How is the Tory government doing?

Sluffy asked "why bother to hold an internal inquiry - just throw them all in jail" perhaps with a touch of sarcasm.

All the public want is that they are treated equally - none of the thousands of people who were fined for breaking the same rules had the luxury of a graywash.

But they did have a police investigation  and 95% of those investigated were subsequently fined - in some cases heavily.

Is it not just plain wrong that the police are not investigating this or even putting off an investigation until they hear from Sue? What has she got to do with anything and moreover why should they even listen to anything she has to say when she finally does say something?

She has ZERO criminal law experience  - and nobody else had the privilege of telling the police to hold off until their work colleague decided if they'd been naughty or not.

It's clear that Boris et al are getting special treatment.

Secondly, they have admitted to multiple offences so perhaps the penalty should be much harsher  then the heavy fines handed out to people who broke the law once? So maybe jail is not out of the question?

wanderlust wrote:Sluffy asked "why bother to hold an internal inquiry - just throw them all in jail" perhaps with a touch of sarcasm.

All the public want is that they are treated equally - none of the thousands of people who were fined for breaking the same rules had the luxury of a graywash.

But they did have a police investigation  and 95% of those investigated were subsequently fined - in some cases heavily.

Is it not just plain wrong that the police are not investigating this or even putting off an investigation until they hear from Sue? What has she got to do with anything and moreover why should they even listen to anything she has to say when she finally does say something?

She has ZERO criminal law experience  - and nobody else had the privilege of telling the police to hold off until their work colleague decided if they'd been naughty or not.

It's clear that Boris et al are getting special treatment.

Secondly, they have admitted to multiple offences so perhaps the penalty should be much harsher  then the heavy fines handed out to people who broke the law once? So maybe jail is not out of the question?

I keep finding myself having to applaud your postings. Very well said.

wanderlust wrote:Sluffy asked "why bother to hold an internal inquiry - just throw them all in jail" perhaps with a touch of sarcasm.

All the public want is that they are treated equally - none of the thousands of people who were fined for breaking the same rules had the luxury of a graywash.

But they did have a police investigation  and 95% of those investigated were subsequently fined - in some cases heavily.

Is it not just plain wrong that the police are not investigating this or even putting off an investigation until they hear from Sue? What has she got to do with anything and moreover why should they even listen to anything she has to say when she finally does say something?

She has ZERO criminal law experience  - and nobody else had the privilege of telling the police to hold off until their work colleague decided if they'd been naughty or not.

It's clear that Boris et al are getting special treatment.

Secondly, they have admitted to multiple offences so perhaps the penalty should be much harsher  then the heavy fines handed out to people who broke the law once? So maybe jail is not out of the question?

No, no, no!

I assume you've again not bothered to read the thread properly without jumping in!

The police investigated on going events and found them to be Covid breaking issues when they got there.

I know of NO investigation by the police to look it to any alleged and PAST events.

The alleged 'events' that Gray is investigating are NOT any different than any other alleged past events reported by you, me or anyone else in the eyes of the Met Police (and presumably all other police forces) because their policy has been to NOT investigate ANY retrospective alleged breaches.

They have been consistent in this and NOT simply making an exception because it is Boris that might be involved.

The police have applied themselves equitably throughout and this is not a matter of showing fear or favour in this, or any other, instance.

Whether this policy of not investing alleged and past Covid breaking events is right or wrong is a separate issue entirely.

As for sending folk to jail, that's just laughable and you showing ignorance of how the law and judicial system works!

The penalties are set out in the legislation and no magistrate or judge can make an order other than that which (under this particular legislation) are stipulated, which are fixed penalty amounts.

Nobody has been sent to jail for attending a lockdown party.

And no the government has not admitted several breaches - the email invite to 100 people is I believe acknowledged by them to be one (have they actually come out and said it though?  Genuine question.) but that is the only one they've admitted to, though the Department of transport seems to say they held one and also although Allegra Stratton resigned over it, I don't believe anyone as yet admitted that 'that' party happened (although if it did it complied with Covid rules at the time - is that so Boris!)

(Kate Joseph admits to hosting one for her leaving do and the Conservative Party admits one at their HQ - but these are nothing to do with the government as such).

That's why it is important that someone gets the facts of what did happen, who was involved and which people knew about them (even though they may not have attended).

I'm completely flummoxed as to why no one on here seems to want to wait for the actual facts to be determined and most on this thread have already decided Boris and his mates are guilty without actually knowing the other side of the story first?

So much for some of the self-righteous on here!

No wonder why then that I did say this, is it?

wanderlust wrote:Sluffy asked "why bother to hold an internal inquiry - just throw them all in jail" perhaps with a touch of sarcasm.

Sluffy wrote:

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

No, I’m afraid you haven’t. 

Specifically what do you need confirming? Only two facts matter, was there a party and what were the rules at the time.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

No, I’m afraid you haven’t. 

Specifically what do you need confirming? Only two facts matter, was there a party and what were the rules at the time.

I don’t think anybody can dispute that certain events took place Troy, which do appear to have broken Covid rules and I’m sure Sue Grays report will confirm that. I’m also sure that heads will roll but I’m not at all sure that Boris will be amongst them and let’s face it, that’s the only one you’re interested in isn’t it?

Some opposition members reckon it would be better for them electorally if blundering, untrustworthy Boris stayed in post.....but, of course, less beneficial for the country.....

Whitesince63 wrote:

I don’t think anybody can dispute that certain events took place Troy, which do appear to have broken Covid rules and I’m sure Sue Grays report will confirm that. I’m also sure that heads will roll but I’m not at all sure that Boris will be amongst them and let’s face it, that’s the only one you’re interested in isn’t it?

Honestly, i dont know if Sunak or Truss would be better for the country. Truss is a weak populist, Sunak is economically conservative and we need a progressive approach to the covid recovery. The damage done over the last 10 years has been enormous, time for the whole rotten party to go.

You've got to either love this....or be utterly repulsed.....

https://twitter.com/i/status/1481658794438443012

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

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

No, I’m afraid you haven’t. 

Specifically what do you need confirming? Only two facts matter, was there a party and what were the rules at the time.

Have I not...

Well what's this then...?

Sluffy wrote: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.

‘All the facts’ is not specific.

Yet again, what do you need confirming? Are you suggesting the party in May was a work event?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:‘All the facts’ is not specific.

Yet again, what do you need confirming? Are you suggesting the party in May was a work event?

It's specific enough for the Met Police with whom Gray has been in contact with, so I don't give a fuck about what you think.

And I don't know if there was a party in May - it seems obvious that there was - particularly with the email - but the government has not admitted to there being one - although they haven't denied it either - and the closest I can find to anything official is Boris claim that he 'implicitly believed it was a work event'.

Do you know for certain if there was one, if so kindly link me to your source.

I'm aware lots of weasel words on a number of occasions have been used such as apologising for the 'impression' or for those who 'suffered' during lockdown, etc, but I can't seem to pin down the government actually admitting that any party has been held - the closest I can get is the Department of Transport's apology for their Christmas party.

That's why Gray is doing the job she is - to establish the actual facts as to what has happened.

That's how the system of justice works - you know, innocent until proven guilty and NOT guilty until proven innocent which quite clearly is what you've already decided!

So much for treating everyone fairly and equally, eh?

Hypocrite.

The government have admitted there was an event, your incredibly naive to buy that Boris thought he was attending a work meeting - he’s just dodging admitting the truth (as he’s made a career out of doing).

Also, this is an internal investigation and nothing to do with our justice system. Why are you rattling on about equal rights? Do you have any grasp of the process here?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The government have admitted there was an event, your incredibly naive to buy that Boris thought he was attending a work meeting - he’s just dodging admitting the truth (as he’s made a career out of doing).

Also, this is an internal investigation and nothing to do with our justice system. Why are you rattling on about equal rights? Do you have any grasp of the process here?

Yes an 'event'.

I might be naive about lots of things but I do know admitting to an 'event' is not the same as admitting to a 'party'.

That's the whole point of Gray's investigation - to determine the facts.

If she can find the facts to prove it was a party then great, if she can't then it doesn't matter what you, I or uncle Tom Cobley may think/believe, she can't give any evidence of such to the police to take it any further.

That's not a whitewash it is simply lack of being able to prove conclusively that there was.

And let's not fool ourselves, you have already condemned him and the Tory Party as being in the wrong - without any actual proof yet.  I don't doubt your view is right but believing that isn't the same as proving that and if you can't prove it, in the eyes of the law that person is innocent.

That's how it works - that IS the process

And that's why we stopped hanging people because every now and again, and even though we really, really, really believed someone was guilty - sometimes they're just simply weren't.

Haha the fact your reduced to clutching at straws trying to distinguish between a party and an event just shows how low you and the government have sunk on this.

Here’s what Reynolds invited the staff to for reference, maybe drinks was code for work meeting and by booze he meant notepad? Hey, you can’t prove he didn’t mean that can you Sluffy?!

Anyway, please do dig around in the COVID rules at the time and show me the exception allowing staff to socialise - 

“ Hi all, after what has been an incredibly busy period we thought it would be nice to make the most of the lovely weather and have some socially distanced drinks in the No10 garden this evening.

“Please join us from 6pm and bring your own booze!”

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Haha the fact your reduced to clutching at straws trying to distinguish between a party and an event just shows how low you and the government have sunk on this.

Here’s what Reynolds invited the staff to for reference, maybe drinks was code for work meeting and by booze he meant notepad? Hey, you can’t prove he didn’t mean that can you Sluffy?!  

Anyway, please do dig around in the COVID rules at the time and show me the exception allowing staff to socialise - 

“ Hi all, after what has been an incredibly busy period we thought it would be nice to make the most of the lovely weather and have some socially distanced drinks in the No10 garden this evening.

“Please join us from 6pm and bring your own booze!”

Are you on drugs?

I'm not clutching at any straws?

I've said that I reckon it was a party too haven't I???

The bottom line is that 'believing' it to be so counts for nothing - you need to PROVE it is so.

Gray's job is to gather whatever facts she can about this and the other 'event's'.

Not my fault you want to portray yourself on here as some political and social activists fighting for fairness and equality, then go shooting yourself in your foot by predetermining guilt without having any knowledge of the full facts and not waiting for the investigation to take place beforehand first - and clearly already decided that if Gray can't establish the proof, then it will be a government cover up!!!

Yeah very fair minded of you.

You're a total hypocrite mate.

Let's not bother judging on the facts, we know what happened, they're all corrupt!

That's proper equality that is - judging them simply by their (political) colour!

Is there such a thing as political racism because if there is you're one of them!

Let due process take its course.

What's so hard about that?

Judge on the facts not your clear political bias, prejudice and obvious hatred of them.

I can't wait to read Gray's report - I don't doubt she will tell the truth.

I mean all this social media bullshit about Boris will change anything he doesn't like - laughable really.

How do you think it would look for him if he did and she resigned because of it.

He'd be politically dead in the water within the day if he did that wouldn't he?

I'm still waiting for you linking me to your source that there definitely was a party in May btw...

I won't hold my breath though.

Hypocrite.

As I said before, it's obvious that Boris is aware that Sue's report is going to give him enough wriggle room to have a real go at getting himself off the hook. All his cabinet ministers parrot the phrase "We have to wait for Sue's report" and make constant references to what a "fine, upstanding, totally impartial and wonderful all round human being she is"

 As everyone else has said,  this report is totally pointless and irrelevant. We're not thick, we know and can see what has been happening and it has already been admitted and attested to as being true and more than enough to make Johnson's position totally untenable. 

This is so obviously another of Boris's stupid, pathetic and unbelievably lame "Just say this and stick to it under any circumstances" type excuses where he thinks we must all be complete idiots. But it buys him time and when Sue's report eventually surfaces I think we'll all quickly become accustomed to the phrase "a long established drinking culture in Downing Street" and how Boris will use this to try and place the blame for all this elsewhere.

This is interesting, I like this guy and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he isn't proved to be pretty much on the button when we finally get this "crucial" report.

Sluffy wrote:



Are you on drugs?

I'm not clutching at any straws?

I've said that I reckon it was a party too haven't I???

The bottom line is that 'believing' it to be so counts for nothing - you need to PROVE it is so.

Gray's job is to gather whatever facts she can about this and the other 'event's'.

Not my fault you want to portray yourself on here as some political and social activists fighting for fairness and equality, then go shooting yourself in your foot by predetermining guilt without having any knowledge of the full facts and not waiting for the investigation to take place beforehand first - and clearly already decided that if Gray can't establish the proof, then it will be a government cover up!!!

Yeah very fair minded of you.

You're a total hypocrite mate.

Let's not bother judging on the facts, we know what happened, they're all corrupt!

That's proper equality that is - judging them simply by their (political) colour!

Is there such a thing as political racism because if there is you're one of them!

Let due process take its course.

What's so hard about that?

Judge on the facts not your clear political bias, prejudice and obvious hatred of them.

I can't wait to read Gray's report - I don't doubt she will tell the truth.

I mean all this social media bullshit about Boris will change anything he doesn't like - laughable really.

How do you think it would look for him if he did and she resigned because of it.

He'd be politically dead in the water within the day if he did that wouldn't he?

I'm still waiting for you linking me to your source that there definitely was a party in May btw...

I won't hold my breath though.

Hypocrite.

If you’re so bothered about ‘due process’ you should be pushing for an independent inquiry or a police investigation - Maugham’s running a campaign for this so maybe you could join forces?

The government (or you) couldn’t care less about actually getting to the facts though, we see that with the consistent truth twisting you resort to, clutching at straws to find a way to escape blame.

See Lord Kerslakes comments reported today - this isn’t difficult to understand:

“When the inquiry started, it was about one event and we didn’t know that the prime minister was involved. Now we find that there were over a dozen events and not only is the prime minister implicated but he is front, back and centre of what happened.

“You cannot have a situation where a civil servant will make a pronouncement that could end the office of a prime minister. The consequence is that Sue Gray will inevitably have to stop short of that.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/16/concerns-grow-that-scale-of-partygate-is-now-too-great-for-sue-grays-inquiry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

T.R.O.Y. wrote:If you’re so bothered about ‘due process’ you should be pushing for an independent inquiry or a police investigation - Maugham’s running a campaign for this do maybe you could join forces?

The government (or you) couldn’t care less about actually getting to the facts though, we see that with the consistent truth twisting you resort to, clutching at straws to find a way to escape blame.

See Lord Kerslakes comments reported today - this isn’t difficult to understand:

“When the inquiry started, it was about one event and we didn’t know that the prime minister was involved. Now we find that there were over a dozen events and not only is the prime minister implicated but he is front, back and centre of what happened.

“You cannot have a situation where a civil servant will make a pronouncement that could end the office of a prime minister. The consequence is that Sue Gray will inevitably have to stop short of that.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/16/concerns-grow-that-scale-of-partygate-is-now-too-great-for-sue-grays-inquiry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Ah at last a link to your source to as there was a party in May on which you've used to be judge and jury about all this BEFORE the investigation has taken place....  

Oh wait, no it's not...!

Let's nail a few myths shall we.

Sue Gray is 65 years old, she'll be retiring on full civil servants pension soon, so she's not bothered about her future career advancement.

She's also previous to her current job been passed over for the top civil service job in Northern Ireland, so she probably knew she was at the top of her career progression anyway.

She also was formerly the director-general of the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office.

There's absolutely no reason for her not to report her findings honestly and truthfully - and stand by them.

Her task is -

to carry out investigations into:
● allegations made of a gathering in No10 Downing Street on 27 November
2020;
● a gathering at the Department for Education on 10 December 2020; and
● allegations made of a gathering in No10 Downing Street on 18 December
2020.
Where there are credible allegations relating to other gatherings, these may be
investigated.
The primary purpose will be to establish swiftly a general understanding of the nature
of the gatherings, including attendance, the setting and the purpose, with reference
to adherence to the guidance in place at the time.
If required, the investigations will establish whether individual disciplinary action is
warranted.

The work will be undertaken by officials in the Cabinet Office at the direction of the
Cabinet Secretary, with support from the Government Legal Department.
The team will have access to all relevant records, and be able to speak to members
of staff.
As with all internal investigations, if during the course of the work any evidence
emerges of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence, the matter will be referred
to the police and the Cabinet Office’s work may be paused. Matters relating to
adherence to the law are properly for the police to investigate and the Cabinet Office
will liaise with them as appropriate.
Any matters relating to the conduct of Ministers should follow the process set out in
the Ministerial Code in the normal way.
All Ministers, Special Advisers, and civil servants will be expected to co-operate with
the investigations.

http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2021-0936/Terms_of_Reference_Cabinet_Secretary_Investigations_December2021.pdf

"Her report, which ministers say will be published shortly, is likely to be a largely factual account of any gatherings, and she cannot rule on whether lockdown laws were broken.

The findings will be made public, but not necessarily the full report.

Gray’s report is set to be a largely factual account about parties that were held in Downing Street. It may not assign individual blame but might refer disciplinary action to others. It may touch on the role of the prime minister, but it isn’t Gray's place to judge his behaviour. The bare facts alone could prove deeply damaging, and how she sets them out, and the language used, may indicate her view on the seriousness of what has happened and the wider culture that allowed it to happen.

At the heart of the problem with Gray’s inquiry is the prime minister. It is not Sue Gray’s place to judge whether Boris Johnson misled the House of Commons. His ministerial code rightly says that it "is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity". Determining whether the facts in Gray’s report mean that the prime minister has breached the code should be the remit of Lord Geidt, the adviser on ministerial interests.

Ultimately, Johnson will be judged by his peers, his party and the voting public – where polls and by-elections suggest it is already having an effect. They will not be assessing him on whether his defence is watertight, but on his leadership during a national crisis in the face of massive public anger and accusations of hypocrisy.

But whether led by Gray or by Geidt, no investigation can decide what the consequences should be for ministers – up to and including the prime minister, these are always politically determined.

It is the prime minister who is accountable for No.10’s code of conduct, whatever part individual officials or advisers took in organising parties. Whatever Sue Gray finds about what parties were held, it is Boris Johnson who must deal with the hangover".

Let's pause for a second and deal with Maugham.

I'm surprised you've not worked him out yet, I can only imagine he's got you under his spell, like he has with many thousands of other social media addicted Tory haters.

He, in my opinion (I say that because I don't want to be sued) is that he is little better than a conman playing on the weaknesses of those who believe anything bad against the Tory Party.  His game is to whip up mutual anger over something, file for a JR and seek crowd funding - which let me point out is never returned even if the court case never ends up happening, or if it is won and the government pays GLP legal costs in full.

Ask yourself how much has he raised by doing this over the last year (GLP's account for the year previous showed something like £2m received in this way), how much court action has cost - he claims four cases, four wins - in which case that would be nothing and probably more importantly what it has all achieved.

Has he really held government to account?  What has the three verdict's achieved in the cases I'm aware of - publish contract awards within 30 days, the government looked dodgy on awarding a contract and in last case they didn't even achieve a verdict because although the civil service got it technically wrong in what they did, it did not effect the outcome.

Is that £2m worth of value for crowdfunders money?

Has anything changed significantly from his three 'wins'?

Anyway he's making a fuss about the Met Police - and started a JR and ka-ching. ka-ching, the money has come flooded in for him again!

Money for old rope really isn't it?

All this will be long over by the time it ever comes to court, Johnson almost certainly will no longer be PM, probably left politics completely by then - yet Maugham will have another hefty wodge of cash in the GLP bank account that he doesn't need to give back.

He plays this trick every time and mugs like you fall for it every time too and give him your cash again!!!



Anyway back to the point, should Gray be heading this investigation or the police?

Well the correct answer really is neither!

" Impartial civil servants that serve the government of the day cannot be the right people to investigate allegations of prime ministerial wrongdoing. However, the one person who does have licence to judge the most senior ministers in the government, Lord Geidt, does not have the power to launch his own inquiry. An independent adviser with statutory backing could have jumped into the issue, ensuring the civil service could stay focused on its own actions".

Let me repeat this sentence again...

"But whether led by Gray or by Geidt, no investigation can decide what the consequences should be for ministers – up to and including the prime minister, these are always politically determined".

"Whether it is through another urgent question, PMQs or the prime minister coming to the House, it is likely MPs will find an opportunity to debate Gray’s report – though there is no fixed mechanism for a vote. Conservative MPs will be looking at both Gray’s report, but also how the prime minister responds himself".

So in conclusion it is what it is, Gray is impartial and will report honestly, she has nothing to lose by doing so and nothing to gain by hiding stuff.

Her job is to report the facts and it is the facts and how Johnson reacts to them, that will determine his future - politically he's already a dead man walking even if he isn't immediately brought down by all this.

They say a week in politics is a long time but the damage has been done for Boris and he will continue to be toxic for the Tory brand from now on - and rule Two in politics remember, is to do what is necessary to stay in power - and the Conservative Party will!

The extract's I've posted above come from here -

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/downing-street-party-gray-report

Can't wait for Gray's findings to be published!!!

I look forward to you sending me that link before then though...

Bloody hell, fun Sunday morning for you writing all that up!

Sluffy, if you believe that invite from Reynolds was for a work event then you are horribly naive. By all means wait for Sue Gray’s report, I know you’re praying it will give you and the government another weasel excuse as to why not following the rules was entirely justified.

Fingers crossed for you lad, who knows how you’d react to running out of straws to clutch.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Bloody hell, fun Sunday morning for you writing all that up!

Sluffy, if you believe that invite from Reynolds was for a work event then you are horribly naive. By all means wait for Sue Gray’s report, I know you’re praying it will give you and the government another weasel excuse as to why not following the rules was entirely justified.

Fingers crossed for you lad, who knows how you’d react to running out of straws to clutch.

I've nothing better to do and with knowing where to look and copying and pasting most of the stuff it didn't really take me that much time to post.

I'm not sure what your schtick is really, I'm not a supporter of the government, the Tory Party, Johnson or anyone else, neither am I a hater of Starmer, Corbyn, the Labour Party, etc, etc.

I simply value honesty and truth - and prejudging and holding prejudices and bias simply doesn't lend themselves to finding that - they simply lead to 'your' version's of what they may be...

...Anderson's a crook, ...politicians give their mates PPE contracts, ...Gray's report will be changed by Boris, etc, etc, etc.  

You can call me 'naive' and 'clutching at straws' as often as you like - I'm not -  and it doesn't bother me even if you did believe that, although I expect you don't and it's just your attempts to wind me up.

As for Reynolds invite, yes it does appear to be an invite to a party - I've said that right from the very beginning...

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.

...so it is blatantly obvious that you are desperately trying to have a pop at me for something I've agreed with from the moment I heard about it!!!

You're just playing games - I know that, you know that and it just pisses everyone else off on here.

I've no idea why you want to do so though?

You have made yourself look a muppet by being an hypocrite.

I guess you don't like to have been caught out and that's what your current little game is about this time.

Really pathetic of you if it is.