How is the Tory government doing?

Sluffy wrote:

Thought I'd deal with this separately.

People like me you say?

Well Philip Rutnam is someone like me, he's the former head of the Home Office Civil Service who resigned over Patel's bullying and took the government to an employment tribunal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56281781

Sir Alex Allen is someone else like me, he's the former adviser to the Prime Minister on the Ministerial Code, who resigned when Johnson took it upon himself to reject Allen's inquiry finding that Patel had broken the code on Ministerial behaviour (in other words he found that she was a bully).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55016076

Dave Penman is someone like me, he's the head of the civil service union who said -

"What is the point of the investigation if actually what we're saying is it doesn't matter what evidence has been found, it doesn't matter what the PM's own adviser on the ministerial code says, if it's politically convenient for the PM to ignore it, he will ignore it."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56125796

The members of the civil service union FDA are people like me who took Johnson's decision to 'ignore' the clear bullying that had been proven, to court.

They recently lost but can still appeal.

That's the type of person I am.

And proud of it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-59550792

They are examples of people who took a stand for truth, the polar opposite of the behaviour you display - you stand for gas lighting.

Sluffy wrote:

If Boris, MP's, civil servants or special advisors broke Covid rules applying at the time then they should be fined and punished like everyone else - I've no problem with that.

I'm more than happy to criticise Boris, Hancock, the Conservative party or anyone else you care to name - even my own daughter - if they have done wrong, then they should receive the same punishment as everyone else - no one, not even myself, is above the law.

However I don't judge anyone without first hearing both sides of the story and listening to all the facts.

Clearly you don't hold such basic ethics as I, and have already decided that people are guilty without hearing from both sides and based entirely from what you've read on social media or in the papers.

Do you really believe all you read on social media and everything you read in the papers?

What's the point in having courts and inquiries when you've made your mind up they are guilty without hearing their defence???

For someone who vehemently claims to be all for equality and fairness you certainly are not treating all fairly and equally if you make up your mind of them being guilty without hearing their explanations of what happened and why first.

Which in my eyes makes you the biggest hypocrite on here - and that takes some doing considering we have one amongst us who tells lies rather than admit he posted that he voted for Brexit!

If Gray's inquiry/investigation* confirms what most of us think did happen then all well and good, if however she finds that not everything is how we think it was then isn't it better that this is found out BEFORE innocent people are (metaphorically) hung for a crime they did not commit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Ellis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case


*Inquiry
noun

An act of asking for information.

Similar:
An official investigation.

Investigation
noun

The action of investigating something or someone; formal or systematic examination or research.

Similar:
A formal inquiry or systematic study.

It’s not social media/papers, they have admitted the party happened you berk ! There was no guidance allowing that at the time, it’s as simple as that. The Gray investigation is politics, a topic beyond your simplistic world view I’m afraid.

This story isn’t a construct of anti-Tories, unless you can deny it happened or that the rules were different then the criticism is valid. 

You really are incredibly naive to swallow their deflection every single time. I suspect the government could announce Boris invented the wheel and you’d jump on here branding anyone who disagreed a conspiracy theorist.

They’ve had it, and your mate Boris will be gone by summer.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:They are examples of people who took a stand for truth, the polar opposite of the behaviour you display - you stand for gas lighting.

That's rich coming from you, the person who fights for people rights and equality but all that goes out the window immediately you've decided someone is wrong when just hearing only one side of a story - being the one that suits your preconceived and biased agenda.

You're an utter hypocrite - you don't practice what you preach.

You've outed yourself as such.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:It’s not social media/papers, they have admitted the party happened you berk ! There was no guidance allowing that at the time, it’s as simple as that. The Gray investigation is politics, a topic beyond your simplistic world view I’m afraid.

This story isn’t a construct of anti-Tories, unless you can deny it happened or that the rules were different then the criticism is valid. 

You really are incredibly naive to swallow their deflection every single time. I suspect the government could announce Boris invented the wheel and you’d jump on here branding anyone who disagreed a conspiracy theorist.

They’ve had it, and your mate Boris will be gone by summer.

He's not my mate and the sooner he's gone the better but as I've pointed out previously his most likely successor has publicly backed Johnson's behaviour and cutting off the head of the Hydra (see Greek mythology) alone doesn't kill it, it simply just grows another head and the beast still acts as before.

Yes you are right, it has been admitted that some parties have happened but the whole point you are missing is that very few (only one I believe, Kate Joseph) has admitted to being at one!

The apologies have all been about the upset that they have caused others or that they said a few words at them (a leaving do and a thank you to staff).

Johnson apologised that he didn't realise that one he walked through wasn't a work meeting.  

Gray's investigation is to establish the facts, what parties did happen and determine if any Covid laws have been broken at the time and if so who had broken them.  How does she establish that a party is a party and not something else - a works meeting or gathering.  How can she, the police or anyone else prove it to be?

They may well have happened but what hard evidence is there to prove such and that who was there and broke the rules at the time?

If the evidence or admissions of guilt are there great, if not can she PROVE that they actually were parties and not 'work gatherings'?

It's one thing believing someone is guilty it is quite another thing entirely proving that they are guilty.

That's how the system works and that's what I stand by, that all people are innocent until proven guilty. - you know, the rule of law and order.

If seeking the facts and establishing the truth before determining one's guilt is wrong then I've lived my life by the wrong credo.

I rather been seen as a simplistic fool who believes in giving everyone an equal chance to defend themselves and tell their side of the story and why they did what they did than a self-righteous political and civil rights activist who has proved himself  to be nothing other than a hate filled hypocrite such as yourself.

Due process rather than mob rule and lynchings.

Sluffy wrote:

That's rich coming from you, the person who fights for people rights and equality but all that goes out the window immediately you've decided someone is wrong when just hearing only one side of a story - being the one that suits your preconceived and biased agenda.

You're an utter hypocrite - you don't practice what you preach.

You've outed yourself as such.

Christ, you are just thick really aren’t you. 

What does equal rights have to do with this? 

Did all the members of the public you lambasted for breaking the rules also get a senior civil servant investigating them before they had to pay hefty fines?

Could the parties the public held have actually been ‘work events’? 

What’s equal about that you moron?

Sluffy wrote:

He's not my mate and the sooner he's gone the better but as I've pointed out previously his most likely successor has publicly backed Johnson's behaviour and cutting off the head of the Hydra (see Greek mythology) alone doesn't kill it, it simply just grows another head and the beast still acts as before.

Yes you are right, it has been admitted that some parties have happened but the whole point you are missing is that very few (only one I believe, Kate Joseph) has admitted to being at one!

The apologies have all been about the upset that they have caused others or that they said a few words at them (a leaving do and a thank you to staff).

Johnson apologised that he didn't realise that one he walked through wasn't a work meeting.  

Gray's investigation is to establish the facts, what parties did happen and determine if any Covid laws have been broken at the time and if so who had broken them.  How does she establish that a party is a party and not something else - a works meeting or gathering.  How can she, the police or anyone else prove it to be?

They may well have happened but what hard evidence is there to prove such and that who was there and broke the rules at the time?

If the evidence or admissions of guilt are there great, if not can she PROVE that they actually were parties and not 'work gatherings'?

It's one thing thinking someone is guilty it is quite another thing entirely proving that they are guilty.

That's how the system works and that;s what I stand by, that all people are innocent until proven guilty.

If seeking the facts and establishing the truth before determining one's guilt is wrong then I've lived my life by the wrong credo.

I rather been seen as a simplistic fool who believes in giving everyone an equal chance to defend themselves and tell their side of the story and why they did what they did than a self-righteous political and civil rights activist who has proved himself  to be nothing other than a hate filled hypocrite such as yourself.

Due process rather than mob rule and lynchings.

What hard evidence are you looking for? Do you need a video of Boris with his tie knotted round his head necking a can of strongbow for you to admit there might have been a party.

There was an email inviting 100 staff members of Downing Street to bring their own booze to an after work event in the garden. 

The government have admitted it happened.

That was not allowed under the Covid rules at the time.

Honestly, what is it you want to see to prove a party took place?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

That's rich coming from you, the person who fights for people rights and equality but all that goes out the window immediately you've decided someone is wrong when just hearing only one side of a story - being the one that suits your preconceived and biased agenda.

You're an utter hypocrite - you don't practice what you preach.

You've outed yourself as such.

Christ, you are just thick really aren’t you. 

What does equal rights have to do with this? 

Did all the members of the public you lambasted for breaking the rules also get a senior civil servant investigating them before they had to pay hefty fines?

Could the parties the public held have actually been ‘work events’? 

What’s equal about that you moron?

The difference is they were caught in the act of breaking the law.

Gray/the police will have to prove that Johnson or whoever broke the law!

You call me a moron and you are too stupid to even realise that there is a difference between caught in the act and not being caught in the act!!!

It's fine believing they did - I believe they did - but that's not how the world works.

You have to prove they did or that they confess they did.

That's what this is about - due process - going about things legally, being the right way to do so.

You're anger and hatred at Johnson is because he doesn't do due process - he acts outside the law - you are no better than him if you too reject and disrespect due process too.

This isn't me defending Johnson, the Tory Party, Ken Anderson or whatever else - it's about me defending and upholding how the system works - which works in the same way for ALL of us.

You're too dumb to see that with all the blind hatred and prejudices you have.

Sluffy wrote:

Fwiw there was a time when that could so easily have been me in respect to my brother but fortunately he pulled through, so don't try playing the emotional card on me - I've been there.



(Sincerely hope your 'friend' isn't you btw).

I find your remark about 'playing the emotional card' deeply offensive. Do you seriously think
 I'd use someone's death to to engage in some kind of perverse one-upmanship.
I'm done with you, and I'm done with Nuts. It's no longer fun.

boltonbonce wrote:
I find your remark about 'playing the emotional card' deeply offensive. Do you seriously think
 I'd use someone's death to to engage in some kind of perverse one-upmanship.
I'm done with you, and I'm done with Nuts. It's no longer fun.

Steady on Bonce, there’s not only Sluffy on here, please don’t over react, others value your contributions. We can all get sensitive over this because it’s the sensitivity that’s causing the problems but that’s no reason for you to leave the site. Obviously it’s your choice but I for one hope you stay.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

He's not my mate and the sooner he's gone the better but as I've pointed out previously his most likely successor has publicly backed Johnson's behaviour and cutting off the head of the Hydra (see Greek mythology) alone doesn't kill it, it simply just grows another head and the beast still acts as before.

Yes you are right, it has been admitted that some parties have happened but the whole point you are missing is that very few (only one I believe, Kate Joseph) has admitted to being at one!

The apologies have all been about the upset that they have caused others or that they said a few words at them (a leaving do and a thank you to staff).

Johnson apologised that he didn't realise that one he walked through wasn't a work meeting.  

Gray's investigation is to establish the facts, what parties did happen and determine if any Covid laws have been broken at the time and if so who had broken them.  How does she establish that a party is a party and not something else - a works meeting or gathering.  How can she, the police or anyone else prove it to be?

They may well have happened but what hard evidence is there to prove such and that who was there and broke the rules at the time?

If the evidence or admissions of guilt are there great, if not can she PROVE that they actually were parties and not 'work gatherings'?

It's one thing thinking someone is guilty it is quite another thing entirely proving that they are guilty.

That's how the system works and that;s what I stand by, that all people are innocent until proven guilty.

If seeking the facts and establishing the truth before determining one's guilt is wrong then I've lived my life by the wrong credo.

I rather been seen as a simplistic fool who believes in giving everyone an equal chance to defend themselves and tell their side of the story and why they did what they did than a self-righteous political and civil rights activist who has proved himself  to be nothing other than a hate filled hypocrite such as yourself.

Due process rather than mob rule and lynchings.

What hard evidence are you looking for? Do you need a video of Boris with his tie knotted round his head necking a can of strongbow for you to admit there might have been a party.

There was an email inviting 100 staff members of Downing Street to bring their own booze to an after work event in the garden. 

The government have admitted it happened.

That was not allowed under the Covid rules at the time.

Honestly, what is it you want to see to prove a party took place?

That email and the confession of Josephs are the only two known parties to have definitely taken place - Gray's investigation is far wider than that - I think she is looking in to ten or so.

What she will get from her investigation will run much deeper than who attended them - the email will show for instance who knew about the party but didn't attend.

The collateral 'damage' may well be far, far greater than nailing a few junior civil servants who might have been amongst the thirty or so in Boris garden that evening.

I don't understand your sheer reluctance not to want to find out all the facts???

You've made up your mind already they are all as guilty as sin but apart from the memo and Josephs admission, what do you know if anything about the other parties - who organised them, who attended, who gave approval for them, who tried to stop them, etc, etc???

You've shown yourself not to be fair and equal to all.

You've decided they are all guilty without hearing their sides of the story.

You've proved yourself to be a hypocrite and not to uphold your own stated values!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

What hard evidence are you looking for? Do you need a video of Boris with his tie knotted round his head necking a can of strongbow for you to admit there might have been a party.

There was an email inviting 100 staff members of Downing Street to bring their own booze to an after work event in the garden. 

The government have admitted it happened.

That was not allowed under the Covid rules at the time.

Honestly, what is it you want to see to prove a party took place?

Troy, as you say, the government has admitted it happened and Boris admitted and apologised for his short visit into the garden to thank those attending. You can put whatever spin you want on it but as Sluffy says, the investigation by Sue Grey is regarding all such gatherings whether “parties” or “meetings” and until we have all the findings, we just don’t know. I’m sure that action will be taken where necessary which you may find acceptable or not, but whatever comes out of it there’s no way that I believe Boris will go. There’s been a culture slip in No10 and just as Boris may have been partly responsible for that he must also be given the opportunity to rectify it.

What spin have I put on it? You, myself and even Sluffy (mixed in with his mountains of fluff) actually say the same thing - the party’s happened.

Exactly what is it you need Sue Gray to confirm?

Sluffy wrote:


You have to prove they did or that they confess they did.

They have confessed, that’s the entire point. If they hadn’t then I’d understand what you’re waiting for from Gray - but we have the facts. 

As I’ve asked the equally myopic WS63 - what exactly are you waiting for Gray to confirm? Do either of you seriously believe these events were work?

boltonbonce wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Fwiw there was a time when that could so easily have been me in respect to my brother but fortunately he pulled through, so don't try playing the emotional card on me - I've been there.

(Sincerely hope your 'friend' isn't you btw).

I find your remark about 'playing the emotional card' deeply offensive. Do you seriously think
 I'd use someone's death to to engage in some kind of perverse one-upmanship.
I'm done with you, and I'm done with Nuts. It's no longer fun.

I don't know what you would do, I don't know you in real life do I.

I do know that my brother came close to death and that I can fully empathise with anyone who has lost a loved one during Covid lockdowns.

This place is regrettably dominated by one-upmanship's and certainly been devoid of humour for years now since Anderson and Brexit.

I don't like the site how it is and certainly didn't miss it when I had to take a couple of months off recently.

You're a grown man and you do what you have to do.

All the best to you.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
You have to prove they did or that they confess they did.

They have confessed, that’s the entire point. If they hadn’t then I’d understand what you’re waiting for from Gray - but we have the facts. 

As I’ve asked the equally myopic WS63 - what exactly are you waiting for Gray to confirm? Do either of you seriously believe these events were work?

We don't have the facts though!!!

We really know just a couple or so...

Don't you read what I wrote...

...clearly not!

Sluffy wrote:That email and the confession of Josephs are the only two known parties to have definitely taken place - Gray's investigation is far wider than that - I think she is looking in to ten or so.

What she will get from her investigation will run much deeper than who attended them - the email will show for instance who knew about the party but didn't attend.

The collateral 'damage' may well be far, far greater than nailing a few junior civil servants who might have been amongst the thirty or so in Boris garden that evening.

I don't understand your sheer reluctance not to want to find out all the facts???

boltonbonce wrote:
I find your remark about 'playing the emotional card' deeply offensive. Do you seriously think
 I'd use someone's death to to engage in some kind of perverse one-upmanship.
I'm done with you, and I'm done with Nuts. It's no longer fun.

okocha wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:
I find your remark about 'playing the emotional card' deeply offensive. Do you seriously think
 I'd use someone's death to to engage in some kind of perverse one-upmanship.
I'm done with you, and I'm done with Nuts. It's no longer fun.

Sluffy wrote:This place is regrettably dominated by one-upmanship's...

Just to prove my point.

Sluffy wrote:

We don't have the facts though!!!

We really know just a couple or so...

Don't you read what I wrote...

...clearly not!

Stop avoiding the question, what is it you want confirmed?

As I understand it, Johnson chose Gray to be the one to investigate.We know his integrity can't be trusted.

How impartial is she likely to be? I believe he employs her. Johnson's enthusiasm for waiting for her report is cause for suspicion in itself.

We have all seen the videos, emails and admissions of guilt with "apologies". Allegra Stratton's apology (with subsequent resignation) is the only one I trust to be sincere. The rest smack of following the Tory script. Boris' highly implausible explanations and excuses are about as convincing as Bob Mortimer's stories on Would I Lie To You!

As I understand it, the final report gets delivered to Johnson first before being released to the press and public. His reputation and whole history strongly suggest tinkering with the findings.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

We don't have the facts though!!!

We really know just a couple or so...

Don't you read what I wrote...

...clearly not!

Stop avoiding the question, what is it you want confirmed?

I've answered your question so stop going round and round in circles as per your usual modus operandi.