Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 12:11:05 PM

Login with username, password and session length

A serial lawbreaking liar - Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson scandal thread 2

Started by Fambo Number Mive, April 19, 2022, 01:46:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Cerys on April 21, 2022, 04:46:37 PMWell, at least they've voted to open the investigation into the lying cunt.

Exactly this is very good and will cause him big problems. Also as mentioned earlier lots of conciliatory discussion in the commons between all sides about him having to go, whilst most of his hoorah-henry lickspittles didn't even show up.

Ferris

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on April 21, 2022, 05:18:58 PMPublic bodies have a months purdah when they are not meant to publicly release information that might prejudice voting. 

Yes, the second half of my post you quoted directly addresses why I think that's potentially not good and could be very easily misused.

Like I say - I get the value of it in principle, but I'm pretty wary of it (at best) because of how easily it can be used to cover things up. As with all similar laws, there's a chance of abuse of power. The Official Secrets Act was used to threaten the police who arrested Cyril Smith red handed in the 1980s, for example. I think it is still in effect actually.

Edit: yeah it is https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/17/met-police-cyril-smith-child-sex-abuse-official-secrets-act

TrenterPercenter

I think you are talking about something completely different ferris (All them chaos emeralds has gone to your head).

It just means for a month twice every 5 years public bodies have to be extra careful about prejudicing voting behaviour.  The other option is that the rightwing press can lie, smear and make up that the leader of the opposition is a peado a week before an election.

TrenterPercenter

I relevant bit from a twitter thread on it all.

Quote5.2.2 Decisions must balance the need to conduct policing business with potential impact on the outcome of the election. For example, delaying an announcement could itself influence the political outcome or impede operational effectiveness.

There is an argument here that not releasing information is political interference, sure but releasing information is also political interference so it is about which politically interferes more, which for the met is clearly the latter. 

Ferris

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on April 21, 2022, 06:15:41 PMI think you are talking about something completely different ferris (All them chaos emeralds has gone to your head).

It just means for a month twice every 5 years public bodies have to be extra careful about prejudicing voting behaviour.  The other option is that the rightwing press can lie, smear and make up that the leader of the opposition is a peado a week before an election.

You are simply jealous of my Chaos Emeralds.

I think we are talking at cross purposes - I meant that, for a month (and the one that counts! Right before an election!), it has a potentially sinister use to suppress any news that might construed as negative. Then for the next 4 years and 10 months, the government can johnson (verb: to bluster and ignore) it's way through any scandals because it has fixed terms, then shut up the information network for another month prior to the next election.

You probably couldn't do it indefinitely, but people have short memories and I could see how it would have a warping, pro-government impact longer term.

Ferris

It's one of those things I've always found odd: "brought down by scandal" as if scandal is a constitutional or legal concept, or a person with a cricket bat that says "SCANDAL" on it and will give you a going over if deemed necessary.

You can just ignore scandal and it eventually goes away. It has to, for boring operational reasons - if you are senior enough, you are still the central authority who makes governmental decisions and papers can't run the same headlines forever.

Governor Northam in Virginia just ignored his scandals until they went away. My own former mayor Rob ford is another proof of concept - if someone's office is only policed by an honour system, then someone with zero honour can ignore historical convention and do what they like. If it wasn't for stomach cancer, he would have contested the next election and probably won. His brother used his fame to become the premier of Ontario.

Scandal is overrated.

Anyway I'm a broken record so I'll shut up now. My point is that unless machinating tories stab him in the back, Johnson will keep going because there's no real way to stop him, and isn't that the true meaning of democracy?

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Ferris on April 21, 2022, 07:17:52 PMI think we are talking at cross purposes - I meant that, for a month (and the one that counts! Right before an election!), it has a potentially sinister use to suppress any news that might construed as negative. Then for the next 4 years and 10 months, the government can johnson (verb: to bluster and ignore) it's way through any scandals because it has fixed terms, then shut up the information network for another month prior to the next election.

Possibly, but institutions could also be used (and would more likely be used by the government) to propagandise the public in their favour prior to election.  The press is only under purdah for one day also.

The risks are far greater in removing it imo.

Ferris

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on April 21, 2022, 07:31:23 PMPossibly, but institutions could also be used (and would more likely be used by the government) to propagandise the public in their favour prior to election.  The press is only under purdah for one day also.

The risks are far greater in removing it imo.

Yeah probably, no real way to say but I'd never heard of it until today (shows what I know) and reading about it makes me uneasy, to say the least.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Ferris on April 21, 2022, 07:26:18 PMAnyway I'm a broken record so I'll shut up now. My point is that unless machinating tories stab him in the back, Johnson will keep going because there's no real way to stop him, and isn't that the true meaning of democracy?

There is a way to stop him, vote him out.  If the May elections are poor for him and he then  the results of the inquiry come in, and he gets some more fines then it is hard to see how he survives.  That isn't to say he won't hold on, he will, and whats more he will still likely win an election but on a massively reduced majority and then he is done anyway.  He is supported by a load new blood cronies who are wedded to him in his death cult get rid of them and it's over for him. 

People just have to want this though and focus on this part of the plan.

Ferris

I think we're going back and forth about increasingly small differences but largely agree so I'll leave it there! Interesting stuff though, appreciate the back and forth.

superthunderstingcar

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on April 21, 2022, 05:18:58 PMStop getting purdah wrong all of you (I've been purdah'd loads of times I'm so cool - basically you get an email saying purdah mate, remember, purdah).
The New Avengers was alright, but I preferred the Mrs Peel era.

Blinder Data

Like many I've been swithering on Johnson's chances of survival, but I think I can see how he might be gone by the end of the year, even without a replacement lined up. We know that Johnson will not resign whatever he is found guilty of, so he has to be forced out. I think Tory MPs will eventually find the pressure from the media and public impossible to ignore.

In the next few months, we will have bad local election results, more police fines and a scathing Sue Gray report. Johnson will constantly try to shift focus but he will be unsuccessful and Starmer/Labour will benefit.

The priviliges committee has a Tory majority but will they want to look out of step with the public? Will they want to give the PM the all-clear, or is that even possible? I doubt it, so he will be found to have misled parliament. Men in grey suits put him under pressure to resign or at least set a date, he refuses, and someone (Jeremy Hunt?) stands to replace him. Johnson's support dries up during the leadership contest so he's knocked out and then it's a Tory bloodbath over who succeeds.

I could well imagine him in 2023 blaming the wokerati for unfairly kicking him out of office - on his new show on Talk TV :/

Fambo Number Mive

It is worrying how four of the seven MPs on the committee are today, and did Bryant say something about not taking part? They could just ask him to apologise again but I doubt it  as you say even with the massive Tory majority on the committee they will need to be seen to have done something.

I think Johnson's comments about how long the war in Ukraine will last are partly intended to try and buy some more time for himself, but will it work? I think once Johnson goes the Tories will try and revert to Cameron style Toryism which is slightly less open in its shitiness with less focus on attacks on "identity politics". It will still be shit for 99% of the UK but it might be harder for Starmer to fight against.

Wonder if Johnson will be on HIGNFY again. Probably not, more likely to have a show on TalkTv as you say or even GB News.

Cerys

Be great if after a vote of no confidence his inevitable refusal to step down results in the Queen being activated and sacking him.

greencalx

Even better if it were her dying wish. That'd be one for the history books!

Sebastian Cobb

From Dylan Jones, who employed Johnson as the motoring editor of GQ:

https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1517939381557940228

Can't really get mad at this, if someone else did it as a lazy writer with no ambition to run the country my attitude would be 'fair play'.

Cerys

Quote from: greencalx on April 23, 2022, 09:08:40 AMEven better if it were her dying wish. That'd be one for the history books!

If she does one useful thing in her autumn years, it must be this.

magister

According to the Mail on Sunday, Boris' Oxford-honed debating powers can be negated by a woman saying, "Oi, wanna see my pants?"

The alternative is that he's a turd given the most expensive educational polishing money could buy and is actually a bit dim.

Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: magister on April 24, 2022, 12:12:27 PMAccording to the Mail on Sunday, Boris' Oxford-honed debating powers can be negated by a woman saying, "Oi, wanna see my pants?"

The alternative is that he's a turd given the most expensive educational polishing money could buy and is actually a bit dim.

I reckon both these things are probably true, just that Rayner isn't doing the thing they're accusing her of.

pigamus

Up to now I think some Tories genuinely thought "it" would all blow over - not realisng that "it" can't because the story isn't really Partygate but Johnson himself, so this will just go on and on and on, because he's not capable of changing. And they're as sick of it now as the rest of us. But challenging him and getting rid of him are two different things - if they can't find a candidate to rally round he'll probably survive. My faith in them not fucking up a leadership challenge is not high.

magister

Oh, I don't think for a second that she is.

Rayner left school at 16, so obviously there's no way she could outmanoeuvre this maestro of the debating chamber without using her evil feminine wiles.

Our Prime Minister. A dishevelled semi-priapic sex yeti. It's like being ruled by Winnie the Pooh's evil twin

Ferris




Quote from: magister on April 24, 2022, 12:12:27 PMAccording to the Mail on Sunday, Boris' Oxford-honed debating powers can be negated by a woman saying, "Oi, wanna see my pants?"

The alternative is that he's a turd given the most expensive educational polishing money could buy and is actually a bit dim.


Martin Van Buren Stan

That is so bizarre. I can only imagine a whip or something sent them both the same message to tweet by accident.

Ferris

I suspect they've been sent the same brief but are both so lazy they've not bothered to change it at all and have submitted it word for word.

Like this basically, but they have staff competent enough not to copy the first bit of the agent's message:


JamesTC


JamesTC


Ferris

Quote from: JamesTC on April 24, 2022, 02:00:40 PMMail on Sunday = anonymous

I think the idea is he doesn't like the anonymous stuff on twitter sent by nobodies, but articles run by large tory tabloids are fine