs.

Sluffy not sure why you constantly defend these idiots, you don't bring your own beer to a work meeting do you? The rules clearly stated outside gatherings were not allowed.

Another person I would love to punch in the face. The fat fuck has got to go.