FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The most unsocially distanced party in the UK
The most unsocially distanced party in the UK
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Apparently, it's just been revealed, Johnson joked to No 10 staff at a leaving do: this is the most unsocially distanced party in the UK right now. Hmmm... Johnson assured us all the rules were followed. And he assured us there were no parties. And he assured us if there were parties he wasn't at them. And he claimed he didn't know he broke the rules. Which lie are we supposed to believe again? It's hard to keep track. " was this the party Sunak attended ? | |||
| |||
"Jail the lying tory bstrd" As well as wee Sturgeon Krankie | |||
"Jail the lying tory bstrd As well as wee Sturgeon Krankie" 
Yes, don't worry about Boris, look at this distraction over here. | |||
"Jail the lying tory bstrd As well as wee Sturgeon Krankie
Yes, don't worry about Boris, look at this distraction over here."If only we could all be as perfect as you socialist voters | |||
"Jail the lying tory bstrd As well as wee Sturgeon Krankie
Yes, don't worry about Boris, look at this distraction over here.
If only we could all be as perfect as you socialist voters"True, you could try harder though | |||
"Jail the lying tory bstrd As well as wee Sturgeon Krankie
Yes, don't worry about Boris, look at this distraction over here.
If only we could all be as perfect as you socialist voters
True, you could try harder though "Some may say it’s you socialist who need to try harder then maybe just maybe you might win an election someday | |||
"Jail the lying tory bstrd As well as wee Sturgeon Krankie
Yes, don't worry about Boris, look at this distraction over here.
If only we could all be as perfect as you socialist voters"For the millionth time. Not everyone who is critical of this self serving bunch of narcissists is a Labour supporter or socialist. Why aren't you angry at the Tories running the country into the ground? | |||
"Jail the lying tory bstrd As well as wee Sturgeon Krankie
Yes, don't worry about Boris, look at this distraction over here.
If only we could all be as perfect as you socialist voters
For the millionth time. Not everyone who is critical of this self serving bunch of narcissists is a Labour supporter or socialist. Why aren't you angry at the Tories running the country into the ground?"Ha ha brilliant bet you also voted remain | |||
"Jail the lying tory bstrd As well as wee Sturgeon Krankie
Yes, don't worry about Boris, look at this distraction over here.
If only we could all be as perfect as you socialist voters
For the millionth time. Not everyone who is critical of this self serving bunch of narcissists is a Labour supporter or socialist. Why aren't you angry at the Tories running the country into the ground?
Ha ha brilliant bet you also voted remain "So you're glad the country is being run into the ground? Yes, I voted not to leave the EU. Do you associate people who are critical of the government with being more savy about brexit too? Or do you associate compliant Conservative voters with falling for the brexit lies and propaganda? There does seem to be a strong correlation, I'll give you that. Not sure where you're going with this. | |||
"Jail the lying tory bstrd As well as wee Sturgeon Krankie
Yes, don't worry about Boris, look at this distraction over here.
If only we could all be as perfect as you socialist voters
True, you could try harder though
Some may say it’s you socialist who need to try harder then maybe just maybe you might win an election someday "There is more to life than ‘winning ‘ on election | |||
"Jail the lying tory bstrd As well as wee Sturgeon Krankie
Yes, don't worry about Boris, look at this distraction over here.
If only we could all be as perfect as you socialist voters
For the millionth time. Not everyone who is critical of this self serving bunch of narcissists is a Labour supporter or socialist. Why aren't you angry at the Tories running the country into the ground?
Ha ha brilliant bet you also voted remain "Are you one of those people who still think Brexit was a good idea? Such a rare breed | |||
"Jail the lying tory bstrd As well as wee Sturgeon Krankie
Yes, don't worry about Boris, look at this distraction over here.
If only we could all be as perfect as you socialist voters
For the millionth time. Not everyone who is critical of this self serving bunch of narcissists is a Labour supporter or socialist. Why aren't you angry at the Tories running the country into the ground?
Ha ha brilliant bet you also voted remain "OMG another devastating critique….you really wiped the floor with them there….well done!!! | |||
"Jail the lying tory bstrd As well as wee Sturgeon Krankie
Yes, don't worry about Boris, look at this distraction over here.
If only we could all be as perfect as you socialist voters
For the millionth time. Not everyone who is critical of this self serving bunch of narcissists is a Labour supporter or socialist. Why aren't you angry at the Tories running the country into the ground?
Ha ha brilliant bet you also voted remain
OMG another devastating critique….you really wiped the floor with them there….well done!!! "What was that quote about chess and pigeons? Oh yes. Never play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over. Then shits all over the board. Then struts around like it won. I saw it applied to Trump supporters before, but the words seem somewhat relevant here too. | |||
| |||
"Jail the lying tory bstrd As well as wee Sturgeon Krankie" ------ Aww, what has wee Nicola done to upset you? Was she at a party during lockdown and then lied about it..? --------- | |||
"Side note: Johnson's apparently now living in a Tory donor's twenty million quid home in London. Nothing to see here. No corruption etc" So the rich wife of a rich man has let an ex-prime minister stay in her otherwise empty house. How is that an example of corruption? And why is the value of the house important? | |||
"Side note: Johnson's apparently now living in a Tory donor's twenty million quid home in London. Nothing to see here. No corruption etc So the rich wife of a rich man has let an ex-prime minister stay in her otherwise empty house. How is that an example of corruption? And why is the value of the house important?" Some people might say hugely expensive gifts might influence political figures. But who cares, right? | |||
"Side note: Johnson's apparently now living in a Tory donor's twenty million quid home in London. Nothing to see here. No corruption etc So the rich wife of a rich man has let an ex-prime minister stay in her otherwise empty house. How is that an example of corruption? And why is the value of the house important?" Well if nothing else, it made me look for articles. The best I can come away with is the oppositions comments are hilarious  | |||
"Side note: Johnson's apparently now living in a Tory donor's twenty million quid home in London. Nothing to see here. No corruption etc So the rich wife of a rich man has let an ex-prime minister stay in her otherwise empty house. How is that an example of corruption? And why is the value of the house important? Some people might say hugely expensive gifts might influence political figures. But who cares, right?" Where was the thread on MPM Connect Ltd? | |||
"Side note: Johnson's apparently now living in a Tory donor's twenty million quid home in London. Nothing to see here. No corruption etc" "So the rich wife of a rich man has let an ex-prime minister stay in her otherwise empty house. How is that an example of corruption? And why is the value of the house important?" "Some people might say hugely expensive gifts might influence political figures. But who cares, right?" If it had happened when Boris was still Prime Minister, then I would agree with you. But it didn't. Is he worth influencing nowadays, and if he is, does he have any sway over anything? I ask again, why is the value of the house important? | |||
"Side note: Johnson's apparently now living in a Tory donor's twenty million quid home in London. Nothing to see here. No corruption etc So the rich wife of a rich man has let an ex-prime minister stay in her otherwise empty house. How is that an example of corruption? And why is the value of the house important? Some people might say hugely expensive gifts might influence political figures. But who cares, right? If it had happened when Boris was still Prime Minister, then I would agree with you. But it didn't. Is he worth influencing nowadays, and if he is, does he have any sway over anything? I ask again, why is the value of the house important?" I did answer that already. Because it's a hugely expensive gift. And yes Johnson is not PM anymore. But how do we know he didn't do favours for the person who gave him this huge gift previously? How do we know he won't do favours in the future if he once again gets the power to do so? That's rather the issue. | |||
"Side note: Johnson's apparently now living in a Tory donor's twenty million quid home in London. Nothing to see here. No corruption etc" "So the rich wife of a rich man has let an ex-prime minister stay in her otherwise empty house. How is that an example of corruption? And why is the value of the house important?" "Some people might say hugely expensive gifts might influence political figures. But who cares, right?" "If it had happened when Boris was still Prime Minister, then I would agree with you. But it didn't. Is he worth influencing nowadays, and if he is, does he have any sway over anything? I ask again, why is the value of the house important?" "I did answer that already. Because it's a hugely expensive gift. And yes Johnson is not PM anymore. But how do we know he didn't do favours for the person who gave him this huge gift previously? How do we know he won't do favours in the future if he once again gets the power to do so? That's rather the issue." But the house isn't a gift, she hasn't given it to Boris. Why quote the house's value instead of the monthly rental, which is all that he's getting? (Assuming that he isn't paying rent, which we don't actually know.) Your right that we don't know whether Boris did some favours for the person whilst he was in office. We also don't know whether they are just friends spending some time together. If you want to have a go at Boris for sleaze or corruption, there are plenty of examples to choose from. This particular story seems a bit of a stretch to me. It's almost as though the £20m bit is only being mentioned to tug at people's 'I hate the rich bastards' strings, so that they don't notice that the story is rather weak. | |||
"Side note: Johnson's apparently now living in a Tory donor's twenty million quid home in London. Nothing to see here. No corruption etc So the rich wife of a rich man has let an ex-prime minister stay in her otherwise empty house. How is that an example of corruption? And why is the value of the house important? Some people might say hugely expensive gifts might influence political figures. But who cares, right? If it had happened when Boris was still Prime Minister, then I would agree with you. But it didn't. Is he worth influencing nowadays, and if he is, does he have any sway over anything? I ask again, why is the value of the house important? I did answer that already. Because it's a hugely expensive gift. And yes Johnson is not PM anymore. But how do we know he didn't do favours for the person who gave him this huge gift previously? How do we know he won't do favours in the future if he once again gets the power to do so? That's rather the issue. But the house isn't a gift, she hasn't given it to Boris. Why quote the house's value instead of the monthly rental, which is all that he's getting? (Assuming that he isn't paying rent, which we don't actually know.) Your right that we don't know whether Boris did some favours for the person whilst he was in office. We also don't know whether they are just friends spending some time together. If you want to have a go at Boris for sleaze or corruption, there are plenty of examples to choose from. This particular story seems a bit of a stretch to me. It's almost as though the £20m bit is only being mentioned to tug at people's 'I hate the rich bastards' strings, so that they don't notice that the story is rather weak." You missed an apostrophe and an "e" in there. | |||
"Side note: Johnson's apparently now living in a Tory donor's twenty million quid home in London. Nothing to see here. No corruption etc So the rich wife of a rich man has let an ex-prime minister stay in her otherwise empty house. How is that an example of corruption? And why is the value of the house important? Some people might say hugely expensive gifts might influence political figures. But who cares, right? If it had happened when Boris was still Prime Minister, then I would agree with you. But it didn't. Is he worth influencing nowadays, and if he is, does he have any sway over anything? I ask again, why is the value of the house important? I did answer that already. Because it's a hugely expensive gift. And yes Johnson is not PM anymore. But how do we know he didn't do favours for the person who gave him this huge gift previously? How do we know he won't do favours in the future if he once again gets the power to do so? That's rather the issue. But the house isn't a gift, she hasn't given it to Boris. Why quote the house's value instead of the monthly rental, which is all that he's getting? (Assuming that he isn't paying rent, which we don't actually know.) Your right that we don't know whether Boris did some favours for the person whilst he was in office. We also don't know whether they are just friends spending some time together. If you want to have a go at Boris for sleaze or corruption, there are plenty of examples to choose from. This particular story seems a bit of a stretch to me. It's almost as though the £20m bit is only being mentioned to tug at people's 'I hate the rich bastards' strings, so that they don't notice that the story is rather weak." We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? | |||
"Side note: Johnson's apparently now living in a Tory donor's twenty million quid home in London. Nothing to see here. No corruption etc So the rich wife of a rich man has let an ex-prime minister stay in her otherwise empty house. How is that an example of corruption? And why is the value of the house important?" The gift is worth about £10,000 per month as rent that does not have to be paid. Johnson is still an MP so it's quite a gift to be accepting. He still has a vote and, amazingly, remains influential within the party. Johnson is also a London MP with his constituency only a few miles away in Uxbridge. | |||
"Side note: Johnson's apparently now living in a Tory donor's twenty million quid home in London. Nothing to see here. No corruption etc So the rich wife of a rich man has let an ex-prime minister stay in her otherwise empty house. How is that an example of corruption? And why is the value of the house important? Some people might say hugely expensive gifts might influence political figures. But who cares, right? If it had happened when Boris was still Prime Minister, then I would agree with you. But it didn't. Is he worth influencing nowadays, and if he is, does he have any sway over anything? I ask again, why is the value of the house important? I did answer that already. Because it's a hugely expensive gift. And yes Johnson is not PM anymore. But how do we know he didn't do favours for the person who gave him this huge gift previously? How do we know he won't do favours in the future if he once again gets the power to do so? That's rather the issue. But the house isn't a gift, she hasn't given it to Boris. Why quote the house's value instead of the monthly rental, which is all that he's getting? (Assuming that he isn't paying rent, which we don't actually know.) Your right that we don't know whether Boris did some favours for the person whilst he was in office. We also don't know whether they are just friends spending some time together. If you want to have a go at Boris for sleaze or corruption, there are plenty of examples to choose from. This particular story seems a bit of a stretch to me. It's almost as though the £20m bit is only being mentioned to tug at people's 'I hate the rich bastards' strings, so that they don't notice that the story is rather weak." as I understand it he's put 10k pm is a gift in the register. His spokes person also says he pays some rent. With others estimating the true market value is 30k pm. And it's that gap which some are saying needs to be investigated. | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that." We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. "OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too?" No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening." "Boris hatred" is not all that surprising. If I were a resident of his Uxbridge constituency is be wondering why he didn't want to live there at the very least. However, it seems that you agree in principle that large payments to any legislator raise concerns. No one has actually said anything other than it stinks of corruption. Your perception that a £120,000 per year provision to a still influential figure within the Conservative party is trivial is interesting. This is a man being talked of as making another run for Prime Minister. | |||
| |||
"No one has actually said anything other than it stinks of corruption." I don't think it does stink of corruption. This is a rich woman letting a friend of hers stay in one of her spare houses at 'mates rates'. "Your perception that a £120,000 per year provision to a still influential figure within the Conservative party is trivial is interesting." But it wasn't a provision, and it wasn't £120,000. It was at worst letting him off a £30,000 bill, since he only stayed there for 3 months. That £30,000 is based on what he declared in the register, so it's probably an over estimate. I suggest we all wait for the results of the investigation, and then criticise him when we know the facts. | |||
"No one has actually said anything other than it stinks of corruption. I don't think it does stink of corruption. This is a rich woman letting a friend of hers stay in one of her spare houses at 'mates rates'. Your perception that a £120,000 per year provision to a still influential figure within the Conservative party is trivial is interesting. But it wasn't a provision, and it wasn't £120,000. It was at worst letting him off a £30,000 bill, since he only stayed there for 3 months. That £30,000 is based on what he declared in the register, so it's probably an over estimate. I suggest we all wait for the results of the investigation, and then criticise him when we know the facts. " I would suggest calling out people who do wrong immediately. If you haven't noticed that it has become common practise to deny and avoid in the hope that people lose interest and something else comes up, then you haven't been paying attention. Partygate is one example of this. Another is the current strikes where the Government have insisted that they have nothing to do with setting pay... | |||
"I would suggest calling out people who do wrong immediately." I would agree, however I would prefer that the evidence was gathered and it was proven that wrongdoing had taken place, before I call someone out for it. | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening." That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that." "We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening." "OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too?" "No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening." "That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol" It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about." A lot more words to justify a lousy position, I'm afraid. | |||
| |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about." Because, Boris | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris "Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy. A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html"So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee. Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further. That just screams corruption. | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption."That's not quite true. He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed. He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council. The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all. If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it. | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it."He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side. Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight. | |||
"He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side. Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight." But didn't you see? He pointed to "the Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages". Obviously it's corruption because they possessed a messaging ability that isn't open to public scrutiny. What more evidence could you want? You'd never catch a member of any other party owning an unmonitored WhatsApp account, no siree. | |||
| |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight."Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years. | |||
"He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side. Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight. But didn't you see? He pointed to "the Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages". Obviously it's corruption because they possessed a messaging ability that isn't open to public scrutiny. What more evidence could you want? You'd never catch a member of any other party owning an unmonitored WhatsApp account, no siree." Someone from another party using their influence on behalf of someone providing them with a private favour would be equally at odds with appropriate behaviour. The difference here is that Boris Johnson has done this on more than one occasion and lied about it and been found out after the event. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me for the umpteenth time you are suffering from a form of Stockholm syndrome. | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight.
Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years."I'll make this really simple for you. Can you or anyone else prove that he knew? | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight.
Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years.
I'll make this really simple for you.
Can you or anyone else prove that he knew?"No. I'll make this simple for you. Has he lied and been found out on multiple occasions? | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight.
Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years.
I'll make this really simple for you.
Can you or anyone else prove that he knew?
No.
I'll make this simple for you. Has he lied and been found out on multiple occasions?"Have I denied that he has indeed lied in previous cases? That doesn't automatically make him guilty on this occasion. It doesn't work like that. | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight.
Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years.
I'll make this really simple for you.
Can you or anyone else prove that he knew?
No.
I'll make this simple for you. Has he lied and been found out on multiple occasions?
Have I denied that he has indeed lied in previous cases?
That doesn't automatically make him guilty on this occasion. It doesn't work like that."But it does show a level of untrustworthiness and willingness to lie which makes it more likely that he is guilty! I rest my case m’lud! | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight.
Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years.
I'll make this really simple for you.
Can you or anyone else prove that he knew?
No.
I'll make this simple for you. Has he lied and been found out on multiple occasions?
Have I denied that he has indeed lied in previous cases?
That doesn't automatically make him guilty on this occasion. It doesn't work like that."No, but it makes anything that he says completely unreliable. The FACT still remains that he informed the relevant authorities about one event, the loan guarantee, whilst not informing them about the other, the application to the British Council. It stinks of corruption. That's actually the point as much as anything else. There must not be the appearance of corruption. That doesn't require "evidence" it requires perception of probity. He was the bloody Prime Minister! Event after event means that perception is long gone and the circumstances of this latest event are very clear. You can't say "yes" he lies do it makes it more likely that he has lied again because you are trying to win an argument rather than address the overall situation. | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight.
Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years.
I'll make this really simple for you.
Can you or anyone else prove that he knew?
No.
I'll make this simple for you. Has he lied and been found out on multiple occasions?
Have I denied that he has indeed lied in previous cases?
That doesn't automatically make him guilty on this occasion. It doesn't work like that.
No, but it makes anything that he says completely unreliable.
The FACT still remains that he informed the relevant authorities about one event, the loan guarantee, whilst not informing them about the other, the application to the British Council.
It stinks of corruption. That's actually the point as much as anything else. There must not be the appearance of corruption.
That doesn't require "evidence" it requires perception of probity.
He was the bloody Prime Minister!
Event after event means that perception is long gone and the circumstances of this latest event are very clear.
You can't say "yes" he lies do it makes it more likely that he has lied again because you are trying to win an argument rather than address the overall situation."I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm saying without proof, I would not find anyone 'guilty' Maybe that's just me, but I actually thought we still lived by innocent until proven guilty. | |||
"But it does show a level of untrustworthiness and willingness to lie which makes it more likely that he is guilty! I rest my case m’lud!" And this is why judges don't read out the list of the defendant's prior convictions, until *after* the jury has reached a verdict. Because you can't have a fair trial if people have made their minds up before they hear the evidence. | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight.
Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years.
I'll make this really simple for you.
Can you or anyone else prove that he knew?
No.
I'll make this simple for you. Has he lied and been found out on multiple occasions?
Have I denied that he has indeed lied in previous cases?
That doesn't automatically make him guilty on this occasion. It doesn't work like that.
No, but it makes anything that he says completely unreliable.
The FACT still remains that he informed the relevant authorities about one event, the loan guarantee, whilst not informing them about the other, the application to the British Council.
It stinks of corruption. That's actually the point as much as anything else. There must not be the appearance of corruption.
That doesn't require "evidence" it requires perception of probity.
He was the bloody Prime Minister!
Event after event means that perception is long gone and the circumstances of this latest event are very clear.
You can't say "yes" he lies do it makes it more likely that he has lied again because you are trying to win an argument rather than address the overall situation.
I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm saying without proof, I would not find anyone 'guilty'
Maybe that's just me, but I actually thought we still lived by innocent until proven guilty."This is not about "guilt". This is about the fact that he is untrustworthy and has now made it impossible to take anyone's word for anything. There are many people, even politicians, who do try to do the right thing despite everything but because of Johnson and the people like him the phrase you hear now is "they're all the same". This is not about one event it's about the system being almost irrevocably tainted. Claiming that you are taking some high minded path of needing proof of guilt completely misses the point. The fact this has happened with the two facts, and they are facts, being true gives a very clear perception of corruption and that is the point. You cannot or do not want to see that for some reason. You can claim you aren't arguing but you continue to ignore the actual point. | |||
"But it does show a level of untrustworthiness and willingness to lie which makes it more likely that he is guilty! I rest my case m’lud! And this is why judges don't read out the list of the defendant's prior convictions, until *after* the jury has reached a verdict. Because you can't have a fair trial if people have made their minds up before they hear the evidence." It is not about "guilt". Trust is about the perception of people behaving ethically. Once that has been violated again and again then that perception has been destroyed. It does not require "guilt" to be assigned to see that Johnson received a very large loan guarantee from the same person who was applying for an organisation sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and that does not look appropriate. The "evidence" for those two occurrences exist because they are in the public record. Is anything that I have written here incorrect? | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight.
Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years.
I'll make this really simple for you.
Can you or anyone else prove that he knew?
No.
I'll make this simple for you. Has he lied and been found out on multiple occasions?
Have I denied that he has indeed lied in previous cases?
That doesn't automatically make him guilty on this occasion. It doesn't work like that.
No, but it makes anything that he says completely unreliable.
The FACT still remains that he informed the relevant authorities about one event, the loan guarantee, whilst not informing them about the other, the application to the British Council.
It stinks of corruption. That's actually the point as much as anything else. There must not be the appearance of corruption.
That doesn't require "evidence" it requires perception of probity.
He was the bloody Prime Minister!
Event after event means that perception is long gone and the circumstances of this latest event are very clear.
You can't say "yes" he lies do it makes it more likely that he has lied again because you are trying to win an argument rather than address the overall situation.
I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm saying without proof, I would not find anyone 'guilty'
Maybe that's just me, but I actually thought we still lived by innocent until proven guilty.
This is not about "guilt". This is about the fact that he is untrustworthy and has now made it impossible to take anyone's word for anything.
There are many people, even politicians, who do try to do the right thing despite everything but because of Johnson and the people like him the phrase you hear now is "they're all the same".
This is not about one event it's about the system being almost irrevocably tainted. Claiming that you are taking some high minded path of needing proof of guilt completely misses the point. The fact this has happened with the two facts, and they are facts, being true gives a very clear perception of corruption and that is the point.
You cannot or do not want to see that for some reason. You can claim you aren't arguing but you continue to ignore the actual point."You can claim facts all you like but they're is no FACT that Boris knew his cousin was in the running for this position. The only FACT here is that he had his credit line approved by the ethics committee. | |||
"But it does show a level of untrustworthiness and willingness to lie which makes it more likely that he is guilty! I rest my case m’lud! And this is why judges don't read out the list of the defendant's prior convictions, until *after* the jury has reached a verdict. Because you can't have a fair trial if people have made their minds up before they hear the evidence." What about if the accused has a string of convictions, especially trust based crimes like fraud ect? Shouldn't the court hear that so they know that whatever the defendant says has a good chance of being a lie? | |||
"It is not about "guilt"." Then what is it about? Before this thread was started, no one thought that Boris was trustworthy, ethical, or sleaze-free. The contents of this thread haven't improved anyone's view of Boris' character. No one here has attempted to defend Boris. So why do you keep bringing up new examples? If you're not saying that Boris is guilty, what are you trying to tell us? | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight.
Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years.
I'll make this really simple for you.
Can you or anyone else prove that he knew?
No.
I'll make this simple for you. Has he lied and been found out on multiple occasions?
Have I denied that he has indeed lied in previous cases?
That doesn't automatically make him guilty on this occasion. It doesn't work like that.
No, but it makes anything that he says completely unreliable.
The FACT still remains that he informed the relevant authorities about one event, the loan guarantee, whilst not informing them about the other, the application to the British Council.
It stinks of corruption. That's actually the point as much as anything else. There must not be the appearance of corruption.
That doesn't require "evidence" it requires perception of probity.
He was the bloody Prime Minister!
Event after event means that perception is long gone and the circumstances of this latest event are very clear.
You can't say "yes" he lies do it makes it more likely that he has lied again because you are trying to win an argument rather than address the overall situation.
I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm saying without proof, I would not find anyone 'guilty'
Maybe that's just me, but I actually thought we still lived by innocent until proven guilty.
This is not about "guilt". This is about the fact that he is untrustworthy and has now made it impossible to take anyone's word for anything.
There are many people, even politicians, who do try to do the right thing despite everything but because of Johnson and the people like him the phrase you hear now is "they're all the same".
This is not about one event it's about the system being almost irrevocably tainted. Claiming that you are taking some high minded path of needing proof of guilt completely misses the point. The fact this has happened with the two facts, and they are facts, being true gives a very clear perception of corruption and that is the point.
You cannot or do not want to see that for some reason. You can claim you aren't arguing but you continue to ignore the actual point.
You can claim facts all you like but they're is no FACT that Boris knew his cousin was in the running for this position.
The only FACT here is that he had his credit line approved by the ethics committee."Johnson new him well enough to obtain a personal loan guarantee for £800k but not well enough to know that he was interviewing for the British Council? It was a fact that he obtained a loan guarantee. It was a fact that his guarantor was applying to the British Council. It is a fact that the Foreign Office is that organisation's sponsor. It is a fact that Johnson is a proven multiple liar before and during the period of being in office. It is a fact that he has diminished trust in government and politics below the low levels that they were already at. It is a fact that you are still unable to acknowledge that the point is that the Prime Minister of all people has to be seen to behave correctly and without such clear conflicts of interest. | |||
"It is not about "guilt". Then what is it about? Before this thread was started, no one thought that Boris was trustworthy, ethical, or sleaze-free. The contents of this thread haven't improved anyone's view of Boris' character. No one here has attempted to defend Boris. So why do you keep bringing up new examples? If you're not saying that Boris is guilty, what are you trying to tell us?" It appears that I am telling you, again, that you just argue with me for the sake of arguing with me 
The thread is about Johnson's lack of ethical behaviour in public office.
You are the only person talking about guilt.
Why are you talking about "guilt"? | |||
"It appears that I am telling you, again, that you just argue with me for the sake of arguing with me" You do keep saying that. If you check back in this thread, you'll find that I only responded to you after you had a go at something I said to someone else. It isn't me starting the arguing. "You are the only person talking about guilt. Why are you talking about "guilt"?" I'm not. The only time that I've posted the word 'guilt' was in my last post when I said "If you're not saying that Boris is guilty, what are you trying to tell us". But I'm glad to see that you're now making it clear that you aren't in any way suggesting that Boris is guilty. | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight.
Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years.
I'll make this really simple for you.
Can you or anyone else prove that he knew?
No.
I'll make this simple for you. Has he lied and been found out on multiple occasions?
Have I denied that he has indeed lied in previous cases?
That doesn't automatically make him guilty on this occasion. It doesn't work like that.
No, but it makes anything that he says completely unreliable.
The FACT still remains that he informed the relevant authorities about one event, the loan guarantee, whilst not informing them about the other, the application to the British Council.
It stinks of corruption. That's actually the point as much as anything else. There must not be the appearance of corruption.
That doesn't require "evidence" it requires perception of probity.
He was the bloody Prime Minister!
Event after event means that perception is long gone and the circumstances of this latest event are very clear.
You can't say "yes" he lies do it makes it more likely that he has lied again because you are trying to win an argument rather than address the overall situation.
I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm saying without proof, I would not find anyone 'guilty'
Maybe that's just me, but I actually thought we still lived by innocent until proven guilty.
This is not about "guilt". This is about the fact that he is untrustworthy and has now made it impossible to take anyone's word for anything.
There are many people, even politicians, who do try to do the right thing despite everything but because of Johnson and the people like him the phrase you hear now is "they're all the same".
This is not about one event it's about the system being almost irrevocably tainted. Claiming that you are taking some high minded path of needing proof of guilt completely misses the point. The fact this has happened with the two facts, and they are facts, being true gives a very clear perception of corruption and that is the point.
You cannot or do not want to see that for some reason. You can claim you aren't arguing but you continue to ignore the actual point.
You can claim facts all you like but they're is no FACT that Boris knew his cousin was in the running for this position.
The only FACT here is that he had his credit line approved by the ethics committee.
Johnson new him well enough to obtain a personal loan guarantee for £800k but not well enough to know that he was interviewing for the British Council?
It was a fact that he obtained a loan guarantee.
It was a fact that his guarantor was applying to the British Council.
It is a fact that the Foreign Office is that organisation's sponsor.
It is a fact that Johnson is a proven multiple liar before and during the period of being in office.
It is a fact that he has diminished trust in government and politics below the low levels that they were already at.
It is a fact that you are still unable to acknowledge that the point is that the Prime Minister of all people has to be seen to behave correctly and without such clear conflicts of interest."Oh do behave yourself. Exchanges with you always seem to go the same way. It is a fact that love to tell everyone they're wrong because you don't agree with then. I see it's not just me though, you also like to TELL discretion. It is a fact that the ethics committee said there was no CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST. What more do you want? As was said on the original 'infraction' there's plenty to be angry at Boris for, this one though, is not one of them. | |||
| |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight.
Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years.
I'll make this really simple for you.
Can you or anyone else prove that he knew?
No.
I'll make this simple for you. Has he lied and been found out on multiple occasions?
Have I denied that he has indeed lied in previous cases?
That doesn't automatically make him guilty on this occasion. It doesn't work like that.
No, but it makes anything that he says completely unreliable.
The FACT still remains that he informed the relevant authorities about one event, the loan guarantee, whilst not informing them about the other, the application to the British Council.
It stinks of corruption. That's actually the point as much as anything else. There must not be the appearance of corruption.
That doesn't require "evidence" it requires perception of probity.
He was the bloody Prime Minister!
Event after event means that perception is long gone and the circumstances of this latest event are very clear.
You can't say "yes" he lies do it makes it more likely that he has lied again because you are trying to win an argument rather than address the overall situation.
I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm saying without proof, I would not find anyone 'guilty'
Maybe that's just me, but I actually thought we still lived by innocent until proven guilty.
This is not about "guilt". This is about the fact that he is untrustworthy and has now made it impossible to take anyone's word for anything.
There are many people, even politicians, who do try to do the right thing despite everything but because of Johnson and the people like him the phrase you hear now is "they're all the same".
This is not about one event it's about the system being almost irrevocably tainted. Claiming that you are taking some high minded path of needing proof of guilt completely misses the point. The fact this has happened with the two facts, and they are facts, being true gives a very clear perception of corruption and that is the point.
You cannot or do not want to see that for some reason. You can claim you aren't arguing but you continue to ignore the actual point.
You can claim facts all you like but they're is no FACT that Boris knew his cousin was in the running for this position.
The only FACT here is that he had his credit line approved by the ethics committee.
Johnson new him well enough to obtain a personal loan guarantee for £800k but not well enough to know that he was interviewing for the British Council?
It was a fact that he obtained a loan guarantee.
It was a fact that his guarantor was applying to the British Council.
It is a fact that the Foreign Office is that organisation's sponsor.
It is a fact that Johnson is a proven multiple liar before and during the period of being in office.
It is a fact that he has diminished trust in government and politics below the low levels that they were already at.
It is a fact that you are still unable to acknowledge that the point is that the Prime Minister of all people has to be seen to behave correctly and without such clear conflicts of interest.
Oh do behave yourself. Exchanges with you always seem to go the same way.
It is a fact that love to tell everyone they're wrong because you don't agree with then. I see it's not just me though, you also like to TELL discretion.
It is a fact that the ethics committee said there was no CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
What more do you want? As was said on the original 'infraction' there's plenty to be angry at Boris for, this one though, is not one of them."...and then we get to the attempt at being patronising when you get when you cannot or will not address a point directly. Again, the principle is about being seen to not be corrupt, not having to be proven not to be corrupt. Again the various parties involved were informed of half the information. The loan guarantee to the Prime Minister. They were not informed of the other half of the information, applying for a job in a Government sponsored charity. It's like finding someone not guilty of murder and the blood stained knife with fingerprints being found after the trial. The OP is about which of Boris Johnson's lies to believe. In your case all of them until the deliberate dissembling has been "proven". I'm sure you think that you are taking a highly "ethical" stance, but it seems that you also do not use past experience to frame your judgement. Being conned by the same person must always come as a suprise to you. | |||
"It appears that I am telling you, again, that you just argue with me for the sake of arguing with me You do keep saying that. If you check back in this thread, you'll find that I only responded to you after you had a go at something I said to someone else. It isn't me starting the arguing. You are the only person talking about guilt. Why are you talking about "guilt"? I'm not. The only time that I've posted the word 'guilt' was in my last post when I said "If you're not saying that Boris is guilty, what are you trying to tell us". But I'm glad to see that you're now making it clear that you aren't in any way suggesting that Boris is guilty." Why are these micro-victories so important to you?
You chose to talk about evidence in court.
What are you trying to tell us about this particular new ethically dubious event in Boris Johnson's "colourful" history?
That how he has behaved in the past has no influence on how you assess his actions now?
That someone who lies to you should be trusted until proven wrong, even if that is after the event?
Would you continue to trust what a builder who has always been late, overcharged and done poor quality work to be on time, on budget and to a high standard next time when he tells you that's the case?
What are you trying to tell us? Only view any event in complete isolation? | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight.
Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years.
I'll make this really simple for you.
Can you or anyone else prove that he knew?
No.
I'll make this simple for you. Has he lied and been found out on multiple occasions?
Have I denied that he has indeed lied in previous cases?
That doesn't automatically make him guilty on this occasion. It doesn't work like that.
No, but it makes anything that he says completely unreliable.
The FACT still remains that he informed the relevant authorities about one event, the loan guarantee, whilst not informing them about the other, the application to the British Council.
It stinks of corruption. That's actually the point as much as anything else. There must not be the appearance of corruption.
That doesn't require "evidence" it requires perception of probity.
He was the bloody Prime Minister!
Event after event means that perception is long gone and the circumstances of this latest event are very clear.
You can't say "yes" he lies do it makes it more likely that he has lied again because you are trying to win an argument rather than address the overall situation.
I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm saying without proof, I would not find anyone 'guilty'
Maybe that's just me, but I actually thought we still lived by innocent until proven guilty.
This is not about "guilt". This is about the fact that he is untrustworthy and has now made it impossible to take anyone's word for anything.
There are many people, even politicians, who do try to do the right thing despite everything but because of Johnson and the people like him the phrase you hear now is "they're all the same".
This is not about one event it's about the system being almost irrevocably tainted. Claiming that you are taking some high minded path of needing proof of guilt completely misses the point. The fact this has happened with the two facts, and they are facts, being true gives a very clear perception of corruption and that is the point.
You cannot or do not want to see that for some reason. You can claim you aren't arguing but you continue to ignore the actual point.
You can claim facts all you like but they're is no FACT that Boris knew his cousin was in the running for this position.
The only FACT here is that he had his credit line approved by the ethics committee.
Johnson new him well enough to obtain a personal loan guarantee for £800k but not well enough to know that he was interviewing for the British Council?
It was a fact that he obtained a loan guarantee.
It was a fact that his guarantor was applying to the British Council.
It is a fact that the Foreign Office is that organisation's sponsor.
It is a fact that Johnson is a proven multiple liar before and during the period of being in office.
It is a fact that he has diminished trust in government and politics below the low levels that they were already at.
It is a fact that you are still unable to acknowledge that the point is that the Prime Minister of all people has to be seen to behave correctly and without such clear conflicts of interest.
Oh do behave yourself. Exchanges with you always seem to go the same way.
It is a fact that love to tell everyone they're wrong because you don't agree with then. I see it's not just me though, you also like to TELL discretion.
It is a fact that the ethics committee said there was no CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
What more do you want? As was said on the original 'infraction' there's plenty to be angry at Boris for, this one though, is not one of them.
...and then we get to the attempt at being patronising when you get when you cannot or will not address a point directly.
Again, the principle is about being seen to not be corrupt, not having to be proven not to be corrupt.
Again the various parties involved were informed of half the information. The loan guarantee to the Prime Minister. They were not informed of the other half of the information, applying for a job in a Government sponsored charity. It's like finding someone not guilty of murder and the blood stained knife with fingerprints being found after the trial.
The OP is about which of Boris Johnson's lies to believe. In your case all of them until the deliberate dissembling has been "proven".
I'm sure you think that you are taking a highly "ethical" stance, but it seems that you also do not use past experience to frame your judgement.
Being conned by the same person must always come as a suprise to you. "Patronising
I addressed the point directly initially. Just because you don't agree, that doesn't make you right and I wrong.
| |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight.
Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years.
I'll make this really simple for you.
Can you or anyone else prove that he knew?
No.
I'll make this simple for you. Has he lied and been found out on multiple occasions?
Have I denied that he has indeed lied in previous cases?
That doesn't automatically make him guilty on this occasion. It doesn't work like that.
No, but it makes anything that he says completely unreliable.
The FACT still remains that he informed the relevant authorities about one event, the loan guarantee, whilst not informing them about the other, the application to the British Council.
It stinks of corruption. That's actually the point as much as anything else. There must not be the appearance of corruption.
That doesn't require "evidence" it requires perception of probity.
He was the bloody Prime Minister!
Event after event means that perception is long gone and the circumstances of this latest event are very clear.
You can't say "yes" he lies do it makes it more likely that he has lied again because you are trying to win an argument rather than address the overall situation.
I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm saying without proof, I would not find anyone 'guilty'
Maybe that's just me, but I actually thought we still lived by innocent until proven guilty.
This is not about "guilt". This is about the fact that he is untrustworthy and has now made it impossible to take anyone's word for anything.
There are many people, even politicians, who do try to do the right thing despite everything but because of Johnson and the people like him the phrase you hear now is "they're all the same".
This is not about one event it's about the system being almost irrevocably tainted. Claiming that you are taking some high minded path of needing proof of guilt completely misses the point. The fact this has happened with the two facts, and they are facts, being true gives a very clear perception of corruption and that is the point.
You cannot or do not want to see that for some reason. You can claim you aren't arguing but you continue to ignore the actual point.
You can claim facts all you like but they're is no FACT that Boris knew his cousin was in the running for this position.
The only FACT here is that he had his credit line approved by the ethics committee.
Johnson new him well enough to obtain a personal loan guarantee for £800k but not well enough to know that he was interviewing for the British Council?
It was a fact that he obtained a loan guarantee.
It was a fact that his guarantor was applying to the British Council.
It is a fact that the Foreign Office is that organisation's sponsor.
It is a fact that Johnson is a proven multiple liar before and during the period of being in office.
It is a fact that he has diminished trust in government and politics below the low levels that they were already at.
It is a fact that you are still unable to acknowledge that the point is that the Prime Minister of all people has to be seen to behave correctly and without such clear conflicts of interest.
Oh do behave yourself. Exchanges with you always seem to go the same way.
It is a fact that love to tell everyone they're wrong because you don't agree with then. I see it's not just me though, you also like to TELL discretion.
It is a fact that the ethics committee said there was no CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
What more do you want? As was said on the original 'infraction' there's plenty to be angry at Boris for, this one though, is not one of them.
...and then we get to the attempt at being patronising when you get when you cannot or will not address a point directly.
Again, the principle is about being seen to not be corrupt, not having to be proven not to be corrupt.
Again the various parties involved were informed of half the information. The loan guarantee to the Prime Minister. They were not informed of the other half of the information, applying for a job in a Government sponsored charity. It's like finding someone not guilty of murder and the blood stained knife with fingerprints being found after the trial.
The OP is about which of Boris Johnson's lies to believe. In your case all of them until the deliberate dissembling has been "proven".
I'm sure you think that you are taking a highly "ethical" stance, but it seems that you also do not use past experience to frame your judgement.
Being conned by the same person must always come as a suprise to you.
Patronising
I addressed the point directly initially. Just because you don't agree, that doesn't make you right and I wrong.
"You addressed the point that proper behaviour has to be seen to be done not having to be proven to be done? You addressed the point that a decision was made on the acceptability of the loan guarantee to the Prime Minister without the additional information about the same person applying for a position at a Government sponsored charity? You addressed the point that lying regularly for your own benefit makes your future statements untrustworthy? If you really believe that, then fine although that rings hollow to me in the same way Boris Johnson does when claiming not to be lying after having done so again and again. | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight.
Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years.
I'll make this really simple for you.
Can you or anyone else prove that he knew?
No.
I'll make this simple for you. Has he lied and been found out on multiple occasions?
Have I denied that he has indeed lied in previous cases?
That doesn't automatically make him guilty on this occasion. It doesn't work like that.
No, but it makes anything that he says completely unreliable.
The FACT still remains that he informed the relevant authorities about one event, the loan guarantee, whilst not informing them about the other, the application to the British Council.
It stinks of corruption. That's actually the point as much as anything else. There must not be the appearance of corruption.
That doesn't require "evidence" it requires perception of probity.
He was the bloody Prime Minister!
Event after event means that perception is long gone and the circumstances of this latest event are very clear.
You can't say "yes" he lies do it makes it more likely that he has lied again because you are trying to win an argument rather than address the overall situation.
I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm saying without proof, I would not find anyone 'guilty'
Maybe that's just me, but I actually thought we still lived by innocent until proven guilty.
This is not about "guilt". This is about the fact that he is untrustworthy and has now made it impossible to take anyone's word for anything.
There are many people, even politicians, who do try to do the right thing despite everything but because of Johnson and the people like him the phrase you hear now is "they're all the same".
This is not about one event it's about the system being almost irrevocably tainted. Claiming that you are taking some high minded path of needing proof of guilt completely misses the point. The fact this has happened with the two facts, and they are facts, being true gives a very clear perception of corruption and that is the point.
You cannot or do not want to see that for some reason. You can claim you aren't arguing but you continue to ignore the actual point.
You can claim facts all you like but they're is no FACT that Boris knew his cousin was in the running for this position.
The only FACT here is that he had his credit line approved by the ethics committee.
Johnson new him well enough to obtain a personal loan guarantee for £800k but not well enough to know that he was interviewing for the British Council?
It was a fact that he obtained a loan guarantee.
It was a fact that his guarantor was applying to the British Council.
It is a fact that the Foreign Office is that organisation's sponsor.
It is a fact that Johnson is a proven multiple liar before and during the period of being in office.
It is a fact that he has diminished trust in government and politics below the low levels that they were already at.
It is a fact that you are still unable to acknowledge that the point is that the Prime Minister of all people has to be seen to behave correctly and without such clear conflicts of interest.
Oh do behave yourself. Exchanges with you always seem to go the same way.
It is a fact that love to tell everyone they're wrong because you don't agree with then. I see it's not just me though, you also like to TELL discretion.
It is a fact that the ethics committee said there was no CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
What more do you want? As was said on the original 'infraction' there's plenty to be angry at Boris for, this one though, is not one of them.
...and then we get to the attempt at being patronising when you get when you cannot or will not address a point directly.
Again, the principle is about being seen to not be corrupt, not having to be proven not to be corrupt.
Again the various parties involved were informed of half the information. The loan guarantee to the Prime Minister. They were not informed of the other half of the information, applying for a job in a Government sponsored charity. It's like finding someone not guilty of murder and the blood stained knife with fingerprints being found after the trial.
The OP is about which of Boris Johnson's lies to believe. In your case all of them until the deliberate dissembling has been "proven".
I'm sure you think that you are taking a highly "ethical" stance, but it seems that you also do not use past experience to frame your judgement.
Being conned by the same person must always come as a suprise to you.
Patronising
I addressed the point directly initially. Just because you don't agree, that doesn't make you right and I wrong.
You addressed the point that proper behaviour has to be seen to be done not having to be proven to be done?
You addressed the point that a decision was made on the acceptability of the loan guarantee to the Prime Minister without the additional information about the same person applying for a position at a Government sponsored charity?
You addressed the point that lying regularly for your own benefit makes your future statements untrustworthy?
If you really believe that, then fine although that rings hollow to me in the same way Boris Johnson does when claiming not to be lying after having done so again and again."You cannot give additional information if you don't have that information can you. Lying does indeed make future statements untrustworthy but it does not make them untrue. I genuinely can't believe I'm having to explain this  | |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight.
Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years.
I'll make this really simple for you.
Can you or anyone else prove that he knew?
No.
I'll make this simple for you. Has he lied and been found out on multiple occasions?
Have I denied that he has indeed lied in previous cases?
That doesn't automatically make him guilty on this occasion. It doesn't work like that.
No, but it makes anything that he says completely unreliable.
The FACT still remains that he informed the relevant authorities about one event, the loan guarantee, whilst not informing them about the other, the application to the British Council.
It stinks of corruption. That's actually the point as much as anything else. There must not be the appearance of corruption.
That doesn't require "evidence" it requires perception of probity.
He was the bloody Prime Minister!
Event after event means that perception is long gone and the circumstances of this latest event are very clear.
You can't say "yes" he lies do it makes it more likely that he has lied again because you are trying to win an argument rather than address the overall situation.
I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm saying without proof, I would not find anyone 'guilty'
Maybe that's just me, but I actually thought we still lived by innocent until proven guilty.
This is not about "guilt". This is about the fact that he is untrustworthy and has now made it impossible to take anyone's word for anything.
There are many people, even politicians, who do try to do the right thing despite everything but because of Johnson and the people like him the phrase you hear now is "they're all the same".
This is not about one event it's about the system being almost irrevocably tainted. Claiming that you are taking some high minded path of needing proof of guilt completely misses the point. The fact this has happened with the two facts, and they are facts, being true gives a very clear perception of corruption and that is the point.
You cannot or do not want to see that for some reason. You can claim you aren't arguing but you continue to ignore the actual point.
You can claim facts all you like but they're is no FACT that Boris knew his cousin was in the running for this position.
The only FACT here is that he had his credit line approved by the ethics committee.
Johnson new him well enough to obtain a personal loan guarantee for £800k but not well enough to know that he was interviewing for the British Council?
It was a fact that he obtained a loan guarantee.
It was a fact that his guarantor was applying to the British Council.
It is a fact that the Foreign Office is that organisation's sponsor.
It is a fact that Johnson is a proven multiple liar before and during the period of being in office.
It is a fact that he has diminished trust in government and politics below the low levels that they were already at.
It is a fact that you are still unable to acknowledge that the point is that the Prime Minister of all people has to be seen to behave correctly and without such clear conflicts of interest.
Oh do behave yourself. Exchanges with you always seem to go the same way.
It is a fact that love to tell everyone they're wrong because you don't agree with then. I see it's not just me though, you also like to TELL discretion.
It is a fact that the ethics committee said there was no CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
What more do you want? As was said on the original 'infraction' there's plenty to be angry at Boris for, this one though, is not one of them.
...and then we get to the attempt at being patronising when you get when you cannot or will not address a point directly.
Again, the principle is about being seen to not be corrupt, not having to be proven not to be corrupt.
Again the various parties involved were informed of half the information. The loan guarantee to the Prime Minister. They were not informed of the other half of the information, applying for a job in a Government sponsored charity. It's like finding someone not guilty of murder and the blood stained knife with fingerprints being found after the trial.
The OP is about which of Boris Johnson's lies to believe. In your case all of them until the deliberate dissembling has been "proven".
I'm sure you think that you are taking a highly "ethical" stance, but it seems that you also do not use past experience to frame your judgement.
Being conned by the same person must always come as a suprise to you.
Patronising
I addressed the point directly initially. Just because you don't agree, that doesn't make you right and I wrong.
You addressed the point that proper behaviour has to be seen to be done not having to be proven to be done?
You addressed the point that a decision was made on the acceptability of the loan guarantee to the Prime Minister without the additional information about the same person applying for a position at a Government sponsored charity?
You addressed the point that lying regularly for your own benefit makes your future statements untrustworthy?
If you really believe that, then fine although that rings hollow to me in the same way Boris Johnson does when claiming not to be lying after having done so again and again.
You cannot give additional information if you don't have that information can you.
Lying does indeed make future statements untrustworthy but it does not make them untrue.
I genuinely can't believe I'm having to explain this "...but you're willing to believe Johnson unless there is "proof"? It's in the OP: "Which lie are we supposed to believe again? It's hard to keep track." The fact that you require proof to strongly doubt that you know someone well enough to get a £800k loan guarantee from them but not know that they are applying for a job in a prestigious organisation stretches credibility. You still haven't addressed the fact that this all requires the perception of aboveboard behaviour without "proof" being required. That is the actual point. You won't be addressing that, of course, so I will not comment further. You can make whatever additional sarcastic comment that you feel adds to the constructive conversation. | |||
| |||
"We don't know what Johnson did for them or may do for them in the future. That's the problem with gifts of this nature to politicians. It's really not hard to understand that. We do know that Boris and Carole Bamford are friends, and that he's paying rent on the properties he's living in. It might be hard to believe, but £10,000 a month is not a significant amount of money to people like that. I can see your argument that politicians can be influenced by gifts, and that's why we have a register of interests, so that everyone can see when this sort of thing is happening. OK... since you're apparently fine with this, how would you feel if Putin put Johnson up in a £100 million mansion for no apparent reason? I'm guessing you'd have no problem with that too? No, I wouldn't. I would suspect that Putin is up to something, and I would think that it tarnishes Boris' reputation in the eyes of those that still support him. But as long as he declared it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Every other politician would want to be seen to distance themselves from him, so I don't think any influence could be gained. I accept that 'gifts' to politicians can influence the way they run the country, but if we think that's a bad thing, then we should ban all donations to politicians and their parties, and just directly fund all of them. I don't see a problem with our current system of allowing gifts, but enforcing transparency so that we can all see who is influencing whom. In this particular case, it's a fairly trivial 'gift' to a man that's not in a position of power. It seems to me that people are getting worked up just because of Boris hatred, not because anything bad is actually happening. That's a lot of words to try & hide the bit where you say you can see the issue with politicians getting gifts. Then, astonishingly, you said you wouldn't have a problem with Putin putting Johnson up in a £100 million mansion as long as he declared it lol It's not astonishing to those that can read. I'll walk you through it. We could have a system where all 'gifts' or 'donations' to politicians are banned. That wouldn't stop it happening, and we would have to keep investigating everyone to detect the sly back-handers, and hidden payments. When someone was discovered to be cheating, we'd have to look into everything that they'd done to see if it had been influenced or not. Or we could have the system we have now, where all 'gifts' have to be registered, so that we can see exactly who is being influenced by whom, and we can make our voting decisions accordingly. It means that we can kick out those who are taking too much from the wrong people. So, if Putin offered Boris a massive palace, I would not object to that. I would judge Boris harshly if he accepted it, and I would withhold my vote for him. I can do that because I have the knowledge of who is giving money to Boris. But the case we're talking about doesn't involve a Russian oligarch, or a massive palace, or a gift. It's just a woman letting a friend use her otherwise empty house for 3 months, and not charging him what some other people consider to be the market rent for it. Since he was only there for 3 months, he clearly didn't have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so he wouldn't have been paying the market rate anyway. It's possible that there is some dodgy influence peddling going on here, but it doesn't look like it to me. I'm not intending to defend Boris in any way, I'm just saying that this doesn't have much of a whiff of corruption about it. Since Boris is already pretty stinky, I can't see how this case is worth getting worked up about. Because, Boris
Yes, because Boris is consistently dodgy.
A relation acted as guarantor for an _880k loan whilst Johnson was PM and was coincidentally being considered as chief executive of the British Council without the knowledge of the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and then-independent ethics adviser to the Prime Minister Lord Geidt.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-credit-prime-minister-cousin-stanley-johnson-conservative-carrie-b1053083.html
So Boris gets a credit facility, guaranteed by a cousin, approved by the ethics committee.
Someone else then decides said cousin isn't suitable for a particular role advertised and his application is taken no further.
That just screams corruption.
That's not quite true.
He asked for advice about the loan being guaranteed.
He did not inform those bodies and individuals that the same person was being put forward as chief executive of the British Council.
The Prime Minister and his teams unmonitored WhatsApp messages could in no way influence anyone's decision making. He is only the Prime Minister, after all.
If you don't see that as in anyway compromising then so be it.
He says he didn't know. Prove it then I'm on your side.
Until then, unnamed sources and private reports hold no weight.
Yes, there are all manner of things that Johnson apparently "didn't know"
As someone who has consistently lied without shame purely for his own benefit and not even for party or country Boris Johnson has given up being able to expect the benefit of the doubt.
There are no "unnamed sources private reports". He accepted a loan guarantee from the same person who was looking for a job that a Prime Minister is perfectly capable of exerting influence over.
He informed the relevant authorities of one part of that story and not the other. That is not from "unnamed sources and private reports".
That's fine. I do not have to "prove" anything.
He appears to think that is acceptable and so do you.
That's a divergence of opinion that is clearly not going to resolved. However, you are equally defending Boris Johnson because "Boris Johnson". As if he is being victimised in some way based on his behaviour over many years.
I'll make this really simple for you.
Can you or anyone else prove that he knew?
No.
I'll make this simple for you. Has he lied and been found out on multiple occasions?
Have I denied that he has indeed lied in previous cases?
That doesn't automatically make him guilty on this occasion. It doesn't work like that.
No, but it makes anything that he says completely unreliable.
The FACT still remains that he informed the relevant authorities about one event, the loan guarantee, whilst not informing them about the other, the application to the British Council.
It stinks of corruption. That's actually the point as much as anything else. There must not be the appearance of corruption.
That doesn't require "evidence" it requires perception of probity.
He was the bloody Prime Minister!
Event after event means that perception is long gone and the circumstances of this latest event are very clear.
You can't say "yes" he lies do it makes it more likely that he has lied again because you are trying to win an argument rather than address the overall situation.
I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm saying without proof, I would not find anyone 'guilty'
Maybe that's just me, but I actually thought we still lived by innocent until proven guilty.
This is not about "guilt". This is about the fact that he is untrustworthy and has now made it impossible to take anyone's word for anything.
There are many people, even politicians, who do try to do the right thing despite everything but because of Johnson and the people like him the phrase you hear now is "they're all the same".
This is not about one event it's about the system being almost irrevocably tainted. Claiming that you are taking some high minded path of needing proof of guilt completely misses the point. The fact this has happened with the two facts, and they are facts, being true gives a very clear perception of corruption and that is the point.
You cannot or do not want to see that for some reason. You can claim you aren't arguing but you continue to ignore the actual point.
You can claim facts all you like but they're is no FACT that Boris knew his cousin was in the running for this position.
The only FACT here is that he had his credit line approved by the ethics committee.
Johnson new him well enough to obtain a personal loan guarantee for £800k but not well enough to know that he was interviewing for the British Council?
It was a fact that he obtained a loan guarantee.
It was a fact that his guarantor was applying to the British Council.
It is a fact that the Foreign Office is that organisation's sponsor.
It is a fact that Johnson is a proven multiple liar before and during the period of being in office.
It is a fact that he has diminished trust in government and politics below the low levels that they were already at.
It is a fact that you are still unable to acknowledge that the point is that the Prime Minister of all people has to be seen to behave correctly and without such clear conflicts of interest.
Oh do behave yourself. Exchanges with you always seem to go the same way.
It is a fact that love to tell everyone they're wrong because you don't agree with then. I see it's not just me though, you also like to TELL discretion.
It is a fact that the ethics committee said there was no CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
What more do you want? As was said on the original 'infraction' there's plenty to be angry at Boris for, this one though, is not one of them.
...and then we get to the attempt at being patronising when you get when you cannot or will not address a point directly.
Again, the principle is about being seen to not be corrupt, not having to be proven not to be corrupt.
Again the various parties involved were informed of half the information. The loan guarantee to the Prime Minister. They were not informed of the other half of the information, applying for a job in a Government sponsored charity. It's like finding someone not guilty of murder and the blood stained knife with fingerprints being found after the trial.
The OP is about which of Boris Johnson's lies to believe. In your case all of them until the deliberate dissembling has been "proven".
I'm sure you think that you are taking a highly "ethical" stance, but it seems that you also do not use past experience to frame your judgement.
Being conned by the same person must always come as a suprise to you.
Patronising
I addressed the point directly initially. Just because you don't agree, that doesn't make you right and I wrong.
You addressed the point that proper behaviour has to be seen to be done not having to be proven to be done?
You addressed the point that a decision was made on the acceptability of the loan guarantee to the Prime Minister without the additional information about the same person applying for a position at a Government sponsored charity?
You addressed the point that lying regularly for your own benefit makes your future statements untrustworthy?
If you really believe that, then fine although that rings hollow to me in the same way Boris Johnson does when claiming not to be lying after having done so again and again.
You cannot give additional information if you don't have that information can you.
Lying does indeed make future statements untrustworthy but it does not make them untrue.
I genuinely can't believe I'm having to explain this
...but you're willing to believe Johnson unless there is "proof"?
It's in the OP: "Which lie are we supposed to believe again? It's hard to keep track."
The fact that you require proof to strongly doubt that you know someone well enough to get a £800k loan guarantee from them but not know that they are applying for a job in a prestigious organisation stretches credibility.
You still haven't addressed the fact that this all requires the perception of aboveboard behaviour without "proof" being required. That is the actual point.
You won't be addressing that, of course, so I will not comment further. You can make whatever additional sarcastic comment that you feel adds to the constructive conversation."Have the ethics committee perceived there to be any 'dodgyness'? That all that matters. I didn't say just just willing to believe BJ, I said I'll reserve judgement. BTW, my commmeny wasn't sarcastic, it was deadly serious. | |||
| |||
"I feel a serious point here is being missed and that’s the legacy Boris is creating. Boris receives a £30k a month mansion from Bamford . Boris receives free use of a country mansion for his wedding from Bamford. Boris receives free private jet flights from Bamford. Bamford’s tax planning avoids proposed EU scrutiny and tax clampdown due to Brexit. Bus company owned by Bamford receives £26m in government support for hydrogen development. Bamford’s receives £5m development grant despite huge global profits running into hundreds of millions. JCB pay £5m in U.K. corporation tax which is cancelled out by the grant for £5m Bamford’s family pocket an estimated £170m tax free cash for the year. Knowing a bit about the subject those grants/loan guarantees for Hydrogen development went through very quickly compared to other much bigger players who are still waiting for the basic rules on hydrogen. . Kwartang and Boris were actively involved in the Hydrogen development discussions. It’s all declared and all legal according to the rules of parliament but illegal in the private sector and lower echelons of the civil service. Boris tried to hide who paid for the wallpaper . Boris lied about parties. Boris lied about the EU Boris lied about Brexit Boris lied about Northern Ireland The main point is if we don’t stop such senior politicians lying cheating and taking large sums of money under dubious pretences then this behaviour becomes the norm. Boris is dragging the country down by this personal actions. He’s allegedly using his influence to reward those who support him. He’s what’s know as “on the take” in any other industry. For which he would be sacked on the grounds of corruption. If you think such a reprobate is good for this country in any way shape or form then please crack on because you cannot see reality. " On the take, or a few perks of the job | |||
"I feel a serious point here is being missed and that’s the legacy Boris is creating. Boris receives a £30k a month mansion from Bamford . Boris receives free use of a country mansion for his wedding from Bamford. Boris receives free private jet flights from Bamford. Bamford’s tax planning avoids proposed EU scrutiny and tax clampdown due to Brexit. Bus company owned by Bamford receives £26m in government support for hydrogen development. Bamford’s receives £5m development grant despite huge global profits running into hundreds of millions. JCB pay £5m in U.K. corporation tax which is cancelled out by the grant for £5m Bamford’s family pocket an estimated £170m tax free cash for the year. Knowing a bit about the subject those grants/loan guarantees for Hydrogen development went through very quickly compared to other much bigger players who are still waiting for the basic rules on hydrogen. . Kwartang and Boris were actively involved in the Hydrogen development discussions. It’s all declared and all legal according to the rules of parliament but illegal in the private sector and lower echelons of the civil service. Boris tried to hide who paid for the wallpaper . Boris lied about parties. Boris lied about the EU Boris lied about Brexit Boris lied about Northern Ireland The main point is if we don’t stop such senior politicians lying cheating and taking large sums of money under dubious pretences then this behaviour becomes the norm. Boris is dragging the country down by this personal actions. He’s allegedly using his influence to reward those who support him. He’s what’s know as “on the take” in any other industry. For which he would be sacked on the grounds of corruption. If you think such a reprobate is good for this country in any way shape or form then please crack on because you cannot see reality. On the take, or a few perks of the job "If say you work in procurement try explaining free private jet flights and holidays etc to any boss and see if it’s treated as a perk. | |||
"I feel a serious point here is being missed and that’s the legacy Boris is creating. Boris receives a £30k a month mansion from Bamford . Boris receives free use of a country mansion for his wedding from Bamford. Boris receives free private jet flights from Bamford. Bamford’s tax planning avoids proposed EU scrutiny and tax clampdown due to Brexit. Bus company owned by Bamford receives £26m in government support for hydrogen development. Bamford’s receives £5m development grant despite huge global profits running into hundreds of millions. JCB pay £5m in U.K. corporation tax which is cancelled out by the grant for £5m Bamford’s family pocket an estimated £170m tax free cash for the year. Knowing a bit about the subject those grants/loan guarantees for Hydrogen development went through very quickly compared to other much bigger players who are still waiting for the basic rules on hydrogen. . Kwartang and Boris were actively involved in the Hydrogen development discussions. It’s all declared and all legal according to the rules of parliament but illegal in the private sector and lower echelons of the civil service. Boris tried to hide who paid for the wallpaper . Boris lied about parties. Boris lied about the EU Boris lied about Brexit Boris lied about Northern Ireland The main point is if we don’t stop such senior politicians lying cheating and taking large sums of money under dubious pretences then this behaviour becomes the norm. Boris is dragging the country down by this personal actions. He’s allegedly using his influence to reward those who support him. He’s what’s know as “on the take” in any other industry. For which he would be sacked on the grounds of corruption. If you think such a reprobate is good for this country in any way shape or form then please crack on because you cannot see reality. On the take, or a few perks of the job
If say you work in procurement try explaining free private jet flights and holidays etc to any boss and see if it’s treated as a perk. "Have you ever had a pen, or a paper clip? | |||
"I feel a serious point here is being missed and that’s the legacy Boris is creating. Boris receives a £30k a month mansion from Bamford . Boris receives free use of a country mansion for his wedding from Bamford. Boris receives free private jet flights from Bamford. Bamford’s tax planning avoids proposed EU scrutiny and tax clampdown due to Brexit. Bus company owned by Bamford receives £26m in government support for hydrogen development. Bamford’s receives £5m development grant despite huge global profits running into hundreds of millions. JCB pay £5m in U.K. corporation tax which is cancelled out by the grant for £5m Bamford’s family pocket an estimated £170m tax free cash for the year. Knowing a bit about the subject those grants/loan guarantees for Hydrogen development went through very quickly compared to other much bigger players who are still waiting for the basic rules on hydrogen. . Kwartang and Boris were actively involved in the Hydrogen development discussions. It’s all declared and all legal according to the rules of parliament but illegal in the private sector and lower echelons of the civil service. Boris tried to hide who paid for the wallpaper . Boris lied about parties. Boris lied about the EU Boris lied about Brexit Boris lied about Northern Ireland The main point is if we don’t stop such senior politicians lying cheating and taking large sums of money under dubious pretences then this behaviour becomes the norm. Boris is dragging the country down by this personal actions. He’s allegedly using his influence to reward those who support him. He’s what’s know as “on the take” in any other industry. For which he would be sacked on the grounds of corruption. If you think such a reprobate is good for this country in any way shape or form then please crack on because you cannot see reality. On the take, or a few perks of the job
If say you work in procurement try explaining free private jet flights and holidays etc to any boss and see if it’s treated as a perk.
Have you ever had a pen, or a paper clip? "Yes but I own the company so that’s ok isn’t it. | |||
"I feel a serious point here is being missed and that’s the legacy Boris is creating. Boris receives a £30k a month mansion from Bamford . Boris receives free use of a country mansion for his wedding from Bamford. Boris receives free private jet flights from Bamford. Bamford’s tax planning avoids proposed EU scrutiny and tax clampdown due to Brexit. Bus company owned by Bamford receives £26m in government support for hydrogen development. Bamford’s receives £5m development grant despite huge global profits running into hundreds of millions. JCB pay £5m in U.K. corporation tax which is cancelled out by the grant for £5m Bamford’s family pocket an estimated £170m tax free cash for the year. Knowing a bit about the subject those grants/loan guarantees for Hydrogen development went through very quickly compared to other much bigger players who are still waiting for the basic rules on hydrogen. . Kwartang and Boris were actively involved in the Hydrogen development discussions. It’s all declared and all legal according to the rules of parliament but illegal in the private sector and lower echelons of the civil service. Boris tried to hide who paid for the wallpaper . Boris lied about parties. Boris lied about the EU Boris lied about Brexit Boris lied about Northern Ireland The main point is if we don’t stop such senior politicians lying cheating and taking large sums of money under dubious pretences then this behaviour becomes the norm. Boris is dragging the country down by this personal actions. He’s allegedly using his influence to reward those who support him. He’s what’s know as “on the take” in any other industry. For which he would be sacked on the grounds of corruption. If you think such a reprobate is good for this country in any way shape or form then please crack on because you cannot see reality. On the take, or a few perks of the job
If say you work in procurement try explaining free private jet flights and holidays etc to any boss and see if it’s treated as a perk.
Have you ever had a pen, or a paper clip?
Yes but I own the company so that’s ok isn’t it. "I'm not sure are you Victor Kiam, we might need to have an enquiry | |||
"Why are these micro-victories so important to you?" They aren't. The only one that talks about 'winning' is you. "You chose to talk about evidence in court." No I didn't, that was someone else. "What are you trying to tell us about this particular new ethically dubious event in Boris Johnson's "colourful" history? That how he has behaved in the past has no influence on how you assess his actions now?" Quite the opposite. As I said in my first few posts in this thread, Boris' record has plenty of examples of sleaze and corruption. I, and I expect everyone else here, already has an opinion on him. I'm only saying that the OP's example, and your latest example, simply seem weak in comparison to older news. | |||
"Why are these micro-victories so important to you? They aren't. The only one that talks about 'winning' is you. You chose to talk about evidence in court. No I didn't, that was someone else. What are you trying to tell us about this particular new ethically dubious event in Boris Johnson's "colourful" history? That how he has behaved in the past has no influence on how you assess his actions now? Quite the opposite. As I said in my first few posts in this thread, Boris' record has plenty of examples of sleaze and corruption. I, and I expect everyone else here, already has an opinion on him. I'm only saying that the OP's example, and your latest example, simply seem weak in comparison to older news." So you've said not much after talking about judges not allowing evidence of past behaviour. In reality, past behaviour is absolutely pertinent. | |||
"So you've said not much after talking about judges not allowing evidence of past behaviour." I didn't talk about judges not allowing evidence of past behaviour. But I can see where you made your mistake. I was talking about judges reading out the defendant's list of prior convictions, which happens at sentencing, and is not part of a criminal trial. "In reality, past behaviour is absolutely pertinent." Courts of Law are available in reality. But, as you have made very clear, you are not interested in whether anyone is guilty or not. | |||
"So you've said not much after talking about judges not allowing evidence of past behaviour. I didn't talk about judges not allowing evidence of past behaviour. But I can see where you made your mistake. I was talking about judges reading out the defendant's list of prior convictions, which happens at sentencing, and is not part of a criminal trial. In reality, past behaviour is absolutely pertinent. Courts of Law are available in reality. But, as you have made very clear, you are not interested in whether anyone is guilty or not." You literally just compared Boris' latest saga with what he has done before... | |||
"I feel a serious point here is being missed and that’s the legacy Boris is creating. Boris receives a £30k a month mansion from Bamford . Boris receives free use of a country mansion for his wedding from Bamford. Boris receives free private jet flights from Bamford. Bamford’s tax planning avoids proposed EU scrutiny and tax clampdown due to Brexit. Bus company owned by Bamford receives £26m in government support for hydrogen development. Bamford’s receives £5m development grant despite huge global profits running into hundreds of millions. JCB pay £5m in U.K. corporation tax which is cancelled out by the grant for £5m Bamford’s family pocket an estimated £170m tax free cash for the year. Knowing a bit about the subject those grants/loan guarantees for Hydrogen development went through very quickly compared to other much bigger players who are still waiting for the basic rules on hydrogen. . Kwartang and Boris were actively involved in the Hydrogen development discussions. It’s all declared and all legal according to the rules of parliament but illegal in the private sector and lower echelons of the civil service. Boris tried to hide who paid for the wallpaper . Boris lied about parties. Boris lied about the EU Boris lied about Brexit Boris lied about Northern Ireland The main point is if we don’t stop such senior politicians lying cheating and taking large sums of money under dubious pretences then this behaviour becomes the norm. Boris is dragging the country down by this personal actions. He’s allegedly using his influence to reward those who support him. He’s what’s know as “on the take” in any other industry. For which he would be sacked on the grounds of corruption. If you think such a reprobate is good for this country in any way shape or form then please crack on because you cannot see reality. On the take, or a few perks of the job
If say you work in procurement try explaining free private jet flights and holidays etc to any boss and see if it’s treated as a perk.
Have you ever had a pen, or a paper clip?
Yes but I own the company so that’s ok isn’t it.
I'm not sure are you Victor Kiam, we might need to have an enquiry " . I didn’t buy it like victor!!
Bet he got free razors. Not sure what his policy on paper clips would be though??? | |||
"I feel a serious point here is being missed and that’s the legacy Boris is creating. Boris receives a £30k a month mansion from Bamford . Boris receives free use of a country mansion for his wedding from Bamford. Boris receives free private jet flights from Bamford. Bamford’s tax planning avoids proposed EU scrutiny and tax clampdown due to Brexit. Bus company owned by Bamford receives £26m in government support for hydrogen development. Bamford’s receives £5m development grant despite huge global profits running into hundreds of millions. JCB pay £5m in U.K. corporation tax which is cancelled out by the grant for £5m Bamford’s family pocket an estimated £170m tax free cash for the year. Knowing a bit about the subject those grants/loan guarantees for Hydrogen development went through very quickly compared to other much bigger players who are still waiting for the basic rules on hydrogen. . Kwartang and Boris were actively involved in the Hydrogen development discussions. It’s all declared and all legal according to the rules of parliament but illegal in the private sector and lower echelons of the civil service. Boris tried to hide who paid for the wallpaper . Boris lied about parties. Boris lied about the EU Boris lied about Brexit Boris lied about Northern Ireland The main point is if we don’t stop such senior politicians lying cheating and taking large sums of money under dubious pretences then this behaviour becomes the norm. Boris is dragging the country down by this personal actions. He’s allegedly using his influence to reward those who support him. He’s what’s know as “on the take” in any other industry. For which he would be sacked on the grounds of corruption. If you think such a reprobate is good for this country in any way shape or form then please crack on because you cannot see reality. On the take, or a few perks of the job
If say you work in procurement try explaining free private jet flights and holidays etc to any boss and see if it’s treated as a perk.
Have you ever had a pen, or a paper clip?
Yes but I own the company so that’s ok isn’t it.
I'm not sure are you Victor Kiam, we might need to have an enquiry
. I didn’t buy it like victor!!
Bet he got free razors. Not sure what his policy on paper clips would be though??? " | |||
