So did you believe him or not?
Printable View
So did you believe him or not?
Believe who on what sorry? Couple of strands going on there.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
Ah. I wondered if you thought DC was telling the truth when he said the reason he drove 60 miles to and from a popular tourist attraction on his wife's birthday with his young son in the back was to test his eyesight.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I can believe it was a factor, yes. I'd have done similar in his shoes. Though I also thought it was a rather silly story in the first place, though nowhere near as inane as the myopic nonsense the media is going on about today.
True—Johnson is more intelligent in a number of ways, and obv has more political & executive experience. Both have a knack for exploiting the weaknesses of an ignorant, stupid, and bigoted polity—and the corrupt chancers that represent them. And both are, of course, lacking in character.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
No one would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, believe that going for a drive to 'test eyesight' was a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
Which is why it was a lie as plain as little Suzy who said no mommy I didn't eat the cookies, when there is an open cookie jar beside her, a half-eaten cookie in her hand, and chocolate chips all around her little mouth.
The difference between little Suzy and Cummings is that little Suzy doesn't yet know any better.
Seems like another unnecessarily complex answer to a very simple question. You don't seem to want to answer it. Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Well you might want to believe it if you were a Tory member. You don't, of course, but you tow the partisan line because lying and cheating is more important than having a labour government for a few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
I might have done the same in his shoes.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
You'd put the lives of your wife and children at risk so you could test your eyesight? Jesus Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No don't be silly!Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
I might have done a short drive before a cross country drive to get my eye in.
The saga continues:
Twitter Link
Let's face it, this is a pretty bad employee. Just can't seem to manage even the bare minimum level of professionalism.
"May" from the same partisan institution that swallowed Carole Codswallop's lies, persecuted Grimes and other Leavers for many years, handing down judgements against many Leavers that they'd broken the law during the Referendum.
Until it got escalated to a real court where it was all thrown out, every single case, and the Electoral Commission were forced to apologise and pay damages to everyone they had slandered and persecuted for years.
Big yawn.
Yesterday in PMQs Clown "Leader of the Opposition" Keir spent 6 questions banging on about wallpaper. Boris managed to passionately talk about Council Tax, Housing, Jobs, Nurses, Police and more in his answers. Oh and the fact that the ventilators that the UK bought last year, which Clown "Leader of the Opposition" Starmer chose to attack last week, were being sent to India to save lives over there. :up:
To which Clown "Leader of the Opposition" Keir spoke about wallpaper, wallpaper, wallpaper, continuing about a week of this bollocks now.
Twitter Link
"But his wallpaper ..."
Keir doesn't have enough presence to be a clown.
Good point! :haha:
Starmer mentioned wallpaper once, in a preamble, not a question. His questions were perfectly reasonable given the recent reports and investigations.
It's a nice try, but Johnson was awful yesterday. Waffled on incoherently, keeping the fact checkers employed, and lost his temper. Starmer's lack of wit and passion showed, but the questions were fine.
Both need to do better.
Come on even you can't believe that surely? He asked six different questions about wallpaper that the taxpayer hasn't been charged for and that the Prime Minister repeatedly said he'd paid for himself.
There's plenty of subjects he could ask about, the economy, vaccines, jobs . . . even what we could do to help India if he wanted to be a statesman instead of domestic. But no, wallpaper, wallpaper, wallpaper.
Though this is a funny suggestion on how Keir could be given a personality:
Twitter Link
I know you wouldn't care if a Conservative PM was in an anonymous person's pocket, but others do, and it'd be nice if you respected that. Allegations have been made and Johnson and No.10 are clearly avoiding answering the direct questions.
It wasn't just about the flat. The first question was about whether Johnson said he'd rather see bodies piled high than go into another lockdown.
Yes, I would have liked Starmer to dedicate a couple of his questions on other things, but it's not something I expect, really. It's a damaging story ans they want to try and capitalise. You'd expect the same if it were the other way round.
If it makes you feel better, Starmer is an idiot for having his picture taken today in John Lewis holding wallpaper. Especially stupid when his point was that Johnson avoided meetings by choosing decor. Really stupid and shows a lack of integrity.
Edit: And the problem with "the PM said he paid for it himself" is that nobody believes him. As you said, honesty isn't his strong suit. If you make a career built on lying, even to the Queen, nobody is going to believe you when something like this comes up.
Oh wow, just seen the image of him holding wallpaper you're talking about. Global pandemic going on, 7 days to go before the biggest set of elections before the next General Election and this is what he's doing? :haha: It reminds me of the Edstone.
Twitter Link
You're right the first question was on the "piled high" comment to be fair, which got an unequivocal denial. So yes it was five questions on wallpaper not six.
You're right its rather priced in Boris has a rather colourful relationship with the truth. He's a politician. How do you tell when a politician is lying?Spoiler:
Of all the issues going on in the world, do you really think that who paid for wallpaper that the PM says he paid for is a "damaging" story? If so you and I have a different view on what's damaging.
I'd say the PM lying about receiving money is damaging, yes. There's a reason there's rules about accepting gifts etc for people with public functions (and generally in private companies as well).
Oh, don't do that "all politicians lie so Johnson's alright be me, LOL" thing. It's the lamest excuse in the book used by people as a last resort when their partisan heroes are caught. I can't imagine it working on a five year old.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It might be damaging. It depends who paid for the refurbishment. We should investigate and find out, because these people work -for- us. If somebody -did- give Johnson some cash, as long as it's within the rules and there's no clear links to said person receiving some benefit - it's all good, it's not damaging at all and some people will look a bit silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Your standards for public office are so incredibly low, it's worrying that you're allowed to be a member of a political party.
Well we have an election in seven days time so it will be interesting to see how damaging its been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
The baseline should be that Labour should make gains from the Tories, since the last time these local elections were held was 2017 when the Tories were 20+ points in the lead, and we're currently only ~10 points in the lead. But we'll see, maybe Boris paying for wallpapers will see Keir Starmer become Britain's preferred PM?
As I've said recently, Johnson is untouchable. It won't be damaging in terms of votes at all. Even if Putin himself gave Johnson the cash, or beit some Jewelry company that got awarded PPE contracts, he'd still smash it in the polls. You have nothing to worry about.
Come on the first part was clearly a joke. No five year olds necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
As for an investigation, yes there is one going on to double-check the rules were followed and if any further declarations are necessary they'll be made. That was already confirmed before PMQs. Which makes banging on about it all the more bizarre, there's actual issues that affect people that could be discussed instead of wallpaper invoicing which an investigation is happening into already.
It's not bizarre to try and get some answers to an issue like this in Hansard.
To ask a question once perhaps, that's what was done with the silly piled high comment that got answered "No".
A week before elections, to ask five times in a row about wallpaper that the taxpayers didn't pay for. Yes that's pretty unusual. I haven't done it yet but I bet that if you check Hansard the week before prior elections you wouldn't get five questions in a row about something like wallpaper privately paid for.
Worth remembering that when Tony Blair was PM for context, he got a similar flat wallpapered at a cost of £650,000 which was billed to the taxpayers: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/61665.stm
I take it you're referring to this?Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0HxgXqX...g&name=360x360
I don't think he lost his temper; I believe it was a performance—similar to other performative displays of feigned anger from conservatives who've been caught fucking around eg. in the US (Kavanaugh, Graham, etc). It's a simple innovation that appears to play well with the recently activated authoritarians among the conservative base.
It's genuinely embarrassing that they refuse to address the issue of the undeclared loan; it gives the impression that their only guiding principle is "what can we get away with?" rather than any higher standards of integrity in public office. Under Blair, an undeclared loan famously led to the resignation of two MPs. Irvine's comically lavish refurbishment of the Lord Chancellor's offices at the taxpayer's expense rightly and understandably sparked a massive scandal, which saw Irvine grilled by a Parliamentary committee. That is how it should be. Johnson isn't being criticized for spending £30k of the taxpayer's money on refurbishing the flat; he isn't even being criticized for the classist comments attributed to Symonds. He's being criticized for not declaring a large loan from a Tory donor, as well as for responding to the justified criticism in a Trumpian manner that furthers the ongoing erosion of important norms of integrity in politics. There is no principled conservatism in the UK right now—there's just a bunch of chancers looking out for their own asses, trying to see how much graft and vandalism they can get away with. It's so incredibly undignified that it genuinely makes me sad for all your sakes. I reckon you share some of that sadness, if your disappointed tone is anything to go by.
What absolute bollocks. :rolleyes:
It does sadden me, yes, and I agree with your assessment of the current Tory party. Johnson has done so much damage but it's not just about him. So many in the party have enabled him, that, if I were going to be living a long life, I couldn't see myself voting for them again for a very, very long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
For some people, this cabinet could be found lying, cheating and breaking laws and it doesn't matter. What matters most is that Labour don't get into power for a few years. But honestly, would it really be that bad? Is it really worth enabling such rancid behaviour from the people we want as role models to our children?
The country's gone nuts.
In fact, not an anonymous person, the person in question is one David Ellis Brownlow (known aliases include "Lord Brownlow", "Baron Brownlow" and "Lord Baron Brownlow of Shurlock Row"), one of the biggest Tory party donors that we know about.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
And you'll never guess what his companies are involved with, unless you guessed "public sector contracts".
Oh yes I saw that being spread by far-left types on Twitter yesterday, alleging 'sleaze' because allegedly it was him. And allegedly he's received public sector contracts, all dating from when Theresa May was PM, not Boris. Also he was a donor to such illuminaries as: Theresa May's constituency office and the anti-Brexit Stronger In campaign. That would be the Stronger In campaign that I believe you supported, and Boris opposed. He was made a Lord by Theresa May as part of her resignation list. https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-boris-johnson
Is that the same person you're talking about?
It's difficult to break the cycle of voluntary self-debasement once it gets started. Unprincipled Trumpian/Johnsonite behaviour is so deeply entrenched among the core of safe conservative MPs with long careers ahead of them—as well as among the coming crops of young Tories who've only had these rotten role models to look up to—that even GE losses wouldn't be enough to trigger a realignment (see also GOP doubling down on Trumpism after his defeat). From a purely selfish perspective, this sort of behavior is very advantageous to those who embrace it, with few downsides (even if you get busted). On top of that, there are all the dysfunctional things ordinary people are wont to do to cope with the shame of knowing they sacrificed what little respectability they may have enjoyed in order to defend a dangerously incompetent, racist liar and cheat; it might not even be about opposing Labour's politics anymore. England is looking at a generational struggle to right the ship.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
Jfc when will you leftists get it into your thick skulls that buying a Prime Minister is a legitimate business investment—even if he happens to be an otherwise useless wanker?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Nah, most of those fuckers are prepared to run the country solely in the interests of the rich on, as it were, a pro-bono basis, paying for one is a mugs game. Especially one noted for going back on his word constantly.
Okay tbf it may be more about the power and the humiliation, and he did get his money back after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I wonder whether it's possible for any of the three Investigations into what happened to actually get to the bottom of what happened. If somebody did give Johnson the money, can they go as far as checking bank accounts? I also assume Johnson is pretty experienced and would cover his tracks well. I expect a "we found no evidence of wrong doing" type thing.
Murky though things may seem right now, the most proximal steps shouldn't be difficult to follow. Brownlow has confirmed the payments to CCHQ, and there does not seem to be any doubt that CCHQ paid for part of Johnson's refurbishment—prior to receiving the payments from Brownlow. CCHQ is said to have been repaid by Johnson. So, afaict, what we know without any major investigation is that the money trail looks like this (not in chronological order): CCHQ —> Johnson (in practice) —> CCHQ <— Brownlow. From Brownlow's perspective, it's just two unremarkable donations—although the greater part of his donation was intended for the refurbishment/renovation, and that part has not been declared, by neither the Conservative Party nor by Johnson.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
It honestly does look incredibly clownish; all of this nonsense could've been avoided if Johnson's & Symonds's appetites hadn't been larger than their wallet, and/or if Johnson had just handled it like a normal person—ie. by paying for the whole endeavour with his own money + a regular (and properly declared) loan. I get the feeling people involved with CCHQ are somewhat more culpable than Johnson, but I dunno. I guess the difficult parts for investigators will be to sort out who knew what when, when the payments were made and how, and (if people do their jobs) why the PM couldn't/wouldn't pay upfront but was able to do so only a few months later.
Your obsession over pathetic minutae when it comes to decorations not charged to the taxpayer is really bizarre, especially when you contrast it with charging £650,000 on wallpaper for one residence and billing it to the taxpayer and suggesting that's a better way to handle it :bulb:. Johnson could have simply charged this to the taxpayer, but he chose not to do so. :up: Finally its worth noting of course that the updated register of interests for this period hasn't even been published yet, and its already been confirmed that any declarations that need to be made will be made in due course and published in the updated register when it is published. So really much ado about nothing.
Meanwhile . . .
Twitter Link
Jesus, you're actually defending graft? You really are a Trumpster.
Serious question: What exactly would BlowJob have to do to finally get you to admit that he has done something bad? Shoot someone?
Again, dude, there's a pretty good reason that any kind of financial flow outside the established and allowed ones are forbidden for politicians. Especially for leader of states.
Plus, it's pathetic that you think paying 650,000 pounds for wallpaper is okay.
Is the bloody flat that big, or does someone living in it have Russian taste?
The pictures of the Cameron's make it look like a bedsit.